Canada under British Rule 1760-1900

by John George Bourinot

The parliament of Canada, in 1875, established a supreme court, or general court of appeal, for Canada, whose highest function is to decide questions as to the respective legislative powers of the Dominion and provincial parliaments, which are referred to it in due process of law by the subordinate courts of the provinces. The decisions of this court are already doing much to solve difficulties that impede the successful operation of the constitution. As a rule cases come before the supreme court on appeal from the lower courts, but the law regulating its powers provides that the governor in council may refer any matter to this court on which a question of constitutional jurisdiction has been raised. But the supreme court of Canada is not necessarily the court of last resort of Canada. The people have an inherent right as subjects of the Queen to appeal to the judicial committee of the privy council of the United Kingdom.

But it is not only by means of the courts that a check is imposed upon hasty, or unconstitutional, legislation. The constitution provides that the governor-general may veto or reserve any bill passed by the two houses of parliament when it conflicts with imperial interests or imperial legislation. It is now understood that the reserve power of disallowance which her Majesty's government possesses under the law is sufficient to meet all possible cases. This sovereign power is never exercised except in the case of an act clearly in conflict with an imperial statute or in violation of a treaty affecting a foreign nation. The Dominion government also supervises all the provincial legislation and has in a few cases disallowed provincial acts. This power is exercised very carefully, and it is regarded with intense jealousy by the provincial governments, which have more than once attempted to set it at defiance. In practice it is found the wisest course to leave to the courts the decision in cases where doubts exist as to constitutional authority or jurisdiction.

The organised districts of the North-west—Assiniboia, Alberta, Athabaska, and Saskatchewan—are governed by a lieutenant-governor appointed by the government of Canada and aided by a council chosen by himself from an assembly elected by the people under a very liberal franchise. These territories have also representatives in the two houses of the parliament of Canada. The Yukon territory in the far north-west, where rich discoveries of gold have attracted a large number of people within the past two years, is placed under a provisional government, composed of a commissioner and council appointed by the Dominion government[8], and acting under instructions given from time to time by the same authority or by the minister of the interior.

[8: Since this sentence was in type the Dominion government has given effect to a provision of a law allowing the duly qualified electors of the Yukon to choose two members of the council.]

The public service enjoys all the advantages that arise from permanency of tenure and appointment by the crown. It has on the whole been creditable to the country and remarkably free from political influences. The criminal law of England has prevailed in all the provinces since it was formerly introduced by the Quebec act of 1774. The civil law of the French regime, however, has continued to be the legal system in French Canada since the Quebec act, and has now obtained a hold in that province which insures its permanence as an institution closely allied with the dearest rights of the people. Its principles and maxims have been carefully collected and enacted in a code which is based on the famous code of Napoleon. In the other provinces and territories the common law of England forms the basis of jurisprudence on which a large body of Canadian statutory law has been built in the course of time.

At the present time all the provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, have an excellent municipal system, which enables every defined district, large or small, to carry on efficiently all those public improvements essential to the comfort, convenience and general necessities of the different communities that make up the province at large. Even in the territories of the north-west, every proper facility is given to the people in a populous district, or town, to organise a system equal to all their local requirements.

Every Englishman will consider it an interesting and encouraging fact that the Canadian people, despite their neighbourhood to a prosperous federal commonwealth, should not even in the most critical and gloomy periods of their history have shown any disposition to mould their institutions directly on those of the United States and lay the foundation for future political union. Previous to 1840, which was the commencement of a new era in the political history of the provinces, there was a time when discontent prevailed throughout the Canadas, but not even then did any large body of the people threaten to sever the connection with the parent state. The Act of Confederation was framed under the direct influence of Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Cartier, and although one was an English Canadian and the other a French Canadian, neither yielded to the other in the desire to build up a Dominion on the basis of English institutions, in the closest possible connection with the mother country. While the question of union was under consideration it was English statesmen and writers alone who predicted that this new federation, with its great extent of territory, its abundant resources, and ambitious people, would eventually form a new nation independent of Great Britain. Canadian statesmen never spoke or wrote of separation, but regarded the constitutional change in their political condition as giving them greater weight and strength in the empire. The influence of British example on the Canadian Dominion can be seen throughout its governmental machinery, in the system of parliamentary government, in the constitution of the privy council and the houses of parliament, in an independent judiciary, in appointed officials of every class—in the provincial as well as Dominion system—in a permanent and non-political civil service, and in all elements of sound administration. During the thirty-three years that have passed since 1867, the attachment to England and her institutions has gained in strength, and it is clear that those predictions of Englishmen to which we have referred are completely falsified. On the contrary, the dominant sentiment is for strengthening the ties that have in some respects become weak in consequence of the enlargement of the political rights of the Dominion, which has assumed the position of a semi-independent power, since England now only retains her imperial sovereignty by declaring peace or war with foreign nations, by appointing a governor-general, by controlling colonial legislation through the Queen in council and the Queen in parliament—but not so as to diminish the rights of local self-government conceded to the Dominion—and by requiring that all treaties with foreign nations should be made through her own government, while recognising the right of the dependency to be consulted and directly represented on all occasions when its interests are immediately affected.

In no respect have the Canadians followed the example of the United States, and made their executive entirely separate from the legislative authority. On the contrary, there is no institution which works more admirably in the federation—in the general as well as provincial governments—than the principle of making the ministry responsible to the popular branch of the legislature, and in that way keeping the executive and legislative departments in harmony with each other, and preventing that conflict of authorities which is a distinguishing feature of the very opposite system that prevails in the federal republic. If we review the amendments made of late years in the political constitutions of the States, and especially those ratified not long since in New York, we see in how many respects the Canadian system of government is superior to that of the republic. For instance, Canada has enjoyed for years, as results of responsible government, the secret ballot, stringent laws against bribery and corruption at all classes of elections, the registration of voters, strict naturalisation laws, infrequent political elections, separation of municipal from provincial or national contests, appointive and permanent officials in every branch of the civil service, a carefully devised code of private bill legislation, the printing of all public as well as private bills before their consideration by the legislative bodies; and yet all these essentials of safe administration and legislation are now only in part introduced by constitutional enactment in so powerful and progressive a state as New York.

Of course, in the methods of party government we can see in Canada at times an attempt to follow the example of the United States, and to introduce the party machine with its professional politicians and all those influences that have degraded politics since the days of Jackson and Van Buren. Happily, so far, the people of Canada have shown themselves fully capable of removing those blots that show themselves from time to time on the body politic. Justice has soon seized those men who have betrayed their trust in the administration of public affairs. Although Canadians may, according to their political proclivities, find fault with some methods of governments and be carried away at times by political passion beyond the bounds of reason, it is encouraging to find that all are ready to admit the high character of the judiciary for learning, integrity and incorruptibility. The records of Canada do not present a single instance of the successful impeachment or removal of a judge for improper conduct on the bench since the days of responsible government; and the three or four petitions laid before parliament, in the course of a quarter of a century, asking for an investigation into vague charges against some judges, have never required a judgment of the house. Canadians have built wisely when, in the formation of their constitution, they followed the English plan of retaining an intimate and invaluable connection between the executive and legislative departments, and of keeping the judiciary practically independent of the other authorities of government. Not only the life and prosperity of the people, but the satisfactory working of the whole system of federal government rests more or less on the discretion and integrity of the judges. Canadians are satisfied that the peace and security of the whole Dominion do not more depend on the ability and patriotism of statesmen in the legislative halls than on that principle of the constitution, which places the judiciary in an exalted position among all the other departments of government, and makes law as far as possible the arbiter of their constitutional conflicts. All political systems are very imperfect at the best; legislatures are constantly subject to currents of popular prejudice and passion; statesmanship is too often weak and fluctuating, incapable of appreciating the true tendency of events, and too ready to yield to the force of present circumstances or dictates of expediency; but law, as worked out on English principles in all the dependencies of the empire and countries of English origin, as understood by Blackstone, Dicey, Story, Kent, and other great masters of constitutional and legal learning, gives the best possible guarantee for the security of institutions in a country of popular government.

In an Appendix to this history I have given comparisons in parallel columns between the principal provisions of the federal constitutions of the Canadian Dominion, and the Australian Commonwealth. In studying carefully these two systems we must be impressed by the fact that the constitution of Canada appears more influenced by the spirit of English ideas than the constitution of Australia, which has copied some features of the fundamental law of the United States. In the preamble of the Canadian British North America act we find expressly stated "the desire of the Canadian provinces to be federally united into one Dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom," while the preamble of the Australian constitution contains only a bald statement of an agreement "to unite in one indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the crown," When we consider the use of "Commonwealth"—a word of republican significance to British ears—as well as the selection of "state" instead of "province," of "house of representatives" instead of "house of commons," of "executive council" instead of "privy council," we may well wonder why the Australians, all British by origin and aspiration, should have shown an inclination to deviate from the precedents established by the Canadian Dominion, which, though only partly English, resolved to carve the ancient historic names of the parent state on the very front of its political structure.