Document Information

Date: 1869-07-11
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1st Parl, 2nd Sess, 1869 at 802-805.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

[Page 802]

VACANT OFFICES

Hon. Mr. Holton desired to call attention to a matter very nearly affecting the independence if not the purity of Parliament. There had been a vacancy in the Nova Scotia representation in the Senate for over a year,although the Union Act enjoined on the Governor General the duty of filling such vacancies whenever they occurred. The Act in this respect was mandatory and not permissive;and yet this mandatory clause had been left unexecuted for a year. In reply to the member for Digby, the Government stated some

[Page 803]

time since that this vacancy would be filled up during the present session. Again, there was another appointment announced to be filled, only provisionally, that of Intercolonial Railway Commissioner for Nova Scotia. The House had been told that Mr. Coffin, an officer of the Government, had been temporarily appointed, with a view to his being replaced on the board by some gentleman representing Nova Scotia. Information had reached him(Mr. Holton) of a credible character, that it was proposed to confer either or both these appointments on a member of that House,the member for Colchester—(hear, hear)—and the understanding was that they were to be accepted by that hon. gentleman a little further on. His (Mr. Holton’s) view of the matter was, that whenever anything of the kind passed between those having control of the appointing power and any member of that House, whether verbally or in writing, that then that honourable member became incapacitated from a seat in that House. If there were no truth in the statements, whichwere current, he was sure that the hon. member for Colchester would be glad of an opportunity for disabusing the public mind inthe matter. (Hear.) He therefore desired to ask the leader of the Government—1st, as to the reasons which induced the Government to refrain for so long a period from filling up that vacancy in the Senate; 2ndly, as to their intention regarding the provisional appointment on the Railway Board; and, 3rd, as towhether there was any truth in the statement that one or both these appointments had been offered or promised to the member for Colchester?

Sir John A. Macdonald, in answer to the first question, said that when the vacancy took place there was nothing like an approach to an arrangement between the representatives of Nova Scotia and the Dominion Government and Parliament, and under such circumstances an appointment to the Senate must have involved one of two things, either that a person of no political opinions should be appointed, an appointment which would be derogatory to the Senate, or that one should be appointed, an appointment which must have increased, instead of decreasing, the irritation in that Province. The appointment of an Anti—a person opposed to the continuance of Nova Scotia in the Union—would be a contradiction in terms, for these reasons the appointment was kept open until the final attempt at the pacification of Nova Scotia had been made. He believed that in consequence of the arrangement before the House, the period of discontent had passed,

[Page 804]

and therefore he had no hesitation in announcing, both in that House and in the Senate, that that appointment would be made before the House was prorogued. As to the person on whom the prerogative would be exercised, that was a matter concerning which the hon. gentleman had no right to ask, and therefore an answer was refused.

Hon. Mr. Holton said he was aware he had no right to ask as to the exercise of the prerogative; but his statement went further than that. What he enquired was, whether an offer of either or both these appointments had been made or was not to be made to a member of that House, or whether there wasnot an understanding to that effect?

Sir John A. Macdonald said he could answer the hon. gentleman positively. No offer had been made by the Government, of either the Senatorship or Commissionership of the Intercolonial Railway, to the member for Colchester; but he (Sir John) had no hesitation in saying that, as far as he was concerned, he would ask the Hon. member for Colchester to accept the Commissionership.

Mr. Mackenzie—Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. Holton would say then that the member for Colchester having such an office in contemplation was, in looking to its acceptance morally disabled from sitting in that House. (Ironical cries of hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches). He was as much disabled morally from a seat in that House, as was the Minister of Justice in the old Parliament of Canada, when he had an offer of a Judicial appointment. The whole moral force of Upper Canada was against that hon. gentleman,when he closed his speech with the announcement that the offer had been made,but was not accepted, but that he proposed to accept it immediately on the rising of the House. Another instance might also be recalled when a gentleman had the offer of an appointment, while holding a seat in that House—a valuable appointment connected with the administration of Justice in the Province of Quebec. Technically and legally the penalties would not enure in the present case, of course, but morally the independence of that House was assailed.

Sir John A. Macdonald said that the hon.gentleman had a reading of Constitutional law which was peculiarly his own. If he went to the library he would find that this matter had been discussed and settled, and he would not find the doctrine he held to obtain. If it were true that the Government

[Page 805]

should not offer any situation to a member of Parliament, no matter what his fitness for the position, without morally depriving him of a seat in Parliament, such a doctrine would militate against the requirements of the public service, and would in fact be absurd on the face of it.

Hon. Mr. Dorion did not think the Independence of Parliament Act was worth much if at the beginning of a session an hon. mermber could have such an offer made him and the appointment kept open for him till the close of the sane session. Such a practice, it was true, was not provided against, but it was clearly against the spirit of the Act. It was not proposed to prevent the Government making an offer to any member of the House,but it ought to be understood that the offer should either be promptly declined or accepted.But to say that a member might hold his seat for months with such an offer in view was to assail at once the independence of Parliament.

Hon. J. H. Cameron asked how it was against the independence of Parliament to make such an offer to a member of the House and allow him a few days to consider it. Hon. Mr. Holton said that any member of that House respecting himself, or his obligations as a member of Parliament, would in a reasonable time make up his mind to accept or refuse such an offer, and during session a few hours were long enough for any member to make up his mind on such a point.

The matter then dropped.