It will soon be 100 years since Canada came under a federated regime; a system of autonomous provinces, governing their own affairs but federated in order that certain common interests might better be protected. At least such was the principle — although the tendency of Ottawa to push centralization is certainly a betrayal of that principle.
A great many people are under the impression that confederation was a union of provinces previously separated which decided that such a federation would be advantageous to all in certain fields. Such was the case with our neighbor to the south when the United States was formed. But such was not the case for Canada — at least for what composed Canada in 1867.
In 1867 there was not a province of Quebec with its goverment and a province of Ontario with its government. There was only one government. Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec) had made up what was called since 1840 United Canada, without either one or other of these two sections having any autonomy. There was the same governor, the same executive council, the one parliament for both. The parliament could sit either at Kingston in Ontario or at Montreal, without any change being effected in this system. Any law passed applied to each section equally. The distinction between Upper Canada and Lower Canada might be geographic, historical, ethnic, but not legislative nor administrative.
As for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, these were separate colonies, directly dependent upon England and completely independent from United Canada. What we now call Western Canada was as yet relatively unpopulated and they came directly under the jurisdiction of London.
This system of United Canada (Upper Canada and Lower Canada united) was most unsatisfactory to both sections as these two provinces differed radically in character with regard to racial roots, language differences and especially in religions.
The Confederation Act of 1867 was designed to remedy this situation in that it gave freedom to both these Canadas to fashion their own policies. So this was not a welding together of two separated parts but rather the breaking apart of two parts which had been welded together 27 years previously with the idea that French-Canada would lose its identity.
So, instead of seeing confederation as a march towards unification we must rather consider it as the liberation from a bond which would have smothered the flowering of distinctive traits and characteristics.
Centralization tends towards unification, towards a regime which was judged, condemned and buried by the legislators of 1867. To promote or support such centralization, the decreasing of provincial power and the increasing of federal power is, therefore, to betray the spirit of Confederation.
The law which brought to reality confederation was never submitted to a referendum. The opinion of individual men and newspapers was for or against it, but the people as such, were never consulted. If Confederation, once promulgated, was generally welcomed by the people of Lower Canada it was because it gave back to Quebec in a large measure the freedom to act for itself, a right of which it had been completely dispossessed previously.
If, on the other hand, the people of Nova Scotia condemned Charles Tupper for having supported Confederation it was because up to that time Nova Scotia had had its own government. Now, by this act of confederation this province surrendered a part of its power into the hands of a central government. In the elections which followed, Tupper was the only one of the 19 representatives sent by Nova Scotia to the House of Commons who was in favor of Confederation.
All which goes to prove that each province has always striven to hold for itself as much autonomy as possible. There is no necessity for a central government to interfere in those matters which the province are capable of managing themselves.
In his work, Histoire du Canada (A History of Canada), Robert Rumilly made the following remark, which supports what we have said above:
"Canadians are quite willing to believe that the Confederation was born in enthusiam from an almost spontaneous meeting of all the provinces. However, Newfoundland rejected confederation, Nova Scotia almost revolted, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia needs a lot of coaxing, while Confederation was imposed by the military arm on the provinces, or future provinces of the Prairies."
The British North America Act considered to be the Constitution of Canada divides the powers between the federal government and the provincial governments.
The powers conferred on the federal government concern Customs, the post offices, the army, the navy, ports, canals, lighthouses, docks, navigable waterways, railroads, banks and money.
The provinces kept the right to legislate in the following matters: natural resources, the administration and sale of public lands, prisons, hospitals, asylums, hospices, municipal institutions, licences for hotels, cabarets, etc.; public works which do not extend outside the boundaries of the province (bridges, roads, etc.); the incorporation of companies; matrimonial legislation, property, civic rights, the administration of justice, public instruction, agriculture and all matters purely local and private.
As you can see the ifield of jurisdiction pertaining to the provinces remains very great.
It is regrettable, however, that a phrase of this Canadian "Constitution", gives to the federal government all which is not specifically attributed to the provinces by the text of the Act. In the establishment of a new regime provoked by the dissatisfaction of members and their desire to regain control of their rights, just the contrary stipulation should have been made. In the United States where confederation worked in an inverse manner, separate states moving into a federation, the Constitution attributes to the different states whatever is not specially conferred on the central government. This latter is a more statesman-like provision. The flowering of a nation's culture and material wealth flows from diversification rather than from uniformity. Among human individuals we find the highest development where individuals show marked differences.
The two governments (the federal and that of each of the provinces) has the authority to raise the money necessary to meet the needs which fall under the jurisdiction of each.
Never, since 1867, has a provincial government sought funds in order to exercise a function pertaining to the jurisdiction of the federal government. In other words, the provincial governments have never overstepped the limits of their own jurisdiction.
Unfortunately the federal government has not exercised the same scrupulous care. We have given several cases of the federal's invasion of provincial rights on the front page of this issue.
Taking advantage of wars, economic crises and international difficulties, the government at Ottawa has taxed everyone right and left without any discrimination — and that for beyond its real needs since a part of the revenues thus netted have been for purposes which, according to the Constitution, pertain to provincial jurisdiction. And the more it has increased its powers the more it has used the power thus gained to tighten its grip over what we have come to call, lower governments. But is it not these supposedly lower governments which, being so much closer to the people, render the most concrete services to the people?
In Ottawa it has been the Liberals who have been outstanding in furthering this move towards centralization in a spirit diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Confederation pact. And unfortunately the Conservatives who are in power at the moment have done nothing to reverse this trend.
Political centralization is provoked, not to say directly ordered, by centralized finance. Since finance is highly centralized, and since all governments are directly subject to this power through a regime of debt-money which these governments absolutely refuse to rid themselves of, it is not surprising to see political centralization going ahead as debt-engendering money comes to play an increasingly important role in the life of our economy. Our last issue of The Union of Electors carried statements by numerous heads of states denouncing the fact that governments are subjected to financial dictatorship.
Ottawa far from complaining of this move towards ever greater centralization, furthers and promotes and pushes ahead this move towards the gathering of all power into the hands of the central government.
In the United States the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson warned against this move to centralize power, declaring that in it was the danger of individual states losing their autonomy completely and becoming nothing more than branches of the various services of the central government. President Eisenhower himself has said:
"It is not the federal government which created the States which make up our republic. It is the States which have created our federal government. If the States lose their significance our whole system of government will lose its meaning and we shall be on the road to the building a national centralized State, favorable ground for the hatching and growth of the ferment of autocracy."
In Canada also it has been the provinces which have built the federal. But the federal has become a monster, seeking to devour bit by bit the provinces which gave it birth.
The ordinary managers of local bank branches are obliged to carry out the orders and policies which are issued to them by the head office of their bank. However they are not blind to the results which result from the execution of these orders in the milieu in which they live. Thus it was that the manager of a bank in Granby told Gabriel Lacasse (a member of the Union of Electors) that the order to restrict credit which had been given to local banks, had caused 30 business failures during the course of the winter in the district of Granby alone.
There is at least one force which resists to death itself and which builds the future. This imperishable force is none other than love. (Saint-Pol-Roux).
Subscribe