[JULY 3, 1894] 5166
NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES.
Bill (No. 149) further to amend the Acts
respecting the North-west Territories was
read the second time, and House resolved
itself into committee.
(In the Committee.)
On section 5,
Mr. CHARLTON. Is it proposed to allow
sheriffs' fees in addition to a salary of $500 ?
Mr. DALY. Yes. The only change in the
law is to give the Legislative Assembly
power to legislate with respect to the remuneration, by fees or otherwise, of sheriffs
and clerks. As the law now stands, they
have not that power.
On section 6,
Mr. DALY. This repeals sections 60 and
61 of the Act. Section 60 provides that each
clerk shall be paid such fees as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council prescribes, and
section 61 provides that any sheriff or clerk
may, with the approval of the Lieutenant
5167
[COMMONS] 5168
Governor, appoint a deputy. In 1891 these
sections were amended, but we are repealing
them now, as there is no further necessity
for them.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). You now allow the
sheriff to arrange that by contract with his
deputy ?
Mr. DALY. Yes. The Act of 1891 provides :
Each sheriff and clerk shall appoint a deputy or
deputies at such places within the district and with
such powers as are from time to time determined
by an ordinance of the Legislative Assembly.
In case of a vacancy happening in the office of
sheriff or clerk by reason or death, incapacity or
otherwise, his deputy may perform his duties until
a successor is appointed ; and where there is no
such deputy the judge usuallyexercising jurisdiction
within the judicial district may appoint a person
to fill the vacancy in the meantime.
The Legislative Assembly may, subject to the
provisions of this Act, define by ordinance the
powers, duties and obligations of sheriffs and
clerks, and their respective duties.
Mr. FRASER. Was that law repealed by
a subsequent law now being repealed ?
Mr. DALY. The clause now being repealed
was amended in the way I have read, and
that should have been repealed in toto at the
time.
Mr. FRASER. The effect will be that that
will be the law ?
Mr. DALY. The law will be as provided
by the statutes of 1891.
Mr. FRASER. Which were not repealed
by the other Act ?
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Would it not be
more consonant with the general principles
of government if the Lieutenant-Governor,
on the advice of his Council, had the power
of making the temporary appointment instead
of the judge ?
Mr. DALY. This seems to satisfy the views
of the people there.
On section 7,
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). It seems to me
that restriction of three years' residence in
the Territories is unnecessary. If a man is
a British subject and has the other qualifications, there ought to be no restrictions
as
to period of residence.
Mr. DALY. This is framed exactly in
accord with the desire of the North-west Government. Apparently the consensus of opinion
there with reference to the appointment of police magistrates, is that they should
have the qualifications given here. Any person after three years' residence would
have a better idea of the administration of criminal and municipal laws in the Territories
than one who had just arrived.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The duties of
magistrates relate mostly to the administration of laws of Canada and not simply to
those of the Territories, and in every part
of Canada the magistrates will possess that
knowledge.
On section 10,
Mr. DALY. At the time of the passing of
that North-west Territories Act the prohibitory liquor law was in force, and there
was
no recourse in the case of a debt due for
intoxicating liquor. Since then a license law
has been passed, and this is to permit the
authorizing of wholesale dealers and others
to recover debts due for the sale of liquor,
which they cannot do now.
Mr. DALY. Section 5 in the Act of 1888
related to proceedings at elecrions, and subsection 4 to the payment of members. We
are providing that they may provide for
their compensation themselves, and also have
the right to enact laws respecting proceedings at elections.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The hon. gentleman is still deferring the day when responsible government
will be introduced into the
Territories. When you confer upon them the
power of electing a Legislature, I do not
see why the principle of responsible government, to the extent of their authority,
however little that may he, should not be introduced. 'By section 17 the Legislative
Assembly may from time to time appoint a
committee of four persons from among its
members to advise the Lieutenant-Governor
in relation to the expenditure of territorial
funds and of any moneys appropriated by
Parliament for the Territories. To what extent is the Lieutenant-Governor bound by
the advice of these four persons ? Is he at
liberty to disregard it ? There is no reservation, no indication of any responsibility
resting upon the parties. I
do not see any ground of responsibility
here or any theory or principle upon which
the work of government is to proceed. I
have looked over some of the expenditure
of the Territories, and it seemed to me they
were very extraordinary ; but there has been
no opportunity of bringing them under the
attention of Parliament. I think we ought
to adopt some intelligible rule or principle
and establish real responsibility.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON Does not this
enactment really cover the whole ground
when we read it in connection with the
other enactment in force ? We have authority to send instructions to the Lieutenant-
Governor : so have the Executive in the mother country power to send instructions
when a Governor General is sent here. So far the provisions are parallel. Then there
is an enactment that the committee shall advise the Government on all matters of expenditure.
These are the matters in relation to which this Parliament deals with the Territories.
