IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I IM 115 iM 2.2 .ii IM j.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 *4 6" — ► V] C>^ A o;^ ^ >^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY )4580 (716) 872-4503 -o" „* 4^2^ ^ % CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibllographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the 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. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 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 m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) D D D D D Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree 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/ It se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmSes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachetdes ou piqu^es [~~] Pages detached/ D Pages d^tach^es Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du mat6riel supplementaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the bes: possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. / This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de r6duction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X -/ ' 17X tm^m^ ■M^BBM 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Douglas Library Queen's University L'exemplaire fllm6 fut reproduit grfice d la g6n6ro8it6 de: Douglas Library Queen's University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. 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. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. 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: Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent etre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 T»nM «riii *. i )n 'f L SPEECH OF M. C. CAMERON, M.P.. ex THB DISALLOWANCE OP STREAMS' BILL HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, 14th Ai^ril, 1882. Mr. CAMERON (Huron). Mr. Speaker, those who, like yourself, aieold enough to remember the party struggles, the party triumphs and the party defeats in the old Parliament of Canada, under a legislative union, the form of government that prevailed before Confederation, have a lively recollec- tion of the circumstances and causes that led to these party conflicts in the early days of Canadian history. Old Upper Canada, whether right or wrong, 1 am not now going to discuss, always persistently and earnestly contended, that under the Union of the two Provinces, she never had fair play. We know that many questions of vital importance to the individual Province were constantly coming to the front of the political stage— questions of a purely local character that affected the Province only, and that the voice of a majority of representatives of the people from the Province affected by the proposed legislation was often overridden by the voice of the whole House. We know something now, historically at all events, of the long and gallant istruggie to abolish the clergy reserves, to change the seignorial tenure, to secure to each Province a fair share of local legislation suited to its wants and require^ ments, and a fair share of local self-government and public works. We know that such local questions were constantly cropping up. We know that on some occasions these ques- tions were disposed of contrary tathe voice of a majority of the representatinea of the peaple from the Province affected. We know that groat dissatisfaction and discontent prevailed as the result. Wo know the keen and bitter strug- gle that fillowed. AVe know that parties in the old Pailia- ment of Canada were eo evenly balanced that neither party could ftucceasfuliy carry on the Government of the country. We know that at one time, at all events. Governments were made und Governments were unmade by the vote of one 669 V4 2 man. We know that then we wore face to face with a grave and serious danger, and the hoo. gentleman who now ioada the House said, in his speech in the old Parliament of Canada on Confederation, that men of all parties and of all shades of politics became alarmed at the aspect of affairs.. Under these circum- stances, it was easy to see that the then condition of affairs could not long continue to exist. If it was desirable that our allegiance to the British Crown and to British institu- tions should be continued, that the growth and prosperity of the Provinces should be secured, that local affairs should be placed absolutely under the control of each Province anew condition of affairs must necessarily spring out of the chaos, and theconfusion and the deadlock that, to some ex- tent, prevailed in those early days. Various schemes wore then suggested, as a remedy for the prevailing discont .it. The double majority was tried, it failed. Government by coalition was tried, it failed. The hon. the First Minister, in the speech to which I have referred, pointed out other remedies. One was the dissolution of the Union between Upper and Lower Canada, and leaving affairsin the condition in which they were before the Union of 1841 ; the second solution of the difficulty was, representation by population ; and the third solution was, a federal Union of all the British North American Provinces. The result was a federal Union of all these Provinces, willing to join the great Confederation. This Union was based on the principle long contended for by the Liberal party, especially of the Province of Ontario — the principle announced at their various conventions and gatherings imitated by the leaders of the party and supported by their followers — the principle that all local affairs should be dealt with by the local authorities, and that all affairs of a national character should be disposed of by some joint or federal power. I am satisfied that the Union of the Provinces would not have taken place, at all events at the period at which it did take place, had that not been . the guiding principle in the minds of the leading statesmen who had to do with that question. 1 am satisfied it was one of the principles that moved the various Provinces to join Confederation — the absolute, unchecked, unrestrained control of their own local affairs. Had they thought otherwise that, notwithstanding the Union of the British North American Provinces, the local affairs of the individual Provinces, affairs assigned to them by the constitution, and over which they were supposed to have solo control, should be subject to the revision, and the dinnllowance of the Dominion Govern- ment, these Provinces never would have joined the Great Confederation. It was known after Confederation did take 8 place that, although the powers given to each of the Govern- ments were reasonably clear and well defined, still, under our constitution, new and untried, different interpretations might be put upon the different powers reserved to the difterent Governmenis, and 6o, at an early day in the history of Confederation, it became necessary to lay down some clear, well defined, and permanent rule by Avhich the Dominion Government would bo guided in passing upon local legislation, and by which the I)omin- nion Government would be restrained from the exorcise of the power of vetoeing reserved by the British JSforth America Act to the Dominion Government over the Legis- lation of the different Provinces. It was of the first conse- quence to the well being and prosperity of each Province. It was of the first consequence to the security and permanence of the Union, that the interpretation put by the Dominion Government upon that portion of Iho con- stitution which assigned to each Goverment its authority and power In matters of legislation should be certain and permanent. The hon. gentleman who now leads this House and who then guided the destinies of this country — who was then and is now Prime Minister — aware of the necessity of having these powers well defined, ho, at an early day in the history of Confederation, did, so far as human skill and human ingenuity could, define the powers aFSigned to each of the Governments and especially the right oltho Dominion Government to pass upon local legis- lation. Upon the 8th January, 18H8, the right hon. First Minster prepared a State paper, which I hold in my hand, dealing with this important question. Permit me, for the satisfaction of the House, to read from that reliable and important document, the views which the hon. First Minister then entertained with respect to the right and power of the Dominion Government in passing upon local legislation : '•In deciding whether any Act of a ProTincial Legislature shonld be disallo'wed, or sanctioned, the Government must not only consider whether it affects the interest of tlie whole Dim nion or not, but also whether it be uncongtitutional ; whether it exceeds the jurisdiction con- ferred on the Local Legislature, and, in cases where the jurisdiction is concurrent whether is clashes with the legislation of the General Parliament." "As it is of importance that the course oi" local legislation should be interfered with as little as possible, and the power of disallowance ezer- oised with great caution, and only in cases where the law of general interests of the Dominion imperatively demand it, the undersigned recommends that the following course be pursued : •• That on the receipt by Your Excellency of the Acts passed in any FroYince, they be referred to the Minister of Justice for report, and that he with all convenient speed, do report as t:, those Acts which he eon- sideis free from objection of any kind, and if such report be approved by Tour Excellency in Council, that such approral be forthwith com- manicated to the Provincial Qorernment. "That bo make a separate report, or separate report?, oulhoae A^ta which he may consider— "I. As being altogether illegal or imconstitutional. " 2. As illegal or uuconstittttional in part. " 3. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction as clashing with the legislation of the General Parliament. "4. As affecting the interests of the Dominion generally. And that jn such report or reports he gives his reasons for his opinion?." That is not all. These are the grounds, as I understand this paper, upon which the hon. gentleman thought in the early days of Confederation that the Dominion Government would be justified in passing on local legislation, in vetoing or disallowing it. Bat, even assuming the local legisla- tion was in violation of the rules laid down by the hon, gentleman, even then, Sir, he did not appear to think that the Dominion Government would be justified in at once disallowing local Legislation without notifying the Local Government and giving them an opportunit}" of repealing op amending the obnoxious features, because ho goey on to say : "That where a measure is considered ouly partially defective, or where objectionable as being prejudisial to the general intere-its of the Dominion, or as clashing with its legislation, communication should be bad- with the Provincial Government with respect to such measure; and tiiat in such case, the Act should not be disallowed, if the general in- terests permit such a course, until the Local Government has an oppor- tunity of considering and discussing the objections taken, »nd the Local Legislature has also an opportunity of remedying the di-fects found to exist." Sir, that paper boars date the 8th June, 18(18, shortly after the inauguration of Confederation, and that exposi- tion of the constitutional rule, in dealing with local legislation and the grounds upon which the Federal Government would be justified in vetoing local legislation, was approved of by His Excellency the Gov- ernor General on the 9th of June, 1868 ; and to this day, at all events, with one exception, no other exposition of the constitutional rule has been laid down that lam aware of. On the 17th of June, 1868, the various Local Govern- ments were made acquainted with the conclusion arrived at by the then Minister of Justice, now the First Minister. Now, Sir, I submitthat the hon. gentleman then took a sound position, that his interpretation of the power of the Local Legislatures and of the right of the Dominion Government to interfere with their legislation, was a reasonable and correct one, and I am not disposed to quarrel with the propositions the hon. gentleman then laid down, flad the hon. gentleman adhered to the proposition thus laid down in the State paper from which I have just quoted, had he not departed from the principles therein set forth, jjad he and his followers not subsequently claimed, as I .submit they do claim, the absolute, unconditional and unrostrictod riglit of interfering with and disallowing nil local legislation, whether within or beyond the local legislatures to pro- nounce upon, had a now departure not been taken. Had the principles on which he first acted and on which he has acted since Confodoration, been acted on throughout, 1 would not now bo about to place in your hands the amendment I propose to place in your hands before I resume my seat. Those of us who know something of the hon. gentleman, who have watched his career for the last quarter of a centur}', who know the means by which the hon. gentleman obtained power, and the sources from which he has drawn and still draws his strength — those of us who know something of the hon. gen- tleman's opinions as to a federal and legislative Union, those of us who know that the hon. gentleman was always a pro- nounced advocate of legislative Union of all the Provinces, are not all cjurprised at the ground he has subsequently taken, and that he should, by his course, endeavour to so handicap local legislation as to make the Local Legislatures practi- cally playthings in the hands of the Dominion Government. Under the new system of Government the hon. gentleman came into power on the 1st of July, 1867; ho remained in power till the 5th of November, 1873; he again came into power in October, 1878, and he is in power to this day, and during all these years, with one exception, the hon. gentleman has acted upon the principle laid down in this paper of the 8th of June, 1868. Sir, for many long years the hon. gentleman has led the Govern- ment; he has been the ruling spirit in t^e various Govern- ments of which he has been a member for the last fifteen years ; he has been the main spring by which the various pieces of machinery in the Cabinet of curiosities have been set in motion, and during all these yesirs, until very recently, when, no doubt, strong personal and political pressure was brought to bear upon him, has acted upon the principles laid down in the paper of the 8th of June, 186'8; and it was only when, that strong personal and political pressure, that could no longer bo re!>isted, that the hon. gentleman departed from the course he at first marked out for himself and transgressed the rule he at first laid down. It was only then that the hon. gentleman yielded his better judg- ment and his sounder convictions to the exigencies of the hour, or perhaps it would bo more correct to say the exigencies of his party and openly transgressed the rule laid down by himself and strained the constitution to its utmost limit. Now, Sir, 1 have pointed out the grounds upon ^which the hon. gentleman thought the Do- minion Government would be called upon to inter- / foro with local lo/L^iHlation. I now propose pointing out that on those principles tlio hon. gontloman has acted for the last fifteen years while ho was in power, with the one exception of the Streams' Bill, that his interpretation of tlio rule laid down, and of the right and power of the Do- minion (Tovornraent to interfere in local legislation ha*? been uniform and consistent ; to do otherwise, to recognize and admit that the Federal Cfovernment, without let or hindrance, without rule or principle, except the arbitrary will of the Minister of Justice for the time being, have the right to interfere with, to check or veto local legislation, although that legislation is within the scope of the powers assigned to the Local Legislatures under the constitution is to admit that the Local Legislatures are not within the constitution — legislative bodies even when legislating within the powers assigned to them by the Constitution and, Sir, I am not prepared to admit any such proposition. I am not prepared to admit by sanctioning the hon. gentleman's course, in disallowing the Streams' Bill — a question I propose to deal with shortly — that there is in the hands of the Dominion Govern raont a power that cannot be checked and that cannot be controlled ; that the hon. the Minister of Justice, sitting in his chair in his office at Ottawa, knows bettor what is in the interest of a province and what is for the benefit of the people than the sworn advisers of the Lieutenant-Governor, aided and assisted by a free Parlia- ment. I prefer adopting the constitutional rule laid down by the hon. gontloman that the Local Legislatures within the scope of the powers conferred in them should not be interfered with unless in violation o, ""ertain well defined rules. I prefer adoptin"- the opinion ot Mr. Todd, who says that local legislation should not be interfered with except " where it appears that the proposed legislation is contrary to the policy which, in the opini'^n of the Governor General , in Council, ought to prevail throughout the Dominion in lieu thereof," and that the power of veto should only be invoked where the legislation is "'ikoly to prove injurious to the interests of the Dominion." Now, Sir, I propose for a moment or two to point out that the hon. gentleman has acted upon the principles he has laid down. I propose going a step further, and showing by a series of Acts that pa .ed under the review of the hon. gentleman, that for fifteen years, while ho occupied a position in the Government, and when those Statutes were submitted for his inspection, he, in every single instance, with one exception, has followed out the course laid down by himself in 1868. The hon. gentleman has even gone further, and where provincial Jegirtlation was in violation of the rules so laid down he did not assume the responsibility of di.sallowing llial local Icgis- latioD, M'ilhout giving the Local Govornmonta noti- lication of hiu objections to tho Bills, and giving them an opportunity of nmonciing that legislation ^ and making it in conformity with tho laws as interprctod by tho hon. gentleman. This is a most important question ; it is a grave question; it is a question that affects tho woU- lioing and prosperity of every individual Province; it is a <|U08tion that nfl'ects the security And the permananco of tho Union, about which we hear ho much from the hon. Minister of JRailways ; and therefore I offer no apology to the House lor taking up some time in going over the Statutes of tho various Provinces that passed in review before the hon. gentleman, which were in violation of tho rules laid down by himself, that ho did not disallow in tho first instance, but which he, in tho judicious exercise of the functions of his oflSco, notified the Lieutenant Governors wore objectionable and gave the Local Governments an opportunity of amending or correcting thom. I find tho Province of Quebec passed an Act continuing tho Bankruptcy Laws of that Province. That Act passed in review before the hon. gentleman. It was clearly unconsti- tutional, it trenched upon the powers of tho Dominion Parliament. Did ho disallow the Act in the first instance ? Nothing of the kind. He drew the attention of the Local Gov- ernment to it, and suggested the propriety of allowing the Act to exjiire, and I believe it was allowed to expire accordingly. Tho Legislature of the Province of Quebec passed another Act respecting corporations doing business beyond the Pro- vince of Quebec. That Statute also passed in review before the hon. gentleman. It was clearly ultra vires; the Legis- lature had no such power; but the hon. gentleman did not assume the responsibility of disallowing the Bill, although it was dearly a violation of tho rules laid down by himself. He drew the attention of tho Quebec Government to tho obnoxious provisions in the Bill, and 1 believe the Bill was subsequently amended. The Legislature in Quebec passed an Act respecting the Eecorder's Couit of Quebec. Tho Bill was in violation of tho rules laid by the First Minister, because it trenched upon the criminal law »r)d the power of dealing with tho criminal law is vested exclusively in the Dominion Par- liament. The hon. gentleman did not disallow that Bill ; he drew the attention of tho Local Government to its obnoxious featuies. I believe it was subsequently amended by tho Local Government. The Legislature of Ontario passed an Act authorizing the publication of tho Ontario Gazette, and making provision for enquiries respecting public matters. This Bill also passed in review before tho hon. gentleman, subsequent to tho timo whon bo laid down the rulos to whicli" 1 havo referred. Ho pointed out several provisions of that Bill that were objectionable as trenching on Dominion legislative powers, but he did not disallow the Bill. IIo allowed it to ^o into ettect. IIo did not assume the responsibility of disallowing it, although it was contrary to tho rules laid down by^ himself. Tho Ontario Legislature passed an Act respecting gold and silver mining. That Bill also came in review before the hon. gentleman. It was not disallowed, although some of its provisions were clearly unconstitutional, ho drew the attention of the Giovernmont to its obnoxious provisions. Tho Legislature of Ontario passed an Act respect- ing registrars. That Act was also in some of its provisions an encroachment upon tho powers of legislation assigned to tho Dominion Parliament. Tho hon. gentleman did not assume tho responsibility of disallowing it, ho allowed tho Bill to take efi'ect, and drew tho attention of tho Local Government to its provisions. The Ontario Legislature passed an Act for tho encouragomontof agriculture. It was also dofectivo in some of its provisions, one of which was a violation of tho rules laid down by tho hon. gentleman in regard to disallowing Local Acts, when they trenched upon tho legislative powers of the Dominion Parliament. Ho did not disallow tho Bill, but permitted it to take ofTict, drawing tho attention of the Local (iovorn moot to is obnoxious provisions. Tho Ontario Legislature passed an Act respecting municipal institutions, one of tho provisions of which provided a qualification for Dominion parliamentry electors. The Bili was clearly ultra vires, yet tho hon. gentleman did not ilisallow it but permitted it to take effoct. The Ontario Legislature passed an Act to continue for a limited timo tho Acts therein mentioned. It was in violation of the rule laid down by tho hon. gentleman, because it undertook to continue tho old Bankruptcy Law, which wa"*- a subject with which Local Logitilatures had no power to deal. Tho Ontario Legislature passed an Act called an Act respecting Tho hon. gontleman had this Act in tho Clifton Bridge. but ho did nob veto it although a review it was in violation of the rules laid down. It enabled a corporation to con- struct a bridge extending bej'ond tho boundaries of the Province of Ontario, and was therefore ultra vires. Did tho hon. gentleman disallow it? It was not within tho competence of tho Local Legislature, because tho subject was one beyond their power to deal with, yet tho hon. gentleman did not assume tho responsibility of vetoing tho Bill. Another Statute passed in the same year, by the Ontario Legislature, was intituled : " An ^ctto incorporate the Board of Trade of tho Town of Gu^lph." Tho hon. genllemaii lintl that Act in review l)€fore him, and, although ho reported that one clause was dofcctivo because it undertook to deal with trade and commerce, and, therefore, beyond the -power of the Local LegiBlaturo, yet ho did not undertake the responsibility of vetoing the Bill. He notified the Local Government of the fact, and it amended the Act as it thought fit. Another Statute paseed by the Ontario Legislature was : "An Act to incorporate the Simpson Loom Company. " It came also under review. The hon. gentle- man pointed out that the second clause was beyond the juriediction of the Legislature as it dealt with the Patent Laws — a mattovwithin the exclusive powerof the Dominion Parliament ; but it was allowed to go into operation, drawing the attention of the Local Govpinment to the defect. There was an Act passed by the Legislature of the Province of New Brunbwick relating to the Synod of the Church of P]nglar.d, in the diocese of Frederiction, and Province of New Brunswick. It csme in review before the hon. gentle- man J it was objected to as being unconstitutional and beyond the power of the Local Legislature. But the hon. gentle- man said of it: "Having carefully examined the provisions of the Bill, I am of opinion that it is within th« jurisdiction r f the Legislature of New Brunswick, and no rights ot tho Crown are afl'ected by it, and recommend that it be assented to." Now, here was a Bill within tho competency of the Local Legislature. It was objected to, it was allowed to go into operation solely because it came within tho power of local legislation. There were three other Acts and .only three, on which I have been able to lay my hands which passed in review before the hon. gentleman, and which were clearly unconstitutional, but which tho hon, gentleman did not disallow. He submitted them to tho English Law Officers of the Crown, who pronounced them beyond the power ot tho Local Parliament, and subsequently, I oelievc, they were cither disallowed or repealed by the Local Parliament. One of these Bills, Sir, was the Act respecting County Court Judges. In that Statute, the l;ocal Legislature undertook to define and limit tho tenure of office of County Court Judges. The hon. gentleman in a Stato paper on the subject points out, clearly enough, that that was beyond tho power of the Local Legislature ; that such Legislature had no right to deal with a question of the kind ; that it was solely within tho authority of tho Dominion Parliament; and that tho Local Legislature could not restrict or extend the tenure of office of County Court Judges. Another Statute pasi^cd bj'- the Local Legislature \\as intituled : "An Act to define the privileges of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario." The hon. gentleman pointed out that forae parts of this Act was M^/^i 6^:. 10 vltra vires. The third was the Supply Bill of the Province of Ontario. In that Bill provision was made for the pay- ment by the Provincial Government in part of the salario-s of the Judges of the Superior Courts there. The hon. gen- tleman took objection to that Bill also, but he did not tako the responsibility of disallowing either of them, although they were clearly beyond the power and competence of the Local Legislature. He took the more cautious course, of referring these three Bills to the Law OflScers of the Crown, who pronounced them all ultra vires. But it is of importance vhat the hen. gentleman did say in his report upon these Bills. It is worth while reminding the hon. gentleman himself what his expressions of opinion were upon this eubject. It is worth while reminding the followers of the hon. gentleman who aro now disposed to extend and enlarge the powers of the Dominion Government, of what the hon. gentleman said twelve or fifteen years ago when dealing with those Bills. Ho said : "The undersigned recommends that the attention of the Government of Ontario be called to the two first mentioned Acts, and the 6th clause of the last Act, BUfi^c:eBting that they should he repealed next Ssasion and action taken place upon them meanwhile." Kow, Sir, the manner in which the hon. gentleman dealt with the Streams' Bill, with which I propose to deal, was very different from the delicate a"hd tender manner in which he undertook to deal with the Bills to which I have just referred, and notably with the three last Statutes of the Province of Ontario which I have named. What is the reason that the hon. gentleman now lays down and acts on a rule so entirely diflferer ', to that laid down and acted on years ago ? Is there anything in the political atmosphere which would justify a change in the sentiments of the hon. gentleman and his colleagues and followers ? We know that when the honi gentleman presented this report on these three Bills the Government of the Province of Ontario was in the hands of friends of the hon. gentleman — the two Governments were in harmony, and wo know that now a different state of things exists. The Government of the Province of Ontario whose legislation has been crippled and checked by the hon. gentleman, is not in harmony with his Govern- ment. Is it the object of hon. gentlemen opposite now to handicap and cripple the legislation of the Government of Ontario ? Having said this much on the character of the legislation that passed in review before the hon. gentleman, and of the way in which the hon. gentle- man dealt with it, I shall for a moment or two deal with the Streams'- Bill — the one which is immediately before us for consideration and review to day. The Streams' Bill, as it is known, Avas passed on the 4th of March, 1881, by the u I;egi»laturo of the Province of Ontario, and it is intitoled *• An Act for protecting the public interests in Rivers, Streams and Creeks." One clause provides : "All persons shall hare and are hereby declared always to hare had, during the spring, summer and autumn freshets, the right to and may float saw logs and all other timber and all rafts and crafts down ail rivers, creeks and streams, in respect of which the Legislature of Ontario has authority to give this power." Novp", one would imagine that there was nothing very formid- able or objectionable in that clause. It gives a measure of protection to those engaged in the timber trade in this country. There is nothing which one can imagine would arouse the object ions and animosity of hon. gentlemen in Parliament or out of Parliament against that provision. There are a score of ])recedent8 in the Statute-Book for exactly such legislation, and I will be in a position to show, before I resume my seat, that this Bill is not objectionable in any feature ; or no more so at least than scores of Statutes to which the hon. gentleman has assented. Another tection of the Bill provides that a person making improve- ments on any such streams should not have an exclusive right to them or to the use of the stream. ►Section four provides that tolls may be collected, and that such toll* shall be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Section five provides that the Act shall apply to improve- ments made after the passage of the Act, as well as to those made before; and eection six provides that a person who makes improvements shall have a lien on the lumber passing down the stream as reasonable compensation for the Uf-o of the improvements. Now, Sir, the right ty float saw logs and lumber down a stream was a right secured to the people of this country by an old Statute of the Province of Canada. That right was re-enacted in the Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada and in the Revised Statutes of Ontario. To a plain uninitiated mind, it wou'd appear that under the provisions of that Statute, these rights wore reserved to every person who saw fit to use those streams, and that the Act applied, according to its very language, to 'II streams, not merely to streams floatable in a state of n« ire. The evident in- tention of Parliament was that the Act should apply to all streams. Let me read the clause to which the Streams' Bill purports to be an amendment. It provides that : "All persons may during the spring, summer, and autumn freshets, float saw legs and other timber, rafts and crafts, down nil stroams, and jio person shall, by felling trees or placing any other obstruction in or across such streams, prevent the passage thereof." Now, the right which Parliament secured to the public by this Act was supposed to cxiend, according to the very 12 language of it, to ull streams. It was suDjiosod to extend to Ktreams down which saw logH or other timber could be floated, with or without improvemeiitf, and if that right did not exist what would bo thcposilion of the trade to wliich I have adverted ? Take one of the smaller streams of this Dominion down which timber has been constantly floated to the great markets of the east and the Mother Country. Siij)pose a man owns u limit on a portion of that stream, an I a neighbor owns another further up the stream. If the contention of the hon. gentlemen bo correct, if the construction they put upon the Statute bo correct, then the man who owned the limit down stream had it in his power to prevent the man further up from taking tlie produce of his toil and labor to the markets of the world. I do not think that the law meant uny such thing. Unfortunately what gave rise to the litigation and to the Act of Parliament in question, and to the conflict of authority between tha two Legislatures, was an interpretation put upon the old Statute by one of the Courts ot Ontario. That Court, in the cise of Boale vs. Dickson, held that the wording of the old Statute only applied to navigable streams, or streams floatable in a state of nature, and did not extend to streams that were not floatable in their natural condition. Resting on that authority, a man by the name of Peter McLaren, who owned a limit in the county of Lanark on two streams, one of which was called Buckshot Creek, and the other Louise Creek, neither of which were floatable in a state of nature, and on which improvements had been made by McLaren to render them floatable, undertook to restrain and prevent the use of that stream by a person having a limit further up the stream. He claimed the absolute and uncon- ditional ownership of the stream itself and the bed of the stream, by virtue of patents which he alleged he had obtained from the Government ; and, as riparian pro- prietor and relying on such claims, a man named Caldwell, who owned a limit farther up the streams, was prevented and reslrainod from bringing his timber to market by Mc- Laren. This 7nan McLaren, in onler to restrain Caldwell from using the stream, fyled a Bill in the Court of Chancery, and it may bo well to read one clause of that Bill to show the extraordinary grounds on which Mr. McLaren based his claim to the absolute and unconditional ownership of the streams in question— streams which Icon- tend belong to the people of this country. He says that the streams flowing through his parcels of land were not navigable streams, "nor floatable for logs and timber," while in the Crown, nor until after the improvements set forth in the Bill wore made on the said streams by tho 13 plaintiff; and that in their natural and unimproved state, they would not, even during freshets, permit of saw-logs or timber being floated down the same, but were useless for the purpose. And in the lOth paragraph the plaintiff thus states his rights : " The plaintiff is entitled, both as ripati&n proprietor and as owner in fee bimple of the bed of the said streams, where they pass and flow throuprh the said lots respectively, to the absolute, exclusive, and unin- terrupted user of the said streams for all purposes not forbidden by law, and amongst other purposes, to the absolute aud exclusive right to the U3er of the same for the purpose of floatin/| or driving saw-logs and timber down the same." He then goes on to say that on various parts of the said streams which run and flow through landci therein described, the plaintiff :ind those through whom he claims have expended a large arooimt of money in making certain specific and very valuable improvements, which ho sets out in a number of the following paragraphs of the Bill, The case came up before Yice-Chancellor Proudfoot, and the Vice Chancellor gave judgment in Mr. McLaren's favor, with- out argument, resting on the authority of the qu c of Boale v. Dickson, with a view of having the Jaw settled in the Court of Appeal. Itdidgoto the Court of Appeal, the highest Court in the Province of Ontario, and that Court sustained the appeal with costs. I cannot present the case in a clearer or better light or describe more accurately the position and the rights of the different parties, and the rights of the public involved in this question, than by reading from the Judgment of one of the ablest Judges that ever graced the Ontario Bench. The Judge saj-s : " Having reached the conclusion that all streams are by public authority dedicated as highways to at least the extent essential to the defence in this action, I have only further to remark that when the obstruction which stood in the way of the enjoyment of the legal right is removed, when the traveller by land or lumberer seeking to float his lumber down a stream, finds the highway unobstructed, be is at liberty, in my judgment, to make use of it without inquiring by whom, or with what motive, the way has been made practicable. He finds the rock on the road allowance blasted, or the chasm that crossed it bridged, and be pursues his journey along the highway thus improved ; or he finds that the freshet covers all obstacles with a sutficieut depth of water, and he floats his logs down the highway thus made useful. It may be in appearance aud perhaps in reality rather hard on the man at Whose ex- pense what was a highway only in legal contemplation becomes one fit for profitable use, has to allow others to share in the advantage without contributing to the cost. That is, however, a matter for his own con- sideration when he makes the improvements." Now, Sir, this judgment was given after (ho Streams' Bill became law, it was given after the Streams Bill was disallowed by the Government. While the case was before the '^'^tirt of Appeal, the Minister of Justice, without waiting fO' udgment of the Court of Appeal, without cause, W. -Jt reflection, without coniorcnce with or notifi- u liiii I!' cation to tho Ontario Govorninont, without following tho rule which the hon. gentleman saya should bo followed on every occasion, on the 19th of May, in hot haste, ex parte, upon the statement of Mr. McLaren or Mr. McLaren's counsel, disallowed this Bill. He knew nothing of tho rea- sons which induced tho Local Parliament to pass this Bill ; ho knew nothing of the reasons which induced the Lieute- nant-Governor to lend the sanction of Her Majesty to this Bill. He knew nothing of tho circumstances which made such a Bill necessary in tho public interest, but on the ex parte statement of ono of the litigants, he disallows tho Bill. Sir, if ho were acting as counsel for one of tho litigants, one could understand his action ; but acting as the Minister of Justice, bound to conserve tho rights of the different Pro- vinces, and to see that their legislation is not improperly in- terfered with, tho hon. gentleman's disallowance of tho Bill, and his reasons therefor, are most extraordinary. I will trouble the House with ari extract from the reasons tho hon. gentleman gives. After arovicv of tho position of affairs between the parties pending the litigation between McLaren and Caldwell, the late hon. Minister of Justice says : " He (Caldwell) attempted to 11 j;it his loi?3 down McLaren's stream, and through his improvemeuta. To prevent bis doing so the suit in Chancery, above referred to, was instituted, and a decree vols made declaring Mr. McLaren esclusively entitled to the use of the streams and improvements, and restraining Mr. CaldwelltVom Boating logs down the stream. " The effect of the Act now under consideration mu^t necL'ssarlly bo to reverse the decision of this suit. ** The effect of the Act as it now stands seems to be to tak* away the use of ih'j property from one man and give it to another, forcing the owner practically to become a toll collector against his will, if ha wishes to get any compensation for being thus deprived of his rights. "I think the power of the Local Legislature to take away the rights of one man and vest them in another, as is done by this Act, is exceed- ingly doabtful, but assuming that such right does in strictness exist, I think ic devolves upon this Government to see that such powers are not exercised in flagrant violation of private rights and national justice, especially when, as in this case, in addition to interfering with the private rijjhts in the way alluded to, tlie Act overrides a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction by declarin]^ retrospectively that the law always was and is different from that laid down by the Court." Kow, Sir, it will bo observed that the two grounds on which the late hon. Minister of Justice advised and recommended the disallowance of this Bill are : 1st. That the Act in ques- tion is in violation of private rights ; and 2nd. That it is retrospective, and overrides a decision of a Court of compe- tent jurisdiction. The hon. Minister of Justice admitted tho competence of the Local Legislature to deal with this ques- tion. He admits that it was a question of property and civil rights only. He admits that the Dominion Government had no power to deal with it, and he 16 admita that tho Act did not clash with Dominion, legislation, rights or interests. Ho knew, as I have indi- cated, nothing about tho merits of tho case. He did not, take tho trouble to communicate" with tho Local Gov- ernment on the subject. Ho knows the case is in appeal. Ho docs not wait for tho judgment of that court; but, at the instigation of one of the litigants, the hon. Minister of Justice at Ottawa undertakes to disallow this Bill. • Sir, I say that hon. gentlemen on tho other side of tho Houeo will search in vain among the precedents laid down by them- selves, among the parliamentary records, and among tho Blue-Books, where those things arc recorded, to find a precedent for the line of action which was pursued by tho late hon. Minister of Justice. Now, Sir, it is not pretended that it comes within the rules laid down by tho present hon. Premier when Minister of Justice ; nor that the Act is unconstitutional ; nor that it entrenches on Dominion legislation. Why, then, I ask. Sir, should the hon. gentle- man undertake to veto this legislation? Is there any reason for it, outside the constitutional rule laid down by themselves? One will rise from a perusal of the whole history of this transaction, and of the documents submitted by these hon. gentlemen to Parliament with his mind firmly impressed with the idea, that there was something behind tho whole transaction which does not appear on the surface, and that there was something outside of and beyond tho interests which tho hon. tho Minister of Justice was bound to guard, which induced tho late Minister of Justice to veto this Bill. Now, as I have said, the Minister of Justice undertook to veto this Bill on two grounds : one was that it was in violation of private rights, and the other that it was retrospective, and overrode a judgment of a Court. Moreover, hon. gentle- men opposite have over and over again allowed just such legislation to pass into law. The First Minister has over ' and over again sanctioned and allowed to become law Bills retrospective in their character, and that overrode the judg- ments of Courts, and that interfered with private rights. If I can show you, Sir, that a score of Bills of this character were ratified by the hon. First Minister, when Minister of Justice, during tho last fifteen years, and that the hon. gentleman over and over again stated that when a Bill was within the competence and power of the Local Government, oven though it wad retrospec- tive, the Dominion Government had no right to and should not interfere, I think that I will have made out a caso sufficiently strong to warrant me in placing 16 in yoar hands the resolution which I propose to move. I will first deal with the assertion that this Act was retro- spective and overrode a judgment of the Court. I find, Sir, that the Parliament of Ontario passed a Statute intituled " An Act to enable municipalities along the line of the Grand Junction Eailway Company to grant aid thereby and to legalize certain by-laws granting such aid " — to legalize by-laws, which were wholly illegal. This Act came before the Minister of Justice. It was protested against and objected to. Same of its provisions were clearly retrospective. It interfered with private rights. Bnt what did the hon. gentleman eay in reporting on the Bill ? That many petitions were presented against it, but that as it was within the competence of the Local Legislature, it should bo allowed to como into opera- tion. Now, Sir, hero was a Bill which expressly interfered with private rights, which made that legal which was not legal before, which made a corporation responsible and liable for debts for which they were not liable bafore, and which imposed on them responsibilities and duties that were not imposed on them by law, and yet the hon gentleman allowed that Bill to go into operation, while the late Minister of Justice disallowed the Streams' Bill, which is no more retrospective, and no more inter- feres with private rights than the Bill to which I have just referred. Now, Sir, as to the other branch of this objection, namely that the Bill in question overrode a judgment of the Court. I find that on several occasions Parliament did pass Bills, the effect of which was to override a judgment of the Court. Some of us have a lively recollection— and I dare say also, the hon. Prime Minister — of the case of Hammond vs. McLny, In 1859, Hammond was appointed rei^istrar of the county of Bruce. Under 9 Victoria, Chap- ter 34, this Statute enabled the Government to dismiss the registrar upon certain grounds specified therein. Hammond was dismissed by the Government upon a ground which was not mentioned in the Statute. He was superseded uuder the great seal of the Province of Ontario, and another man by the name of McLay was appointed in his place. Hammond brought an action for the fees, contending that the Government had no power bo to dismiss him. Pending the litigation, and before a judgment was finally rendered by the Court of Appeal, the Gov- ernment passed a Statute which changed the tenure of office from good behavior to during the will of the Lieo- tenan^Governo^. Now, Sir, this was an ex post facto Act, which interfered with the judgment of the Court. This Act, Sir, was not questioned. It is true that it was before Confederation, but then the Imperial Gov- li ernraent possessed precisely the same rights with regard to Collonlal Legislation, that the Pominion now possesses respecting Provincial Legislatures. This Statute, Sir, was bota retrospective, and it clearly overrode a judgment of the Com*t. I will give you another case — Jones vs. Ketchum. The action was brought against the defendant for exacting an illegal rate of interest. Pending the suit, the- law on the subject was changed, and the plaintiff was thus deprived of the right that was vested in him at the commencement of his suit. This law interforeu with a suit which was before the Courts ; and so, Sir, 1 could go on submitting case after case until the House would be wearied of them. I will content myself with laying down the proposition, that it is no new principle in the legislation of this or of the Mother Country, that Par- liament may interfere with a judgment of a Court. I attacli more importance to the second ground in which the Streams Bill was disallowed, namely, that it interfered with private rights. I now propose to submit to the consideration of the House a number of Bills which wore retrospective, which interfered with privr.to rights, and which ovc^rrodo a judg- ment of the Courts, and which all passed in review before the hon. gentleman, and which were all left to their opera- tion. Now, Sir, the Legislature of the Province of New Brunswick passed an Act to exempt the homesteads of families from levy and sale under execution. This Act came before the hon. gentleman, he pointed out that some clauses in the Bill were objectionable, but he had no objections to the rest of the Bill. On reading the Bill you will find that it is in direct interference with private rights. It expressly interfered with judgments against debtors. Before this act was passed, the law enabled creditors to en- force the payment of their debt out of certain assets of the debtor, this law interfered with t^-it remedy. It was an ex post facto law of the mostobjccLioaablo kind. But it was not to its operation. And so, Sir, you will find Acts of pre- cisely the same kind passed by all the Provinces, and all left to their operation. I wish to draw the particular atten- tion of the House to one passed by the Province of Quebec, its an Act respecting the " Society L'Union Si. Jacques de Montreal." Now, this was an ex post facto Act, in the worst possible sense of the term. It proposed the enforced com- mutation of the existing rights of two widow ladies, and, who, at the time it was passed, were annuitants of this society, under the law and the rules of the society. This Statute proposed to enforce the commutation of their annuities, and it was clearly an interference with vested rights. It com- pelled those ladies to take a by law they were entitled certain sum, when to more. It de- Id 1;.; I- privod thorn of rights which wore secured to them by the law of the land. What was the result ? Like others, it passed in review before the hon. gentleman. It was not objected to. It was allowed to come into operation. It interfered with private rights, and yet the hon, gentle- man allowed it to become kw. What was the result? Litigation was the result of this Bill. It came before the Courts of Quebec, and the CU30 was ultimately appealed to the Privy Council. What did the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council say ? They said : " Clearly this matter is private, clearly it is local, so far as locality is to be considered, because it is in the Province and in the city of Alcm- treal, and unless therefore the effect of that head of section 92 is for this purpose qualified by something in section 91, it ia a matter not only within the competence but within the exclusive competency of the Pro- vincial Legislature." Let me go a step further. The Province of Ontario passed an Act relating to the Grovernment road allowances and the granting of timber licenses thereon. Hon. gentlemen who are disposed to take a diftereut view of the right of the Dominion Government to disallow the Streams' Bill, who are disposed to give the Dominion Government unlimited unlimited control over local legislation, had care and caution read the report of the Minister upon the Bill which I have just containing the grounds upon which he allowed that Bill to become law. Now, under the law as it stood, when that Bill was passed, the road allow- ances in the Province of Ontario wore vested in the municipalities, and all the timber upon the road allowances became, and was, the private property of individual corporations. The Government of Ontario granted timber licences to tliis very man McLaren, who induced the Dominion Government to disallow this Bill, and to others as well, and included within such licenses the timber that was growing on the poad allowances, the fee simple of which wi\s vested in the corpor- ations. The municipalities protested against McLaren and others cutting timber on their private property; one of the corporations brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas against McLaren and others, and the Court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the grounds that the Local Government had no power to grant licenses to cut timber in lands which was not their property. The case was carried to the Court of Appeal, but before judgment was given in that Court this Act whs passed by the late Sand- tiold Macdonald Administration in Ontario. What are the prc'visions of that Act ? One of the clauses provides that : " Every Government road allowances included in 'any timber licenses heretofore granted, ^hall bo deemed to be and to have been ungranted lands." Eower and etter with hon. First referred to, 19 Was not that retrospective legislation ? One would naturally think that it -was logittlation of a retrof»pective and most objectional and vicious character. Hero was a pro- perty that belonged to a municipality subsequently leased to a private individual. The lessee claims the timber on land^ that never belangod to him — the municinality pro- tests and the Legislature passes a Bill providing that the timber upon this property was included, and intended to be always included, in the licenses so granted. Section 2 provided that " The liceusee shall bo ileemed to have, and to have had, all ripjhta in the trees, timber, lumber thereon, or cut thereon, as if the same were cut on any patented land of the Crown." Now here was an Act that was respective in its character, that interfered with private rights, that directly took the property from one person and vested it in another without compensation, that overrode the judgment of the Court and rights of the municipality. The corporation of the county of. Frontcnac petitioned against this Act, and the Act passed in review before the hon. the First Minister wi^h all its objectionable features. Did the hon. the First Minister disallow the Bill ? Not at all. Ho said : " It is clearly within the competence of the Local Legislature, and the undersigned recommends that it bo left to its operation." When the Streams' Bill came before the hon. gentleman ho did not take that ground ; it was admitted that it was within the competence of the Local Legislature, but though it was within the competence of the Local Legislature it was a violation, according to the Government's opinion of private rights, as now expounded by them, it was retrospective legislation, it was vicious legislation, and therefore, at the instance of political supporters they at once disallowed the Bill. One rule is laid down where a BUI is objected to by a political opponents. Another where a Bill is objected to by a political friend. Sir, if I ccnld only trespass on the patience of the House T could mention n. score, of cases where the hon. gentleman has acted on principles entirely diflFerent to that in which he acted in disallowing the Streams' Bill. The hon. gentleman in disallowing this Bill has not a foot to stand on — he has transgressed all rules and all precedents, his own precedents, his own record for fifteen years, constantly springs up against him. If hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to look at the Blue- Books they will find he has in this matter, ns in others, transgressed the rules laid down b3'^ himself. Let mo refer for a moment to another case — the Good- hue Will Case. Goodhue made his will leaving to his children a life estate, in his pro])erty, with a rexBY- ionary interest, to his grandchildren. The children 20 agreed to make a different distribution of the estate, to tliat montionod in tho will and sought to have thoir agroomont ratified by tho Local Logislature. The Local Purliamont did ratify it, without tho sanction of Bomo of tho parties directly interested in tho estate, some of whom were minors, and some Her Maiesty's subjects residing out of the Dominion of Canada, and despite tho solemn protest of the trustees appointed under the Bill. Tho trustees protested to tho Local Legislature, then to tho Lieutenant-Governor, and finally to tho Dominion Gov- ernment, they protested against sanctioning a Bill that made for another man a will ho did not make for himself. Did tho hon. First Minister disallow that Bill, as, perhaps, he ought to have done ; because, if tlioro is any kind of legislation which ought to bo disallowed, it is legislation that makes a will for mon that in his lifetime he never comtem- plated. Sii- JOHN A . M ACDONALD. Hear, heai-. Mr. CAME llOU . The hon gentleman says " Hear, hear." Ho does not appear to be able to grapple with the distinc- tion between tho Stream Bill and tho Goodhue Will Case. J^ut all tho same thoro is a clear distinction. In the one or.sc, an individual undoi'lakcs to control tho navigation of a public stream ; to prevent everybody else from using that stream ; to get absolute possession of tho stream, and to hold possession of it; and, under the interpre- tation tho hon. gentleman put upon the law, as it stood before tho Strcams'Bill way pai?sed, he has got the power to retain possession of it, and prevent those working limits further up tho stream from getting tho product of their labor to market, and thus interfering tho public user of a public stream. In the other case the Legislature undertakes to make a new will for a dead man. Yet tho hon. gentleman cannot see tho distinction between tho two cases; in passing upon the Goodhue Will Bill^ what did ho say? Ho recommended that this Act though strongly protested against should be left to its operation solely on tho ground that it came within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislature. There is another Bill that came boforo tho hon. gentleman, the Orange Bill, which paesod the Local Legislature but did not receive the assent of tho Crown, it was a reserved Bill. Sir JOHN MACDONALD. Hear, hear. Mr. CAMERON. The hon. gentleman does not see he distinction between a Bill that has received the sanction of Parliament that has became the law of the land unless vetoed, and a Bill reserved for the consideration of the Dominion Government. It appears to my mind very clear 21 n that thero is the greatest possible distinction between the two cases, and nobody knows that bettor than the hon. First Mi nistor. What did the hon. gonlloman do with the Orange Bill ? Ho admitted that it was within tho compo- tenceof the Local Logisluturo. Ofcourso it was. It came before him, ho had tho nowor, with tho stroke of his pen, to make that law, which was not law before. Instead of doing that ho undertook in advance to advise the Liout.- Govornor what to do, in caso tho Bill again rcciovcd the sanction of the Local Legislature. Tbo hon. gentleman said this: . "If these Act? should a(?ain be pflsped the Lieutenant-Governor should consider himself bound to doal with thera at once and not ask Your Excellency to interfere in matters of prorincial concern, and solely and entirely within the jurisdiction and competeucc ot the Legislature. " Now, why did the hon. gentleman who was not prepared to advise the Govornor-Gronoral to interfere in a matter* within the competence of the Local Legislature, who was not prepared to advise tho Governor General to allow that Bill to come ii.to operation although it was within the competence of the Local Legislature and should have re- ceived tho assent of the Liout.-Govornor, why whould ho now, in a matter ho must admit is within tho compotenco of tho Local Legislature, instruct his MiuJHlor of Justice to advise tho Governor General to disallow tho Bill, a Bill as much within tho compotonce of tho Local Legislature as the other. In tho one case it suited political purposes to throw the responsibility of the legislation on to the Local Govern- ment. It suited his purpose to hamper, annoy and embar- rass, if possible, the Local Legislature. It suits his purpose now to conciliate a strong personal and political friend, and he is conciliiitcd accordingly. How anxious tho hon. gen- tleman was in the one caso to sustain tho Local Legislature, how anxious is ho now to embarrass, hamper and annoy tho Local Government. What a sudden and serious change in tho views of the hon. gentleman. I am, Sir, rjiiito saticflod that tho change in tho hon. gentleman's opinion as to the right of the Dominion Government to interfere has not been brought about by a due regard for the public interest. Now, Sir, there is another Bill to which I wish to refer, and in dealing with that Bill, the hon. gentleman has put upon record, in the plainest possible manner, his views of how far the Dominion Government is justi- fied in interfering with local legislation. I refer to the New Brunswick School Bill. Now, in my judgment, if there ever was a Bill within the competence of the Local Legislature that the Dominion Government would be justified in disallowing, that measure was one of them — I speak for myself only. It was a Bill that seriously S2 I I f I ftflPeoted a largo portion of tho popnintion of tLat Province; with our Rnnvm Catholic follow subjects it was a Bill that compc^llod those pooj)lo to contribute to a systo^n of education that they ^oiild not conwciontiously avail themselves of. It was a Bill that affected not merely one individual, as the Streams' Bill did, but a largo claims of tho population; it wa^ a Bill that affoctotl a largo class of oople, and which they contended violated, if not their egal, at leant their equitable rights. Yet the hon. gentle- man allows that Bill to pass into law. It came before hira. for examination ; it was strongly protested against. Ho had a grand oppnrtunitj^ of doalitg fuirl3' and justly with that class of tho community wlio t!i<;tight thoy wore wronged by that legislation. Now, it is well to remind the hon. gentleman of these things, because I know that in tho multiplicity of his avocation, he cannot bo expected to go back on tho records of fifteen years. What did he say in his report of tho 20th January, 1872: "The Provincial Legiiilfitiiro has excliisivp powers to make laws ia relation to education. It mfly bo that ilie Act in qu«3tion may act un- favorably on the (>atholic=< or other rolipious denominations, and if so it is for such relicioits bodies to appeal to the Provincial Legislature which has the soIh power to grant redress." And ho is of Opinion that no other cour.'-o is 0])on to tho Dominion Government than to allow the Act to go into opera- tion. The hon. jrentleman's opinion is that if there is any- thing objectionable in the Bill, the '-cmedy is not to bo ob- tained from tho Dominion Government or the Dominion Parliament, but from the Local Legislature, frojn the hon. gentlemen who controlled the destinies of the Province for tho time being. Tho remedy is not to bo sought from tho Minister of Justice, but from tho Local Legislature. Now, in connection witn this subject I wish to read a very forcible State paper, published by tho Executive Council of Now Brunswick, vaUiablo as a solemn protest against any proposed interference by the Dominion Parliament or tho Dominion Government with tho rights of tho Province to deal with questions within tho competence of tho Legisla- ture. That paper said : "The nssiimption by the Provincial Legislature and Government of Canada of the right to seek the impoaition of further limitations of the powers of the Provincial Parlisraentsis subversive df the federal charac- ter of the Union, tending to the destruiition ot the powers and inde- pendence of the provincial law to the centralization of all power in the Parliament of Canada. "The people of New Brunswick cannot, and will not, surrender their rights of self government within the limits of the Cocstitution." Sir, I'admire the pluck of the Executive^ of New Bruns wick. I admire the courage and tho patriotism that in^ courage and tho patriotism that im- pelled them to send to the Dominion Government this Boloran protest worthy of all praise, a policy which would do credit to the first constitutional Government in Europe. The State paper gooa on to nay : ** Tbo Executive C'oincll in Oommittco therefore hasten to warn the Uovernnieiit and I'arliMmvnt of the danger iuTolved in the pnsBago of eaid resolution, which if passed must stand as a precedent of innova- tion of provincial rights — iruitful of evil ; and, in tho lunno of the people of New UnmBwick and involving!; the ])rolection of tiiu constitution, the P'xecutive Ooinmittoe in Council protest against the ptis^ape of such resolution, uud emplmtioally assert the right of the Legislature of New l^runswick to legislate upon all questions aOeoting the education of the country free from interl'oroncc by tho Parlinment of Canada." Sir, I nay «gain that that protest is wortfcy of all praise, and one thathon. gontlcnion opposite, and notably the hon. First Minister ought to lay to heart. That is noo all. There is a State paper iMihli.shcd by tho P'^irHt jMinintor in the New Brunswick Sclioo! !ji!i containing a more eflectivo protest even than that. The hon. gonileman t-hortly after tfio pub- lication of the Stale paper from wljich I quoted had under consideration this School Bill, tho solemn protests of the Roman Catholics of that Province against it, of the people, tho clesgy and hierarchy, and an earnest ai)peal to tho Po- miuion Government to exercise in iho public interest the power of disallowance, what answer did Dominion Govern- ment make to that appeal. The hon. gentleman says : *' One sole matter which presented itself to tbe Government was whether, according to the British North America Act of 18rt7, the Legis- lature of Now Hrunswick had exceeded it3 powers. As the officer prim- arily responsible on such subjects, ho could only say that he had taken uniform care to interfere in no way whatever with any Act passed by any ofthe Provincial Legislatures ifihey wore within the scope of their juris- diction. There were only two cases in his opinion, in which tho Gov- ernment of the Dominion was justified in in advising the disallowance of local Acts. First, if the Act was unconstitutional aad there had been an exc'ss of jurisdiction, and, second, if it was injurious tc> the interests of the whole Dommion." Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. Hear, hear. Mr. CAMERON. Docs the hon. gentleman mean to tell us that, because Mr. McLaren's rights were prejudiced, according to his coi\tention, tho interests of the whole Dominion are aifected by it? Is Peter McLaren the whole Dominion ? Will the hon. gentleman undertake to tell this House that the intercists of the whole Dominion are affected because the Government of Ontario undertook to pass a Bill protecting the public interest in the streams and creeks of Ontario ? The hon. gentleman went on to say ; "In tha case ot measures not comin;.: ■■\ ilhin either cf these categories the Government would be unwarranted in interfering with local legis- lation. " In the present case there was not a doubt that the New Brunswick Legislature hac* acted within its jurisdiction, and that ^he Act was con- stitutionally legal and could not be impugned on that ground. " On the second ground which he had mentioned in which he con" 24 feidered the Dominion Government could interfere, it could not be held that the Act in any way prejudicially affected the whole Dominion, because it was a law settling the Common School system of the Pro- vince of New Brunswick alone. "The Government of the Dominion could not act and they would have been guilty ot a violent broacli of tlie constitution, :f, because they hold a different opinion, they should set up their judgments against the solemn decision of a Province in a matter entirely within the control of that Province." Sir, I ask iho hon. gentloman what can be clearer or more cogent than that ? The hon. gentleman's line of argument is unanswerable, and because unanswerable the disallowance of the Streams Bill is wholly unjustifiable. The hon. gen- tleman sets up his opinion against that of the Government of Ontario, and a large majority of the people of Ontario. He sets up his views of the constitutional rule of to-day against that in which he has acted far fifteen years. As the hon. gentleman is in an unenviable position, as he cannot reconcile himself with himself, i leave the hon. gentleman just where he is. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. How long? Mr. CAMEEON. Not longer than 1 can help. Now, Sir, as I have disposed of the hon. gentleman's practice and the hon. gentleman's precedents. Let me refer the House to one or two opinions of one or two eminent men on this subj:;ct, and then I have done. Lord Carnarvon, to whom as Colonial Secretary, was referred a resolution of the House of Commons respecting this same School Eoll, says : "That he laid it at the foot of the Throne, but that he could notadvise Her Majesty to take any action in respect of it ; that he could not advise the Queen to advise the Legislature of New Brunswick to legislate in any particular direction as that would be an undue interference." Further on he savs : "Holding, as I have already explained, that the constitution of Canada does not contemplate any interference with the Provincial legislation, on a subject within the competence of the Local Legislature by the Dominion Parliament, or as a consequence by the Dominion Ministers." Sir J. D. Coleridge and Sir Gr. Jessell say of it : "Of course, it is quite possible that the new Statute of the Province may work in practice unfavorably to this or that denomination therein, and therefore to the Roman Catholics ; but we did not think that such a etate of things is enough to bring into operation the restricting powers of appeal to the Governor in Council." And so I might quote Todd on the subject, who lays down precisely the same doctrine, but I am not disposed to extend the discussion any further. I have shown conclusively the rules laid down by the hon. Fii*st Minister himself. I have shown that for years he loyally adhered to tho rules thus laid down. I have shown that when- ever Local Legislatures encroached on the rales thus laid 25 down the hon. gentleman, did not disallow said Idgis lation, bat directed the attention of the Local Govern ment to the obnoxious features of the Bill and allowed it to go into operation. I have shown that for a period of fifteen years, of all the local legislation passed by the various Provinces of the Dominion, not a single Bill of tho Province of Ontario was disallowed with with the exception of the three already mentioned, and none without the Local Government having had their attention directed to the vicious features of such legislation. I have shown that the Streams' Bill was not in violation of the rules so laid down, that it was within the competency and power of the Local Legislature, and that its disallow- ance was an unwarranted interference with the rights of the Local Legislature. I have shown that this Bill was not only within the competency and power of the Local Legislature, but that it was a Bill in the public interest, in the interests of the lumbermen, in the interests of trade, and of the people of this country. I have shown that the Parliament of Canada has, over and over again, passed laws retroactive in their character, interfering with private rights, and overruling the judgment of tho Courts. And now I say to the hon. the First Minister, lo this House, and to this country, that if we submit to the inter- ference, the unwarranted, unconstitutional, unjustifiable interference of the Minister of Justice in a case of this kind we may as well abolish Local Legislatures altogether, for they will be ParliamentM only in name, not in substance, not in reality. And f say, further, that if we tamely submit to this unwarranted interference of hon. gentlemen opposite, or rather to that of the hon. Minister of Justice, we are tamely permitting the Dominion Govern- ment to strike a fatal blow at the autonomy, the rights, the powers, the independence of tho Provinces. And I am not prepared to submit to that. Already Local Legislatures have been shoj'n of a considerable portion of the powor suj)po«ed to have been secured to them under the Constitvilioii. During this veiy Parliament -the great Pro- vince of Ontario is about to be legislated out of the power ii always had of dealing with County Court Judges. The hon. Ministci- of .Justice, if wo sanction and approve of what has been done with respect the Streams' Bill, will deprive the Province of the right of legislation, and if effect is given to the vote of a majority of this House, Ontario will bo shorn of a large portion of her territory and of her territorial rights. I say then that this is not simply an Ontario question, but one that affects every Provinceof this great Dominion of ours, and every repre- sentative of every Province should solemnly protest against 3 2tJ this unjustifiable and unconstitutional interfeience by the Dominion Government with local legislation, because it is a direct violation of the terms on which we entered into Confederation; it is a violation, if not of the letter, at all events of the spirit of the Constitution. It reduces Local Legisiaturcrt to a position below that of County Counciln. It makes the hon. the Minister of Jn- tice, and not the Local Parliament, the Judge as to whether or not legislation is proper and in the interests of the people of the Province. It gives to the Dominion Government rights which the Constitution never contemplated they should have. But, Sir, I say we should do something more than prote^^t l)efore this high Court of Parliament ; our protests here are vain, our warnings ai-e unheeded. There is another and a higher Court, to which we can appeal with every confidence that justice will be done — I mean the great I'arliament of the people. To that court and before that tiibunal. with firm faith in the justice of our position, I challenge hon. gentle- men to cany this question, and with an abiding faith, in the integrity and impartiality of that court T have no douht of the result. Now, Sir, in order to give hon. gentlemen opposite an opportunity of being consistent, 1 beg to move the following resolution : — That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the Chair, but that it be Resolved, — That in the opinion of this House, Ww power of disallowing Acts of a local nature conferred by " The Briti^^h North America Acted 1867," is vested in the Governor General in Council, and that His Excellency's Ministers are responsible to Parliament for the action of the Governor General in exercisino or abstaining from the exercise of the said power. That it is of the essence of lederal principle as embodied in our con- stitution that the said power should be used only in cases where the law and the general interests of the Doniiniom imperatively demand it. That it would impair the Feder-al principle and the independence, constitutional p'^wers, autonomy and institutions of the several Pro- vinces to allow of the exerciae of the said power in regard to legislation on subjects within the exclusive competeuce of the Local Legislatures, on the ground that in the opinion of Bis iixcellency's advisers, or of the Canadian Parliament, any such legislation is wrong. That' the question of propriety is under the Constitution one to be decided exclusively by the Local Legislature on its responsibility to the people of the Province who are the sole judges of such action. That the only exception which has heretofore been proposed in such cases is where the measure prejudicially affects the interest? of the Dominion generally. That it has been the rule ever since 1868 not to exercise the power of disallowance on the ground that a measure is considered only partially defective or objectionable, as being prejudicial to the general interest of the Dominion without communication with the Provincial Government, nor (if the general interests permit such a course) until after the Local Government has an opportunity of considering and discussing the objections taken, and the Local Legislature has also had an opportunity of remedying the defects found to exist. That it appears from the papers laid on the Table of this House that an Act passed by the Legislature of Ontario on the 4th March, AD. 1881, and intituled : " An Act for protecting the Public interests in rivers, streams, and creeks," was disallowed by His Excellency in Council on the 19th day of May, A.D. 1881, by Order approving a 27 report which does not assert that the said Act is bejond the eompetenoe of the Local Legislatare but expresses an opinion adrerae to the pro« priety of certain proTisions of the Act. That the said Act was within the exclusive competence of the Local Le^slatnre, and was not of such a natere as 4o render its provisions subject to the juttgment of or disallowance by the Government of Canada. That the Minister of Justice and the Government of Canada had, under these circumstances, no right to act on their opinion whatever it misrht be as to the propriety or impropriety of the said Act. That it appears from the papers that no communication was had with the Government of Ontario on the subject of the said Act p%or to the disallowance, nor was anv opportunity given to the Government of considering or discussing tne objections, or to the Legislature of Ontario to deal with the alleged defects. That the papers laid on the Table show the importance of such com- mnnication ; and the danger of action by the Minister of the ex parte statement and argument of a Petitioner against the Act. That the said exercise of the power of disallowance was not in accor- dance with the principle of the constitution, and that the said Act should have been left to its operation.