Parliament passes the appro
5169 [JULY 3, 1894] 5170
priation necessary to carry on government
in the Territories. It then enacts that the
Governor shall be advised by the Executive
Committee as to these expenditures. There
is no enactment that the Governor shall take
their advice, nor is there any enactment
that the Governor General shall take ours.
But the constitution proceeds on the assumption that when it is the will of Parliament
that the Government is to be advised. it is
the will of Parliament that he shall follow
the advice. As to the other matters governed by ordinances. such as appointments.
it is enacted that they shall be made and
other things done by the Governor in Council. which is defined by the interpretation
ordinance to mean the Lieutenant-Governor
and the Executive Committee.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). The hon. gentleman knows that under our constitutional
system the law distinguishes—or. at all
events, the conventions of the constitution
distinguish—between the royal will and the
personal will of the sovereign. But I do
not see any provision by which that rule
or principle would be applied in this case.
Under our constitutional system the Governor chooses his officers. The royal will
is that they shall be chosen from the party
having the majority in power. I apprehend
that here the majority would make the
choice. You do not leave the Governor any
discretion at all as to who his advisers shall
be. You put the whole discretion in the
Legislature, which. it seems to me. is not
the most convenient or most satisfactory system. because there may be personal and
active canvass amongst members of the
Legislature as to the appointments. which
could not exist if the will of the Lieutenant-
Governor or his discretion were allowed
some play. But, if their will or advice
is not followed. under a constimtional system, they would tender their resignation.
What would be the effect here ? The
Legislature is chosen by the people, not by
the Governor. and the Legislature might insist that they should continue to be his
advisers. I do not see. myself. how this
system could be practically worked out. If
it has not produced friction. it must be be—
cause there has been either a great deal or
indifference or a great deal of forbearance.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. I do not think
that any friction has been caused. This is
the system they have been working under.
It a difference of opinion occurred between
the Governor and his advisers, the Legislature might insist that .he should have the
same set of advisers. and in that case we
would give them greater latitude.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell); You do not give
them the power of dissolution.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. No; the power
of dissolution remains here. But they would
apply to the Federal authorities to ask the
Lieutenant-Governor to act on their advice.
Under our present system. and especially
under the system as it would be under this
Bill, the expenditures are practically under
the control of the Legislature. It only me
tends so far as the Legislature may please
to give them the discretion in matters of
expenditure. In all other matters, as I
said. their ordinances provide practically
that he shall take their advice, because he
has to act upon the advice of the Executive
Committee.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). It seems to me
that what we ought to do with regard to the
public moneys expended in the Territories
under the supervision of the Territorial Government is to give them a lump sum and
let them decide how these moneys shall be
distributed and for what purposes they shall
be employed. I am quite sure that any
member of the House who will take the
trouble to look over the appropriation for
schools will see that it is out of all proportion to similar expenditures in any other
province in the Dominion. There cannot be
the same interest in the use of the money
that there would be if a larger sum were
appropriated by direct taxation or in some
other way by the people themselves. As
long as we say for what purpose the money
shall be employed. we are practically keeping the Legislature in leading strings and
preventing responsible government from developing.
Mr. DALY. It seems to me the feeling
on the part of the present Council, as well as
of the Legislature, is that the present system is preferable. that they do not want
responsible government So far as the lump
sum appropriation is concerned, they practically have it now, because in the Supply
Bill it was enacted that no vote for the
fiscal year 1893-94 should lapse, consequently
they can expend whatever is left of any
vote this year without any other authority
than the Supply Bill. I may say for the
information of the hon. gentleman that this
clause is adopted word for word from Ordinance No. 1 of 1892. Subsection 2 must not
be overlooked. It provides :
The said committee shall be styled " The
Executive Committee of the Territories," and the
members thereof shall severally hold otiice until
their successors are appointed.
That is to get over the difficulty that will
probably occur this year. The House there
will be called together in August and then an
election will be held, as the Legislature Will
expire by the eifiuxion of time. This prondes
for the Executive Committee being in power
in the meantime until the Legislature is
elected and the successors of the present
Cotmcil are appointed.
On section 21, .
5171
[COMMONS] 5172
Mr. DALY. This transfers from the Dominion Lands Act the clause that existed
there since 1893. The clause reads:
The Lieutenant-Governor and Assembly of
the Northwest Territories may, with the consent of the Governor in Council, close
up any road.
And so on. Action has always been taken
by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council ; but
in order to comply with the provisions of
the Act of 1892, it would be necessary to
await, the action of the Assembly before any
road could be closed up, and this new clause
overcomes that difficulty. It was a mistake
at the time it was passed. but it was overlooked. All the Orders in Council so far
have been passed with the consent and advice of the Lieutenant-Governor and his
Council, and it is to overcome that difficulty
that subclause 2 provides, that they are declared to have been and to be valid.
Bill reported.
This individual participated in:
