WEDNESDAY, March 8, 1865.
MR. CHAMBERS said—The position of
the speaker who comes towards the last in a
debate is, if disadvantageous in some respects,
at least advantageous in others. If from
the ability of gentlemen who have preceded
him, and from their logical and argumentative powers, most that could have been said
has been said—if, from the ample store of
knowledge they possess, numerous ideas
have been advanced, and logical conclusions
drawn therefrom, there is at least this advantage to their successors in the debate,
that
they have the benefit of those conclusions,
the advantage of those ideas and of that
knowledge. And although a subsequent
speaker may be unable to advance new
theories, or even adduce new arguments, he
can at least compare the opinions and the
views of those who have preceded him. I may
state in the outset that 1 had hoped, at the
commencement of this debate, to have heard
it announced that this Legislature would be
allowed the privilege of amending such of
the resolutions submitted as they might, upon
earnest and careful examination, have deemed
necessary. I had hoped, Mr. SPEAKER, that
some latitude would be allowed to this Legislature in suggesting improvements and
771
amendments to the resolutions, which do
appear to me to have been resolved upon
with some degree of haste for matters fraught
with such vital interest and importance to
these provinces. If indeed, sir, the hon.
gentlemen who so recently held their deliberations in this city had been composed
of
men perfect in intellect, and possessing
intelligence unalloyed by the baser ingredient
of ordinary humanity—liability to err, then
it would. I say, have seemed more consistent
to ask this or any other legislature to adopt
the Constitution which they had framed for us
and for posterity without amendments, to
ask us to receive, as we would or as we do,
the articles of our religious faith—to ask us
to have faith, and to believe that these delegates had embodied in these resolutions
all
the requisites and necessaries for a perfect
Constitution. I had hoped, sir, we should
be able to apply ourselves to the calm, deliberate, impartial consideration of these
important resolutions, and, being divested of all
party spirit, endeavor to arrive at such conclusions as would be advantageous to all
the
provinces. But, sir, notwithstanding all
this; however much it may have been
desired, and whatever alterations we may
have wished for ; whatever further benefits
and advantages Upper Canada may have
desired to secure in this great national co-
partnership ; and although I should myself
have preferred alterations in some of the
resolutions, as well as in some of the details,
yet I am not, after having listened patiently
and anxiously to the able arguments in favor
of Confederation, as well as against it—I am
not, I repeat, prepared to state that I will
take upon myself to say that Confederation,
as a scheme, should be rejected—that I will
state that I shall vote against the creation of
a new nationality. (Hear, hear.) I will
state some reasons why I am not prepared to
do so. In the first place, when I look abroad
and see the neighboring American Republic
engaged in one of the moat terrible and
disastrous wars that has ever racked this
continent ; when I read in almost every
journal issuing from the press of that country
anathemas against the British Empire ; when
I see that press teeming with threats against
this country ; when I know that that nation
has by sea a navy prepared to cope with the
strong powers of the old world, and a force
on land, in point of numbers at least, astonishing the generals of the most advanced
of warlike nations—when, I say, I see that
nation in a warlike, and not only in a war
like, but in a threatening attitude towards
us, I am led to consider, as paramount to
every other consideration, what ought to be
done for the safety of this country. To
preserve its territory from invasion, to protect the lives and property of its subjects,
is, I conceive, the first important duty towards which the attention of every govern
ment should be directed. (Hear.) Then,
sir, upon the well-understood maxim that
union is strength, I am inclined to believe
that the union of the British North American Provinces would give strength to us all.
(Hear, hear.) I confess I fail to see a
source of weakness in this union, as is very
ingeniously argued by some hon. gentlemen
opposed to this scheme
in toto. It does
appear to me that the very political and
national status given to these provinces by
a union, would become immediately a source
of strength ; that the very new name to be
given to the new nationality would be an
immense fortification of defence in itself.
(Hear, hear.) When, sir, I consider the
interest evinced by the people of England,
the people of France, and, I may say, of all
Europe, the very apprehension that seems
to exist with regard to this Confederation of
the British North American Provinces, it
appears to me that the very announcement
of the creation of this new nationality has
given us already a position and a strength
which in the palmiest days of the old
régime
we might never have hoped for. (Hear,
hear.) When I remember, sir, that great
Constitutions in the old world have been
founded in the blood of contending nations ;
that in the Mother Country the heirs
of contending houses, at times through
various centuries, struggled for supremacy ;
and that authority, power and good government have been established only after being
wrenched from opposing factions by the
sword—when I remember, sir, that history
records the revolution which terminated the
long struggle between the sovereigns in
England and their parliaments—how, from
union, order and freedom, established only
by the sword, sprung a prosperity hitherto
unknown in the annals of human affairs ;
when I trace their history from the days of
feudalism down to the present, I am led to
believe that if we have the opportunity of
securing greatness, prosperity, and an established and well-regulated freedom, comparing
favorably with all that is enjoyed by the
Mother Country, and without the cost of a
single drop of blood, and, if the financial
772
statements are correct, with little loss, if
any, of treasure, we would not act wisely in
letting pass the opportunity. (Hear, hear.)
I think on the first proposition, that our
defensive position would be strengthened
by this union. First, because were we to
remain as we at present stand, separate
provinces, there would be greater temptation
to the adjoining republic to acquire possession of our territory, believing, as they
undoubtedly would, that this could be done
with advantage and little cost to themselves ;
whereas the magnitude of our national
position, under the Confederation, would be
the means, I am satisfied, of deterring them
from such an enterprise. And I am satisfied,
too, that the people of England would be
more alive to our interests, more willing to
spend their lives and their treasure in assisting in our defence, composing a strong,
united, new nationality on this continent, than
they would if we were to remain isolated
colonial dependencies. (Hear, hear.) I
believe the very intimation of this Confederation has awakened the world to the greatness,
the vastness of the resources of this
country. (Hear, hear.) That these views
are shared in by eminent statesmen in Europe is also a significant fact. Lord HOUGHTON,
on seconding the Address on the late
Speech from the Throne, very emphatically
declared, in regard to that portion in which
allusion is made to Confederation, " that he
was glad of this movement, because he confessed that he believed the future of the
world rested not in isolated municipalities,
but in great empires." And the Earl of
DERBY, too, in his remarks on that occasion,
also said :—
Under the circumstances, I view with the utmost satisfaction that most important step
to
which Her Majesty's Speech refers—the Confederation of the Canadian Provinces. I hope
to
see in that Confederation of the Canadian Provinces a determination to constitute
themselves a
power strong enough, with the aid of this country
(which I am sure will never be withheld from
them), to defend themselves against all aggression.
(Hear, hear.) Now, I ask, what would have
been the consequences if the political combination that has taken place, for purposes
well understood and declared, had not been
made? We have seen the political party
strifes that agitated this country ; we have
seen the bitterness with which opposing
parties contended for office ; we have seen
the business of the country neglected, and
its legislation brought to a stand-still, while
parties assailed each other in our legislative
halls on some personal, individual ground
of malice ; we have seen Lower Canada
refusing to Upper Canada her fair representation in Parliament ; we have seen sectional
and religious difficulties and dissensions growing more and more complicated,
and portending strongly a dissolution of
the union, because we of Upper Canada
could not have much longer submitted to
waive our fair and equitable right to be
represented according to our population
upon the floor of this House. (Hear, hear.)
Looking, then, at the matter from this point
of view, I deem the circumstances opportune
that have opened a way for a solution of the
difficulties that surrounded us, and at the
same time afford a wider and more extended
and ample scope to the people for their
defence, for their commercial, manufacturing and mining interests, and for their social
intercourse. Believing, then, that in respect
to the solution of the political differences so
recently existing, the Confederation of the
provinces is exceedingly desirable ; believing that in order to maintain an honorable
existence, the union has become expedient,
as affording a means of defence against
aggression, I have, I think, at least two
exceedingly strong grounds upon which I
may favor the scheme in a general point of
view. (Hear, hear.) Admitting that Confederation on general principles is a proposition
that admits of being strongly entertained ; that I feel convinced in my own
mind that something requires to be done ;
that necessity demands strong and vigorous
action on the part of the Government to
relieve us from the difficulties into which
political differences have thrown us, to
guard and defend us against difficulties not
only political at home, but warlike abroad—
I am, nevertheless, not one of those who are
willing to accept, without investigation and
careful enquiry, a Constitution cut and manufactured without the measure of the people
it is proposed to fit having been taken.
(Hear, hear.) I desire that the garment of
the Constitution should be made to fit the
people and at their request. (Hear, hear.)
If I had any apprehension that this scheme
was distasteful—was not acquiesced in-was
not endorsed by the people, I should be the
last man in this House to endorse these resolutions ; and I should like every information
afforded to this House that can be possibly
given. I will not, however, pretend to dic
773
tate to the Government of the day what
amount of information they shall furnish
and lay before us. I shall not charge
them with dereliction of duty in not giving
more information. I do not pretend to say
that they should at this stage give further
intimation of the line of policy proposed to
be pursued and adopted by them with regard
to the local governments. They, in their
wisdom, no doubt, have laid down a course
they deem judicious and advisable to pursue,
and which may be so. But at the same
time I reserve to myself the right to be
satisfied or dissatisfied with the reasons
given, and with the information laid before
us, and I conceive no blame can be attached
to the man from Upper Canada who is anxious to know, before he votes for Confederation,
what the results will be to that
section of the country. (Hear, hear.)
Gentlemen will, I hope, take it in no wrong
spirit when I say that upon others than
themselves—upon the young men of this
House and this country—will fall the consequences of this scheme, if carried into
effect, whether beneficial or disastrous ; and
upon us who now cast our votes in its favor
will fall the responsibility, if, after its adoption, the working of its machinery
shall
prove disastrous and injurious to Upper
Canada. I maintain that the merit for the
time being of framing a new nationality will
attach to the few who have conceived and
accomplished it ; and they will no doubt be
removed to places of honor, trust and emolument beyond the reach of the people, while
we shall be left to see that the cog-wheels and
straps and appurtenances of this gigantic
invention are made to adhere to their respective and destined positions. (Hear, hear.)
And woe to us if a wheel becomes displaced,
or a single accident happens in its future
working. Is it then, sir, improper to desire
to see the fullest programme before we enter
upon the play ? Though fovorable to Confederation, we might be unwilling to swallow
some of its indigestible ingredients, if any
such it should, upon examination, be found
to contain. (Hear, hear.) Now, upon examination of these resolutions, I find the first
one
contain I think nothing but that which would
be acceptable and be gladly received by
every truly loyal British subject—a Federal
union under the Crown of Great Britain.
No one has attempted to address this House
but has given the fullest expression of his
desire to see the connection with the Mother
Country maintained and preserved—to see
the great arm of the British Empire, which
we all so much esteem, respect, and admire,
strengthened. (Hear, hear.) It has been
argued here that the British connection will
be endangered by this scheme, that growing
in strength, we shall by and by become independent, throw off our allegiance, become
coveted, and finally swallowed up by the
neighboring republic. I believe the interest
now exhibited in England in our welfare, in
our prosperity, in the formation of our new
nationality—the affection shown for us in
the hearts of many English statesmen, exhibited in their declarations of their belief
in our loyalty, is sincere. (Hear.) I cannot
believe that as we grow great, prosperous, and
valuable, their interest in us will grow less
or be in the slightest degree diminished.
The contrary is the reasonable deduction.
If that nation has been in times past so
solicitous with regard to us ; if when poor,
small, and unknown comparatively, she has
sent her best blood and her richest treasures
for our defence and support, it is unjust to
her now and unreasonable to assume that she
will ever, unless at our own request, abandon, neglect or forget us. (Hear, hear.)
The
recollections of our childhood and of the
anxious care extended toward us will be
ever fresh, I trust, in the mind and
heart and memory of our Island Parent,
and when maturity overtakes us, I am
sure she will not forget the child she
has so loved. I trust not. I see no
occasion for apprehension on this account
in this direction. (Hear, hear.) I see, Mr.
SPEAKER, embodied in this second resolution—if we are to have a union of the provinces—the
only method which I think
could be at all satisfactory to the various
sections It is alleged by some that a legislative union would be desirable. For my
own part, I see many difficulties that would
inevitably arise out of a legislative union,
which it appears to me would be insurmountable. I do not believe that a general
government would be as capable, even if it
were as willing—which I doubt if it would
be—to deal with the local affairs of the different sections as the local governments
would
be. I .believe a general government,
charged with matters of common interest to
the whole country, and local governments
for the provinces, as proposed by this resolution, is best adapted to secure efficiency.
harmony and permanency in the working of
774
this union. The second resolution. too,
opens up a mighty page on our historic
future. It points a significant finger to
the day when millions of inhabitants shall
people the verdant valley of the Saskatchewan,
when railways and telegraphs shall thread
the almost boundless territory of the North-
West, where the war-hoop of the savage alone
is heard. It points to the vast commercial
enterprises yet to be engaged in upon the
Pacific shores, to the rich gold fields of
Columbia and the fertile shores of Vancouver. (Hear, hear.) We rise, Mr. SPEAKER,
in this resolution, from the simplicity of
small colonial dependencies to a vastness in
extent of territory to which the little islands
that compose the mighty Empire to which
we belong are insignificant. We may look
forward, even with hope and pride, without,
I think, too great a stretch of imagination,
to some distant day, when in the rocking of
European thrones, perhaps, we shall be able
to send out our fleets and our armies, gathered from the Atlantic to the Pacific,
to afford
aid and assistance to that very Empire to
which we now, in our weakness, appeal for
support and strength and aid. (Applause.)
Who will say that the conception of this
scheme has not a grandeur about it commending itself to the minds of those who
rise superior to the cries of party strife—
commending itself to the favorable consideration of these who desire to move onward
with gigantic strides to greatness, to wealth,
to a more perfect civilization—to break out
from the narrow grooves of prejudice. and
selfishness, and bigotry, and desire to take to
the broad gauge of an enlightened and
expansive policy? (Hear, hear.) Resolutions three, fear and five I may pass over:
They all have for their tendency the planting
of the roots of the Constitution of this new
nationality in the firm soil of the British
model ; of coupling to the firm car of British
freedom this new nationality, the wisdom,
and expediency and policy of which course is
not attempted to be denied by a single voice
in this House. I pass to the consideration of
the eleventh resolution, which has been the
subject of much discussion among the
people outside of this House, and has been
referred to as one very strong ground for
the rejection of the scheme. Those of the
old Reform party who contended—and I
am sure conscientiously contended—for the
elective principle in the Upper House, ever
jealous as they have a right to be of those
rights and privileges, for which they have
long and ardently contended, see in this
resolution a retrograde rather than a progressive principle—a backward rather than
a forward movement—instead of a salutary
reform, a return to the old-fogyism of the
past, it I may be allowed the expression.
(Hear, hear.) Well, sir, I in some measure agree with those who entertain these
opinions. I would, for my own part, very
much prefer to see the elective principle
retained in the Legislative Council, and I
very much desire, if this scheme is to be
adopted at all, that in pursuance of the
intimation given in the despatch of the 3rd
December, 1864, from the Imperial Government, acknowledging the despatch of this
Government of the 7th of November,
1864, the provinces should enter again
upon the consideration of the resolution respecting the appointment by the
Crown of the members of the Legislative
Council. As this suggestion is one that
comes not from either of the provinces—
arises from no sectional nor provincial prejudices—none of the provinces can well
refuse
to entertain it if they are really actuated by
a desire to arrived at a form of Constitutional
Government based upon principles just to
the several provinces, as is declared to be
their desire in the very first of these resolutions. (Hear.) I will not, sir, enter
into
further details upon this subject ; I will not
discuss the advantages of an lntercolonial
road, or its disadvantages ; but I will simply
say, that in the hour of emergency, when our
position is such that we cannot, we must not
stand still—when we are hurried along by
the resistless power of circumstances—when
dangers threaten, on the one hand, and
bright prospects of greatness lie in immediate unity of action on the other, we should
not descend to the penurious position of
being unwilling to spend a dollar to accomplish a great and mighty project that will
live
in the memory of all future ages—of founding a nationality that will, it may be, exist,
as the learned historian quoted by my hon.
friend from Quebec has said : " When some
traveller from New Zealand shall stand upon
a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch
the ruins of St. Pauls." (Hear.) I would
not, sir, on the other hand, be willing to
adopt a scheme which would, in a financial point of view, endanger the best
interests of Upper Canada ; but I am
assured by the facts and figures intro
775
duced by my honorable friends from
South Oxford and from Sherbrooke, who,
I am sure, do not wish to be taken in
in respect to this scheme any more than I
do, or than any other man from Upper Canada—I am assured, I say, by them, that
our financial position will be benefited by
the Confederation. I have compared those
facts and those figures, and I must confess
I have confidence in their conclusions.
(Hear, hear.) I have heard it urged, sir,
that because some counties in New Brunswick have rejected the men who have
adopted Confederation as a policy, we ought
therefore to abandon the scheme. Well,
sir, we are either bound in good faith to
carry out the engagement entered into at
Quebec or not, and I say with my friend the
Honorable Attorney General West, we are
bound in all conscience and honor, and in
every principle of law or equity, to adhere
to the agreement entered into. (Hear,
hear.) The tu quoque argument is not a
good defence to such a breach of good
faith. What a sorry figure should we
cut, sir, before the Imperial Government
with this argument in our mouths :—
"The Provinces of New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Prince Edward Island broke
faith, violated their pledges, were untrue
to their engagements, and we followed
their example." I think, sir, such a position
would be pitiable, and would tend to lower
as in the eyes of the Imperial Government.
(Hear, hear.) I maintain that the principle
enunciated by my friend the Honorable
Attorney General West is correct ; we
must adopt these resolutions, and we must
take them before the Imperial Government,
in order to maintain the respect of that
Government, in order to maintain the respect
of the Empire, in order to maintain even our
own self-respect. (Hear, hear.) When that
is accomplished, our duty will be ended. If
the Maritime Provinces will not adhere to
the arrangement, we shall have done our
duty, and shall have secured the good-will
and respect of the Mother Country. (Hear,
hear.) Before taking my seat, I will say,
sir, with regard to the putting of the
previous question, I am sorry that has been
done. I am one who is desirous of giving
to every man, of every party, of every
shade of political opinion, the most extensive
scope for the expression of his opinions, the
fairest opportunity of giving them utterance
and of recording his votes, so that they may
appear upon the Journals, ready to be referred
to, in order both to protect himself and to
benefit others. This, sir, is, however, a
technicality.; and however much I may
regret that the question has been put in that
form, I cannot on that account reject the
whole scheme of Confederation. (Hear,
hear.)
MR. GEOFFRION said—Mr. SPEAKER,
when I moved the adjournment last night,
it was not my intention to offer to-day a
general review of the scheme which is under
discussion ; for I am of opinion that it has
been sufficiently discussed to enable the
country to judge of its merits and of its
disadvantages. My intention was rather to
confine myself to certain points in the plan
which, in my opinion, have not been held
up in a sufficiently salient point of view, and
to make a few remarks on what has been
said, both in this House and in the Legislative Council, in relation to the protection
of
the institutions of Lower Canada. In the
Upper House the Hon. the Prime Minister
(Hon. Sir ETIENNE PASCAL TACHÉ), in his
speech of the 3rd February last, said :—
If we obtain a Federal union, it will be
equivalent to a disunion of the provinces, and
thereby Lower Canada will preserve her autonomy,
together with all the institutions which are so
dear to her, and over which she may exercise all
the surveillance which is necessary to preserve
them from danger.
And the Hon. Solicitor General (Hon. Mr.
LANGEVIN), after having explained, in his
way, the resolutions respecting marriage and
divorce, expressed himself as follows, in his
speech of the 21st February last :—
This is an important point, and the French-
Canadian members ought to congratulate themselves on observing that their fellow-countrymen
did not fail in the performance of their duty in
relation to a question of such importance. It is
needless to say that on many other points some
of them will not admit that we performed our
duty well ; but on the point in question, there
can be no difference of opinion, for we have all
a common rule, and, I repeat, they should be
satisfied that their co-religionists in the Conference were not forgetful of their
duty on that
occasion.
It then behoves this honorable House, Mr.
SPEAKER, to see that our national institutions are really protected by the resolutions
which are submitted to us. In order that
this end may be fully attained, it is necessary to define the peculiar features of
our
position as a people. I can say, with the
utmost sincerity, that for my part I have
776
never found any other points of difference
between the English and the French-Canadians who inhabit this country,. but those
arising from their religion, their language,
and their laws ; for we have the same attachment that they have to the British Empire,
and I am convinced that no hon. member of
this House will express a contrary opinion.
(Hear, hear.) This being admitted, Mr.
SPEAKER, I beg to call the attention of the
House to the twenty-ninth resolution. It
reads as follows :—
The General Parliament shall have power to
make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the Federated Provinces (saving
the
Sovereignty of England), and especially laws
respecting the following subjects :— • • •
Then, after a long enumeration of subjects
on which the General Government is to have
power to legislate, we come to the 31st paragraph, which relates to marriage and divorce.
Ou the 2nd July, 1864, the Prime Minister,
(Hon. Sir ETIENNE PASCAL TACHÉ), in the
course of an eloquent speech delivered on the
second reading of the Benning Divorce Bill,
spoke as follows in the Legislative Council :—
I oppose the second reading of the bill, and I
do so on the principle that divorce is antichristian
and antinational. [And after having cited various
passages from the Bible, he continued :] Divorce
is immoral in its consequences, and, worse still, it
destroys society by destroying the family. [And
again :] I should be sorry to wound the feelings
of any one, but we have to protect society in general, and we have certain duties
to discharge.
For my part, I should be acting against my conscience, my religion and my country,
if I did not
oppose the bill. Death alone can dissolve marriage—that is the teaching of the Apostles,
and it
is also the doctrine of all the Fathers and Councils.
On the 9th July of the same year, the Hon-
Solicitor General for Lower Canada, in his
speech delivered in this House on the same
subject, expressed himself as follows :—
If I oppose the bill now before the House, it is
not because I do not believe that the person
petitioning for it has just grounds of complaint,
but because we are asked to do that which is diametrically opposed to my principles
in this matter ;
and because, moreover, I consider that the House
has not the right to dissolve the marriage contracted between the parties interested,
and to
permit them to marry again.
This opinion of the Hon. Solicitor General
for Lower Canada was supported by the
whole of the French-Canadian and Catholic
members, who declared, on that occasion, by
voting even against the first reading of the
bill, that they were opposed to the principle
of divorce ; and their opinion was concurred
in and supported by the greater part of the
newspapers in Lower Canada. The Canadien
said, on that occasion :—
The Divorce Bill was, we regret to say, read a
first time yesterday evening. The division was
61 votes against 42. There is, therefore, no hope
of this antisocial measure being defeated. The
duty of reflecting men, nevertheless, is to warn
society of the danger in which it is placed ; to
protest strongly against the deadly assaults made
upon it. Messrs. LANGEVIN, McGEE and CARTIER
discharged, yesterday evening, that high and important duty, and, as representatives
of Lower
Canada society, they addressed in eloquent terms
warnings to society in Upper Canada.
The Courrier du Canada, with reference to
the same question, said :—
If any one says that the Church is in error when,
for various reasons, she decides that a separation
between married persons, in so far as regards the
marriage bed or cohabitation, may take place for
a definite or an indefinite period, let him be
anathema. That is the doctrine of the Catholic
Church as to marriage, and in this instance, as in
every other, it is in accordance with the laws of
nature, which themselves repel divorce as something monstrous.
The Journal de Québec of the 9th June,
1864, says :—
The question of divorce recurs periodically to
occupy the attention of the House and afflict the
consciences of Catholics. Divorce is the most
powerful agent for effecting the dissolution of
society, for marriage is the social formula ; once
you open the flood-gates of divorce, no matter
under what pretext, how are you to dam up the
tide and prevent it at submerging the whole of
society ?
Now, Mr. SPEAKER, as I said a moment
ago, these were the opinions of all French-
Canadians, and, with reference to this question, I cannot imagine anything to justify
the change of opinion which has manifested
itself amongst a certain number of French
Canadian members and our Catholic ministers
If it be true that a Catholic cannot adopt the
principle of divorce, and if we are in conscience bound to oppose it in our capacity
as
legislators, by voting against every measure
tending to sanction it, I ask how we can vote
for a resolution purporting to vest in the Federal Legislature the power of legislating
on
the subject? The hon. member for Montmorency, in the course of his speech in this
House the day before yesterday, told us that
if it had not been recorded in the resolutions
777
that the Federal Parliament would have the
right of legislating on divorce, that power
would have been exercised not only by the
latter, but by the local legislatures also. The
43rd resolution, article 15, tells us that
property and civil rights, excepting those
portions thereof assigned to the General
Parliament, are to be left to the local governments. It is evident, therefore, that
if it
had not been stated in the resolutions that
the Federal Government was to have the
right of legislating on marriage and divorce,
that power would have remained vested in
the local legislatures.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—And if that resolution had not been inserted in the
scheme, what would have been the effect?
MR. GEOFFRION—The insertion of
that clause places us precisely in the position we should have occupied under a legislative
union. By one section of that clause,
the Federal Legislature is vested with the
power of legislating, not only on the question
of marriage and divorce, but also on the
civil rights of the French-Canadians. It
can, whenever it chooses, attack our civil
laws. The hon. member for Montmorency
admits that the 43rd clause, and paragraph
15, assure the protection of our civil rights,
and says that if that portion of the resolutions had not been inserted, the local
legislatures would alone have had the right to deal
with the matter. Mr. SPEAKER, a single
glance at our civil code is sufficient to convince any one of this. Under article
74 of
title 5, I find the following :—" Marriage is
dissolved solely by the natural death of one
of the parties ; so long as they both live, it
is indissoluble." If it be true that our
French civil law declares that marriage cannot be dissolved by any means whatsoever,
nor
by any authority ; if the right of legislating
on marriage and divorce had not been left
to the General Legislature, no person could
have obtained a divorce and leave to marry
again.
MR. GEOFFRION—What happens? It
is true that the Legislature furnishes us
with precedents, but every time that a
divorce has been asked from the Legislature,
the Catholic members have voted against it.
As the resolutions stand, the Federal Legislature may grant bills of divorce, thanks
to
the insertion of this clause in the scheme.
We are told that this has been done in
order to remove a danger which already
existed in the local legislatures ; but a great
error has been committed ; for, under the new
system, any one can make application to the
General Legislature and obtain a bill of divorce.
And if that right had not been given to the
Federal Legislature, it would have been impossible to obtain a divorce in Lower Canada,
inasmuch as the majority in the Local Legislature will be French-Canadian and Catholic,
and marriage and divorce would be under the
control of that legislature. (Hear, hear.)
The Honorable Solicitor General LANGEVIN
said in his speech—and I fancied that he had
much difficulty in explaining the article relative to divorce, that the Catholic members
of
the Conference were not opposed to that article, and that, though they were opposed
to
the principle of divorce, he admitted that
there were cases in which Catholics were allowed to separate. I cannot help saying,
Mr.
SPEAKER, that this was a very poor argument
for granting to the General Government the
power of legislating in the matter of divorce.
The same resolution says that the Federal
Government is to have the right of legislating
on marriage, and the Honorable Solicitor
General, in his speech, explains that article
as follows :—
The word "marriage" has been placed in the
draft of the proposed Constitution to invest the
Federal Legislature with the right of declaring
what marriages shall be held an deemed to be
valid throughout the whole extent of the Confederacy, without, however, interfering
in any particular with the doctrines or rites of the religious
creeds to which the parties may belong.
I must acknowledge that the statement is
very skilfully made, and to persons who accept it without close examination, I admit
that
it is calculated to convey the idea that the
Government hold that the Federal Legislature cannot decree that a civil marriage is
obligatory, and that a marriage must be celebrated under the Catholic or the Protestant
Church in order to be valid. But any one
who closely examines that portion of the clause
will easily see that it cannot possibly be interpreted in any such sense, and that
the
existence of that clause in the Constitution
will enable the Federal Government to enact
that civil marriage alone shall be valid, so that
children the issue of marriages contracted in
the Church and not ratified by a civil magistrate, will be illegitimate. I maintain
that the
clause is susceptible of no other intrepretation,
and I defy the Honorable Solicitor General for
778
Lower Canada (Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN) to interpret it correctly in any other sense. (Hear,
hear.) He has really given us a magnificent
explanation of the clause, but it seems to me
that as the House is called upon to deal with
written resolutions, we must interpret them as
they are laid before us; the ones cannot
scrutinise the hidden intentions of the Government in the matter. If the resolutions
have an other meaning than that expressed
on the face of them, the House is entitled to
call upon the Government to explain and correct them. The motion now before the House
is as follows :—
That an humble Address be presented to Her
Majesty, praying that She may be graciously
pleased to cause a measure to be submitted to the
Imperial Parliament, for uniting the Colonies of
Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island in one
government, with provisions based on certain resolutions which were adopted at a Conference
of
Delegates from the said Colonies, held at the
city of Quebec, on the 10th October, 1864.
I assert, then, that if we vote this Address, we
cannot complain if the Imperial Government
should declare that the Federal Legislature
shall have the right to legislate on all matters relating to marriage and divorce.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—Not at all. It
will be drawn up here and submitted to the
Imperial Government.
MR. GEOFFRION—If I am not mistaken as to the meaning of the motion, the
Address asks Her Majesty to cause a measure to be submitted to the Imperial Parliament
for the purpose of uniting the Colonies
of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island in
one government, with provisions based on
certain resolutions which were adopted at a
Conference of delegates from the said colonies. Now, if the Imperial Government is
to
adopt the measure, they can do as was done
in 1856, with reference to the Legislative
Council, and we cannot complain if they
should amend it in a sense distasteful to us,
since our resolutions declare that the Local
Government shall have the right to legislate
on property and civil rights, except such
portions thereof as shall be vested in the
Federal Government—and amongst the subjects left to the latter are marriage and
divorce. (Hear, hear.) I know the answer
that will be made to me on this point. It
will be said that it is through party spirit
I am standing up to defend religion, and that
I desire to ead this Honorable House to
believe that by voting for these resolutions we
endanger our religious institutions. But it
appears to me, Mr. SPEAKER, that for all of
us Catholics, the indissolubility of marriage
is an article of religion, and that if the resolutions do not admit that doctrine
of the
Church, they must be rejected by every one
of us. But it will perhaps be asked—"How
does it happen that our Catholic clergy
remain passive whilst one of the dogmas of
our religion is thus being undermined ?" I
deny, Mr. SPEAKER, that the Canadian
clergy are in favor of the Ministerial scheme,
and I am supported in this by the fact that
the petitions sent here against the scheme
were signed by several priests.
MR. GEOFFRION—Several of them have
signed the petitions; I can fancy that some
members of the clergy are in favor of the
project, but I deny that the clergy in general
profess the same sentiments. We have not
received a single petition in favor of Confederation, and every day large numbers
of them
reach us, praying for the abandonment of the
scheme.
HON MR. CAUCHON—Do not drag the
clergy into the debate: we have not done so.
MR. GEOFFRION—Yes, you have done it
The Honorable Attorney General for Lower
Canada said in this House that the clergy
were in favor of the scheme. Now, I maintain that a great many priests are opposed
to
Confederation. (Hear, hear.) I find in the
Canadien of this day a letter written by a
member of the clergy, who expresses himself
in the following terms on the subject of Confederation—
MR. GEOFFRION—If the honorable
member has any doubt on that point, he can
solve it by applying to the honorable member
for the county of Quebec, who is the proprietor of the paper. This is what the reverend
gentleman says:—" The clergy are not in favor
of your Confederation as it is proposed ; a
great many of them, it is true, have faith in
it, and trust in our public men, but a good
many of them also dread it, and would like to
see it amended." It is quite easy for any one
who takes the trouble to reflect on this matter,
779
to understand that among the clergy, as among
the people, there may be a great many persons
who, having always had confidence in the
Lower Canada Ministers, and having been
accustomed to look upon them as the natural
protectors of religion and of our national institutions—are ready to accept the declarations
and explanations made in this House by our
Ministers. Now, these explanations simply
stated that the legislation of the Federal
Government would merely go the length of
declaring the validity of marriages contracted
in any one of the provinces of the Confederation when the parties entered Lower Canada;
but it is evident that if they accept
such explanations, those members of the
clergy who have always had confidence in the
present Ministers are not easily susceptible of
alarm. But if we take the trouble of interpreting that clause of the resolution in
its
true sense, it must be admitted that the legislation of the Federal Government on
marriage
and divorce may in many ways run counter
to our sentiments as Catholics, since it may
declare that marriage is nothing more than a
civil contract, and that religious marriages
contracted either by Protestants or Catholics,
and not ratified by a magistrate, shall not be
valid. Let us now see what will be the effect
of these provisions as regards our laws. The
Honorable Attorney General for Lower Canada gave us a pompous eulogy of our civil
code; he went so far as to state that it was
infinitely superior to the French code, and to
any code he was acquainted with. We are
told that our institutions and our civil laws
will be fully protected, and that the Federal
Legislature can only legislate on the laws of
the other provinces, our civil law's being placed
beyond its reach. If this provision relating
to marriage and divorce be adopted, what will
be the effect on our civil laws? The Hon. Solisitor General for Lower Canada told
us that the
object of that resolution was to render valid
throughout the Confederation a marriage contracted in any one of the provinces. It
seems
to me very extraordinary, Mr. SPEAKER, that
a gentleman in the position of the hon. member for Dorchester, and who, in virtue
of that
position, may aspire to a seat on the bench,
and who already enjoys precedence over the
majority of the Bar of Lower Canada, should
evince such deplorable ignorance of our civil
law. In article 19, title 5 of the
Civil Code,
relative to marriage, I find the following :—"A
marriage celebrated out of Lower Canada between two persons, either or both of whom
are
subject to its laws, is valid, if celebrated
according to the formalities of the place of
celebration, provided that the parties did not
go there with the intention of evading the law."
Thus, Mr. SPEAKER, since the marriage of a
Lower Canadian contracted in another country in accordance with its laws, is valid
in this
country, the explanation and interpretation
given by the Honorable the Solicitor General,
of the clause relating to marriage and divorce,
has no force whatsoever, and the clause may
as well be struck out of the resolutions. (Hear,
hear.) If I rightly understand that clause,
the legislature will have power to deal with a
host of matters relating to marriage; thus it
may change that part of the civil code which
defines the age at which a child may marry
without the consent of parents; it may alter
the mode of contracting marriage, change the
mutual rights and duties of married persons;
it will also have power to modify our civil
code in the matter of our obligations arising
from marriage, in the matter of tutorship,
paternal authority, &c., &c., in fact in a multitude of its provisions. If that be
the great
protection afforded by the new Constitution to
our laws, to our religious and civil institutions,
there is every reason to fear that they may one
day receive a fatal blow. I will now call the
attention of the House, and particularly of the
French-Canadian members, to the forty-sixth
resolution, which relates to the use of the
French language in the Federal Legislature.
It is as follows :—" The English and French
languages may be used simultaneously in
the proceedings of the Federal Legislature
as well as in the Legislature of Lower Canada, and also in the Federal courts and
in
the courts of Lower Canada." A close
examination of this resolution shews at once
that it does not declare that the French
language is to be on the same footing as the
English language in the Federal and Local Legislatures; in place of the word "shall,"
which
ought to have been inserted in the resolution,
the word used is " may," so that if the British majority decide that the
Votes and Proceedings and Bills of the House shall be
printed only in English, nothing can prevent
the enactment taking effect. Of course we
shall be allowed to use the French language
in debate, but on the other hand, it is evident that the majority may, whenever they
choose, enact that the bills and proceedings
of the House shall not be printed in French,
and consequently the clause affords no security whatever to us French-Canadians. I
take it for granted that as regards all the bills
or resolutions of this House, the meaning to
780
be given to words is that given to them by
the law of the country, and I am therefore
justified, when explaining the resolutions before us, in holding to the very letter
of their
resolutions, and it needs no effort of the imagination to discover the intention of
those
who repared them. The provincial statute
22 Victoria, chap. 29, relative to the interpretation of the statutes, says :—" Whenever
by any act it is provided that a thing shall
be done, the obligation to do it is to be inferred ; but when it is said that a thing
may
be done, the power of doing it is permissive."
In the resolutions submitted us, the word
used in the English version is " may," which
is translated into French by the word "
pour-
ront," and it is said that the English and
French languages may be used simultaneously
in the proceedings of the Federal Parliament
as well as in the Legislature of Lower Canada, and also in the Federal courts and
the
courts of Lower Canada. It is easy to see,
then, that the use of the French language is
rendered extremely precarious, and that the
majority may proscribe it in our
Votes and
Proceedings, and in our Legislature. The Lower Canada members who have always supported the Ministry
ought to urge them to insert
a clause in the resolutions declaring that the
French language shall be on the same footing
as the English language ; the guarantee afforded us by the resolutions, as they now
stand,
amounts to nothing. I am not the first to
point out the danger to our institutions and
our laws ; the
Canadien of this city has enumerated them over and over again, and the
honorable member for Montmorency himself,
who quite recently admitted in this House
that he was the editor in chief of the
Journal
de Québec, wrote as follows in that paper on
the 18th January, 1865. After having
spoken of the past conduct of the Upper Canadians, and more particularly of the Honorable
President of the Council (Hon. Mr.
BROWN), he says :—
For Lower Canada there are other questions
still besides the question of money : there are the
religious, social and national questions. Here
it is that the greatest difficulties exist in the way
of the success of the scheme, for a few slight
changes in the letter of the scheme—changes
which will in no way affect the interests of the
other provinces—will cause the project to be
accepted by the immense majority of the population of the country. We do not hesitate
to
say that it is astounding that the Conference
should have approximated so closely to equity,
after a few days only of work, and in the midst
of innumerable obstacles.
It seems to me, Mr. SPEAKER, that if the
honorable member for Montmorency was right
in telling the Ministry that our nationality
and our institutions were in danger, and that
changes were required, we French-Canadian
members are bound to see that the resolutions
submitted to us afford sufficient protection to
those institutions, and that the resolutions
are not written in such a way as to be susceptible of two interpretations. How has
the
discussion of the scheme of Confederation
been conducted in Lower Canada ? In this
way : in the first place, all the Ministerial
journals begged and prayed the people not to
condemn the scheme before being made acquainted with it ; they proclaimed stoutly
that the Government must be allowed to
elaborate its measures in peace, and then,
when the scheme was made public, the same
journals declared that certainly the scheme
must be amended in certain particulars before being adopted by the country, and that
they would be the first to call for these changes,
which, moreover, could be obtained without difficulty from the Administration ; if
not,
they would oppose the scheme as dangerous
to Lower Canada. Even the Mercury made
that statement. It was also said : "The Government will not make a Ministerial question
of the adoption of the scheme as it is ; the
project may be discussed, and if it is found
to involve anything dangerous for our religious and national institutions, that danger
can be obviated by amending the resolutions."
More than that, at the opening of the discussion of the scheme, the Hon. Attorney
General for Upper Canada himself declared
in this House that members might propose
amendments, and that the House would dispose of them. Now what have we seen
since ? We have seen the same Hon. Minister declare that the scheme must be accepted
as it was, and that the Government would
not tolerate any amendment. Is such conduct calculated to inspire confidence in the
scheme, and in the Administration who bring
it forward ? I appeal to honorable members
from Lower Canada, and I ask them if they
are prepared to ratify by their verdict the
unjustifiable course adopted by the Government, and whether it is not their duty to
insist on the Government affording us better
security for our religious and national institutions ? (Hear. hear.) I trust that
the
Lower Canada members will not shirk their
duty, and that they will insist on the Government declaring, in their resolutions,
that
all these things we hold so dear shall be pro
781
tected from the attacks of our adversaries.
Every danger of false interpretation ought to
be removed from these resolutions. If, as it is
stated, our language is to be fully protected
under the new system, I do not see why it is
not so stated clearly in the Constitution.
The explanations of the Honorable Solicitor
General for Lower Canada (Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN) are all very well, but they are not
sufficient, and I should much prefer a written
statement in the Constitution itself, formally
setting forth that these matters shall not be
affected by any legislation of the Federal
Government. (Hear, hear.) I trust the
English members of this House will not take
offence at my insisting on more ample guarantees for our religious and nation institutions,
and that they will see that it is not
through a spirit of hostility to their institutions, and that the same motives that
induce
them to demand more ample guarantees for
their national minority in Lower Canada—
guarantees which were claimed the other
evening by the honorable member for Montreal Centre (Hon. Mr. ROSE)—make me ask
for the same guarantees for my fellow-countrymen.
HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—Will my
honorable friend allow me to say a few words
in explanation ? He said he hoped the Government and members on this side of the House
would admit that his desire was to defend the
religious and national interests of Lower
Canada. The honorable member for Verchères
need not be uneasy on that point. For it
must always be taken for granted—and every
member on this side of the House will agree
with me in this—that every sentiment expressed on the floor of this House by honorable
gentlemen opposite, relative to those questions touching our nationality and our religion,
is frank and sincere, and we, therefore,
feel that in expressing himself as he has done,
the honorable member for Verchères is perfectly frank and sincere. However, I take
the
liberty of answering him on two points. The
first question is that of marriage. The honorable member did not quote the whole of
that portion of my speech which relates to
marriage ; he simply quoted the first part,
but he ought to have given the second, which
is as follows :—
The fact is that the whole matter amounts to
this— the Central Government may decide that
any marriage contracted in Upper Canada or in
any of the onfederated provinces, in accordance
with the laws of the country in which it was contracted, although that law might be
different from
ours, should be deemed valid in Lower Canada,
in case the parties should come to reside there,
and vice versa.
This was merely a development of what I
said. I stated before that the interpretation
I had given of the word "marriage" was
that of the Government and of the Conference
of Quebec, and that we wished the Constitution to be drafted in that sense. The honorable
member for Verchères quoted that part
of the draft of the civil code which states
that one of the articles provides that a marriage contracted in any country whatever,
according to the laws of the country in which it
shall have been contracted, shall be valid, and
he argues from that, that since it was declared
by the civil code, there was no necessity for
inserting it in the resolutions. But the honorable member must be aware that that
part
of the code may be repealed at any time, and
that if this occurred, parties married under
the circumstances referred to would no longer
enjoy the protection they now have and which
we desire to secure for them under the Constitution. I maintain, then, that it was
absolutely necessary to insert the word " marriage " as it has been inserted, in the
resolutions, and that it has no other meaning than
the meaning I attributed to it in the name
of the Government and of the Conference.
Thus the honorable member for Verchères had
no grounds for asserting that the Federal
Legislature might change that part of the
civrl code which determines the age at
which marriage can be contracted without the
consent of parents. Another point on which
the honorable member for Verchères insisted,
no doubt with the view of obtaining information, which I shall be delighted to
afford if it should induce him to vote for the
resolutions—and I am perfectly certain it
ought to be sufficient—is the point as to the
use of the French language under Confederation. The forty-sixth resolution is as
follows :—
The English and French languages may be
used simultaneously in the proceedings of the
Federal Parliament as well as in the the Legislature of Lower Canada and in the Federal
courts
and in the courts of Lower Canada.
The honorable member for Verchères says—
" It is true that the French language may be
used in the Federal Parliament and in the
Legislature of Lower Canada, as well as
in the courts of justice of the Confederation,
but the resolutions do not affirm that
that language may be used in the drafting
of laws and in the Votes and Proceedings Â
of the Federal and Local Legislatures." Well,
782
Mr. SPEAKER, I am quite sure the honorable member for Verchères will ' be delighted
to learn that it was perfectly well
understood at the Conference of Quebec that
the French language should not only be
spoken in the courts of justice, in the Federal
Parliament and in the Legislature of Lower
Canada, but that, precisely as is now the case,
the Votes and Proceedings of the Legislature,
as well as all the Federal laws and those of the
Legislature of Lower Canada, should be printed
in both languages. And what is still more,
under Confederation the French language will
be spoken before the Federal tribunals, an
advantage which we do not possess at present
when we apply to the Court of Appeals of
Great Britain. So that the honorable member for Verchères and (this honorable House
will gladly admit that its representatives at
the Conference of Quebec did not fail in their
duty on that point. These are the principles
upon which the new Constitution will be
based, and I feel justified in going so far as
to say that it was impossible to secure more
effectually this essential privilege of our
nationality, and at the same time our civil
and religious institutions. I was anxious to
offer these explanations to the honorable member for Verchères and to the House, and
I trust they will completely satisfy the
country.
MR. GEOFFRION—The honorable member for Dorchester (Hon. Sol. Gen. LANGEVIN)
has explained to us that the intention of the
members of the Conference of Quebec was,
not only that the French language should be
used in the Federal Legislature and the Local
Government of Lower Canada, as well as before
the tribunals of the country, but that it was
to be a right guaranteed to the French population by the Constitution under Confederation.
The honorable gentleman has also told
us that the word "marriage" inserted in the
resolutions does not signify anything else but
what he explained to the House in his speech,
and that we ought to be happy to see that the
representatives of the French population at
the Conference had thus secured the safety
of their civil and religious institutions. For
my part, Mr. SPEAKER, I must say that I
cannot bring myself, like the honorable member, to see the splendid protection he
vaunts
so highly. If the resolutions now before this
House have any meaning, that meaning is only
to be derived from the strict letter of the
resolutions themselves. It will always be
optional with the British majority to avail
emselves of the letter of the Constitution,
and they may at any time say to us: "You
cannot have it, we oppose it, and the Constitution does not confer on you the rights
you
claim under it." And it will be the more
easy for them to do so from the fact that the
resolution does not affirm that these matters
cannot be disturbed. If the Conference had
any other intention than what appears in the
resolutions, the House should be made aware
of it before being called upon to vote on these
resolutions. For if the intention of the Conference was as stated by the Honorable
Solicitor General for Lower Canada, and if that
intention be carried into effect, the House will
run the risk of discovering that on all the
other resolutions the intention is different
from the letter, and will be in like manner
carried out, for the resolutions must be interpreted as they stand, without reference
to
the intention of the members of the Conference. And for that reason I cannot help
declaring that we French-Canadians would be
guilty of an act of unpardonable imprudence
in adopting a resolution which declares that
the Federal Legislature is to have the right
of legislating on marriage and divorce, and
which merely declares that the French language
may be used in the Federal Legislature.
We French-Canadian members, I repeat it,
ought to insist that the word " shall" be substituted for the word " may" in the resolution
relating to this matter, with reference to the
publication of the proceedings of the Legislature. If this is not done, and if we
do not
take every possible precaution, sooner or later
the English speaking majority in the Federal
Legislature will unite against us on this point,
and enact that the laws shall be printed in the
English language only. And if we rest satisfied with the understanding referred to
by the
Honorable Solicitor General for Lower Canada, we shall be told when we exclaim against
that injustice: "You should have obtained
more full and complete guarantees, and you
should have seen that the Constitution was
made more explicit and more precise on this
point." And we shall have no answer to
make. We must perforce be resigned, and
put up with all the restrictions the majority
may impose upon us. I maintain, therefore,
that it is the duty of the French-Canadian
members of this House to induce the Government to embody the understanding arrived
at
amongst the members of the Conference in
the Constitution, and to require that the
guarantees said to be afforded to us by the
Constitution shall be more clearly expressed
than they are in the resolutions. If we vote
783
these resolutions as they are, we shall vote
without knowing exactly the nature of the
guarantees they afford us. (Cheers.)
MR. RÉMILLARD said—Mr. SPEAKER,
the question of a Federal union of the
British North American Provinces is one
of such importance, that at the present
time it is engaging the attention, not only
of this honorable House, but also of the
whole political world. I consider, therefore, that it is the duty of those to whom
it
is submitted to express, each in his own way,
the reasons which induce them to adopt or
reject the union in question. When for
the first time, in the year 1861, the county
of Bellechasse did me the honor to send me
here as its representative, I had not the
slightest idea that I should be called upon,
in the beginning of 1865, to take part in
the discussion of such a measure, upon
which, in my opinion, our whole future
depends. So rapid, however, is the growth
of events in this age of progress of every
kind, that there is no reason to be surprised
that we are to-day called upon to grapple
with the subject of the political position of
our youthful country. I am prepared at
once to acknowledge, Mr. SPEAKER, that
that position has not for several years past
appeared to me to be an enviable one; and
in fact what has the political aspect been?
Within the precincts of this House we have
looked upon scenes that are to be regretted
and that were of frequent occurrence. We
have looked upon bitter and incessant strife
between our public men on the subject of
certain sectional difficulties, which should
be settled in a friendly way, if it is our wish
at a later period to avoid serious troubles.
We have seen Ministries succeed each other
at intervals of hardly six months—Ministries
which were daily accused, and in many cases
with good reason, of having been guilty of
acts of corruption in order to prolong their
feeble existence. Without these precincts we
have seen public journals filled with personal
attacks and insults of every kind, general
elections every year, carried in many counties by means of fraud, and the fomenting
of
wretched prejudices. (Hear, hear.) To
such a degree had this been carried, that the
people had come to consider it a highly meritorious action to calumniate a member
or a
candidate, and to deprive him of that good
character which he had, in some cases,
acquired by many and great sacrifices.
(Hear, hear.) Honest men can experience
no feeling other than disgust at such a political course, which is inimical to every
feeling
of patriotism, and is fraught with danger to
our institutions. The Canadian people, by
nature brave, intelligent and courageous, are
called upon to play a more noble and a more
worthy part than that. Upon our statesmen,
let them belong to what party they may, it
devolves to provide them with a career which
is suitable to them, without taking into
consideration either prejudices or opinions
expressed at another period and under other
circumstances. ( Hear, hear.) We French-
Canadians especially, if we are desirous of
continuing to enjoy, in the midst of the
various races who inhabit this vast continent
of America, the institutions which have been
so carefully preserved for us, and which are
more precious to us than life itself, require
to seek an alliance with the inhabitants of
the other British. American Provinces, with
which we have interests in common, which
will have, in case of invasion, the same
enemies as ourselves to repulse, and which,
like ourselves, enjoy the advantage of living
under the protection of Great Britain. At
a time when we are, so to speak, threatened
by the United States, ought we to be so
foolish as to disregard the advice which
comes to us from Great Britain, without
whom we could do nothing for our defence,
and to pretend seriously that we can
without danger overthrow the Federal
union which we are discussing, in the
preparation of which our statesmen themselves prescribed the conditions which
they considered to be most equitable and the
best calculated to preserve the interests
which are most dear to all? Should we act
in this way, we should be forming a very
incorrect estimate of our position in relation
to England, and our formidable neighbours
the United States. The distinguished men
who took part in the Conference held at
Quebec in the month of October last, unanimously declared that " the best interests
and
present and future prosperity of British
North America will be promoted by a Federal union under the Crown of Great Britain,
provided such union can be effected on principles just to the several provinces."
The
most eminent men in England have repeated
the same thing, and have approved of the
scheme of the Conference. I do not propose, Mr. SPEAKER, to discuss the several
articles contained in the plan of union; the
honorable members who have preceded me
784
in this debate have, in my opinion, said all
that can be said on each of the articles.
Moreover, the erudite and carefully-weighed
papers on the subject which have been published in this city in the
Journal de Québec
and the
Courrier du Canada have contributed to diffusing a knowledge of the scheme
in no less degree than the numerous
speeches which have been delivered in this
House. Despite the good opinion which I
have of some of the honorable members who
have endeavored to prove to this House and
to the country that the proposed union would
be more disastrous than advantageous in its
results to the several provinces affected by
it, I must acknowledge that their arguments
have not convinced me—I will even say did
not appear to me to be convincing. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. member for Lotbinière for
example, in whom, as he is aware, I have
confidence, and from whom I greatly regret to differ in opinion on a measure
of such importance, is opposed to any
alteration in our present Constitution. He
finds that everything has been for the best.
The following is what he said in his eloquent
speech :—
Let us not be dazzled by the ambition of becoming, all at once, a great people. The
United
States are a great people, but what people, however small it may be, is there which
now envies
their greatness? Let us be satisfied with our lot;
few people have a better.
I agree with my honorable friend to a certain
extent. Like him, I do not envy the lot of
the United States, but I disagree with him
as to the means to be taken to protect us
against our adversaries, even against the
United States, and to preserve our nationality. The honorable member, to prove that
the union proposed would be an evil, quoted
to us the following extract from Lord
BROUGHAM'S work on Political Philosophy :
The Federal union, by keeping up a line of
separation between its members, gives the freest
scope to these pernicious prejudices, feelings
which it is the highest duty of all governments to
eradicate, because they lead directly to confusion
and war.
I may mistake, but it appears to me that
this extract from Lord BROUGHAM'S work is
not so much opposed to a Federal union,
such as that which is proposed to us, as it is
to the existing situation of the French-
Canadians. In fact there is a strong line of
demarcation in this province between the
inhabitants of Upper Canada and those of
Lower Canada; it is that very line of
demarcation which has given rise to the
sectional difficulties which our statesmen
have undertaken to settle in a friendly way.
The leaders of the Opposition themselves
undertook to settle these difficulties in a
manner much less advantageous to Lower
Canada. If then the opinion of Lord
BROUGHAM is to be an authority in this
case, it would be the duty of the Government of this province to remove the line of
demarcation to which I have alluded as existing between the inhabitants of Upper
Canada and those of Lower Canada. This,
I am satisfied, is not what my honorable
friend desires. (Hear, hear.) When speaking of the seven United Provinces (now
Holland and Belgium), the hon. member for
Lotbinière read the following extract from
the first volume of Lord MACAULAY'S History of England :—
The union of Utrecht, rudely formed amidst
the agonies of a revolution, for the purpose of
meeting immediate exigencies, had never been
deliberately revised and perfected in a time of
tranquillity. Every one of the seven commonwealths which that union had bound together
retained almost all the rights of sovereignty, and
asserted those rights punctiliously against the
Central Government.
This is all that the honorable member quoted
from Lord MACAULAY. As may be seen,
Mr. SPEAKER, this author is not opposed to
a Federal union; he simply points out the
defects of the union of Utrecht. That union
had been rudely formed, in the midst of a
revolution, for the purpose of meeting immediate exigencies. But our plan of union
was weighed with deliberation, in a time of
tranquillity, and this tranquillity is certainly
the result of the formation of the present
Coalition Government. Therefore, the author
who has been quoted merely demonstrates
one thing, and that is, that we should be
wrong to await the convulsions of a revolution, or of an invasion, in order to discuss
the bases of a Federal union. (Hear, hear.)
The honorable member for Lotbinière gave
us to understand that the most certain
method of obtaining the friendship of the
Maritime Provinces, and of securing their
sympathy and zeal in case of attack, was, so
to speak, to have nothing in common with
those provinces. I believe, on the contrary,
that Lower Canada would gain by causing
herself to be better known, and by causing
the spirit of justice and of liberality which
prevails among her inhabitants and her
institutions, as they at present exist, to be
785
better known. Does not the best understanding exist between the people of different
origins in all classes of society? We every
day perceive with pleasure, and I am happy
to say it, that Lower Canada has risen greatly
in the estimation of hon. members from Upper
Canada, since it has been their lot to reside
in our midst, and to see for themselves what
our institutions are, and what we are ourselves. (Hear.) I hope that my honorable
friend the member for Lotbinière will forgive
me if I take the liberty of discussing, for a
few seconds longer, certain portions of his
speech; but I am very anxious to convince
him that I listened to him with great attention, and that if he did not succeed in
convincing me, it was from no fault of mine.
To set us on our guard against the proposed
union, the hon. member laid before us a hasty
sketch of the history of Ancient Greece, in
order to shew us the hatred which the
Athenians bore to the Spartans. No doubt
he fears that that hatred, should the union
be consummated, will manifest itself between
the inhabitants of Lower Canada and the
inhabitants of Newfoundland and Prince
Edward Island. He also took us a long
journey through various countries, in which
he pointed out to us frequent insurrections,
échauffourées and troubles of all kinds among
people living under a system of Federal
union, and therefrom he drew the conclusion
that Federal unions are bad and pernicious.
But did the honorable member shew us that
the political condition of those nations, previous to their Federative union, was
analogous
to ours? Did he shew us that the basis of
those Federal unions was similar to the basis
of that which we propose to establish? Did
those unions cause those nations to pass
from a state of prosperity, tranquillity, and
happiness, to the state in which they have
been held up to our view? Were they situated as we are? Had they the same proclivities,
the same tastes, and the same antecedents as we have? Did they, as we do, trace
their descent from the two wisest, the two
greatest nations in the world? Lastly, had
they, as we have, the Crown of England to
protect them? No! they were not possessed
of any of the advantages of which we are
possessed, and no comparison between the
two cases was possible. (Hear hear.)
Besides, Mr. SPEAKER, is it not sufficient to cast a glance at the history of all
countries, to perceive that everywhere, under
all possible institutions, there have arisen, not
only échauffourées, but even frequent wars
and sanguinary revolutions, characterized
by the greatest horrors? Have not the
institutions of England and France been
consecrated in rivers of blood? All these
arguments and reasonings adduced by the
honorable member for Lotbinière are therefore not applicable to the question which
is
submitted to us, and are not of a nature to
change the opinions of those who are in
favor of a Federal union of all the British
North American Provinces. (Hear, hear.)
I now return to certain objections offered by
other honorable members of the Opposition
to the present scheme of the Government.
Thus, they spoke to us of divorce, and tried
to show us that great inconvenience would
result from leaving to the Federal Parliament the right of legislating on that subject.
But they do not remark that by this means
the members from Lower Canada, that is to
say, in the Local Legislature, will be exonerated from taking those questions into
consideration. At the present day, all the
Catholic members from Lower Canada are
opposed to divorce as a matter of expediency
and of conscience, and yet, even in the
existing Legislature, they cannot prevent it.
Why, therefore, blame the Government for
not having prevented in the Federal Parliament that which they cannot even prevent
here?
MR. RÉMILLARD—Has it ever been
very easy to impose in Lower Canada laws
upon the English inhabitants of that province, and to prevent them from obtaining
what they consider as a right? No; it
would have been an act of injustice to
endeavor to force our opinions on this subject
on the English and Protestant population of
Lower Canada; and if an attempt had been
made to do so, Confederation would probably
have failed, because the majority of the
members of the Conference would have maintained their claims, and this would have
been
sufficient to prevent Confederation. (Hear,
hear.) It is not to be urged as a crime against
the Government that they have permitted
the Federal Legislature to have the power
of legislating upon subjects upon which we
ourselves may legislate. For my part, Mr.
SPEAKER, I did not enter upon this question
in order to judge the scheme of Confederation. I have sufficient confidence in the
clergy to admit that on this question they
786
are the best judges, and it is they who ought
to decide whether there is danger or not;
and there can be no doubt but that the
bishops and the clergy have consulted together respecting this article, and that they
came to the conclusion that it is an evil
which there are no means of preventing.
The honorable member for Verchères (Mr.
GEOFFRION) maintained that it was necessary to state clearly in the resolutions what
were the intentions of the members of the
Conference in relation to marriage and divorce,
in order that the Imperial Government may
not impose upon us a Constitution other than
that for which we ask. Now, I have more
confidence than he has in the word of our
public men, and in the sense of justice of the
Imperial Government. Our public men
having made a compromise, and asked a
Constitution for the British North American
Provinces, which is to do away with the
difficulties which exist in the province, are
we for a single instant to believe that when
this scheme, which is framed to reestablish
that peace, harmony and concord of which
we stand in need, is carried to England that
a clause will be inserted which would raise
the Lower-Canadians like one man? In such
a case we should see petitions pour into the
House headed with the signatures of the
principal members of the clergy, exclaiming
against such injustice; in such a case we
should see real petitions against this attack
upon our religious rights. If our institutions
should be so menaced, the Lower Canadian
people would do themselves justice, if it
was refused to them, and we should no
longer enjoy that peace which now prevails
in Canada between populations of different
origins and belief, in consequence of the
absence of disquietude among the people—
(hear, hear)—I have confidence enough in
the clergy and bishops of Lower Canada to
believe that if that clause, on which so much
stress is laid, was of a nature to do any
injury to our religious interests, they would
loudly exclaim against it and have justice
done us. Our bishops are not in the habit
of standing in fear of the civil authorities,
when their duty calls them to defend the
interests which are entrusted to them.
(Hear, hear.) It is stated also that the
clergy are not in favor of the scheme of
Confederation, because two or three of its
members have written in newspapers and
have signed petitions opposed to the scheme.
But is that a manifestation of the opinion of
the clergy? No; for they do not write in
the name of the clergy, but simply in their
individual capacity as citizens; for they sign
their writings under their title as citizens.
Certain members of the clergy may differ
widely in opinion from the remainder of
their brethren; as citizens they may believe
that the scheme of Confederation is a bad
one, but those who hold that opinion are
certainly a minority, just as in the House it
is the minority of the members who are
opposed to Confederation. (Hear, hear.)
Mention is also made of the use of the
French language; it is said that it cannot
be used in the Federal Parliament. But,
for my part, I am of opinion that if the
scheme is adopted, the French language will
be more used and will be held in higher
estimation in the Federal Parliament, than
it has been in this Legislature for some
years. It is feared that the laws, the
documents and the proceedings of the
Federal Parliament are not to be printed in
the French language. But what does the
46th clause of the resolutions say? It says :—
Both the English and French languages may
be employed in the General Parliament, and in
its proceedings, and in the Local Legislature of
Lower Canada, and also in the Federal courts,
and in the courts of Lower Canada.
Thus, if the use of the French language can
be excluded, so also may the use of the
English language be excluded, for both are
on an equal footing. Because it is not
stated that the laws and the proceedings of
the Federal Parliament shall be printed in
the French language, the conclusion is
drawn that they will be so in English; but
the same thing might be said of the English
language, as it is not stated that they will
be printed in that language. The hon.
member for Verchères (Mr. GEOFFRION)
would have something more; instead of the
resolutions setting forth that the French
language may be used, he would have them
declare that it shall be used; in that case
the members from Lower Canada might be
compelled to speak French; but are the
Upper Canadian members also to be forced
to speak that language, they who do not
understand a word of it? I should be with
the hon. member for Verchères if we could
compel Lower Canadian members to speak
French, and Upper Canadian members to
speak English, as in that case each would
learn the language of the other. I am really
of opinion that if the Hon. Attorney General
787
for Lower Canada had never spoken anything
but French in this House, the members
from Upper Canada would have learned that
language in order to understand him; but
as he wishes to make them understand him
without putting them to that trouble, he
most frequently speaks English. (Hear,
hear.) It is said that in the resolutions
the guarantees which we seek to have for
our language, our laws and our institutions
are not clearly enough expressed, and that
the Imperial Government might, consequently, confer upon us something other than that
for which we ask. But could not the Imperial Government impose Confederation
upon us as it did the union? And as it
does not do so, but is merely desirous of
being consulted, we ought not to believe
that it will impose upon us conditions which
are opposed to our interests.
MR. RÉMILLARD—Certain hon. members consider our present position an excellent
one, and say they do not wish it altered.
But that is not the opinion of the greater
number, and nearly all the hon. members of
the Opposition have declared that changes
are indispensible and necessary. The hon.
member for Hochelaga has acknowledged it,
and has expressed his opinion on the subject.
When I was a supporter of the MACDONALD-
DORION Administration, I understood that
the members of that Government were of
opinion that changes were necessary, and that
we could not very long remain in our present
position. The hon. member for Hochelaga
has admitted that the opinion of Upper
Canada must be respected, and that to it
would have to be granted representation
based on population; and the influence of
Upper Canada made itself felt by the MACDONALD-DORION Administration; it made
itself felt especially when, just before the
last general elections, it became necessary
to oust the Honorable Mr. SICOTTE from the
Ministry to satisfy Upper Canada. By
means of Mr. SICOTTE, elections had been
secured sufficiently advantageous in their
results to overthrow the CARTIER-MACDONALD Administration, to which I was opposed,
because I did not wish to see a coalition
between the parties, and because I considered that that Government had made too free
a use of the public money. But I foresaw
that sooner or later I should return to the
Conservative party, from which I had detached myself in consequence of the extravagant
conduct of two or three of its leaders,
and in consequence I was then elected without the assistance of any party. Alone I
strove with the Conservative party in my
county. I was faithful to the friends with
whom I went at the time, and I do not regret
that I went with them; so long as they
stood in need of me, I supported them in
order that they might avail themselves of
circumstances to bring about a change in the
financial affairs of the country. I would not
change my party then, but matters and circumstances having changed, I consulted my
friends in the county which I represent,
and I was then able to go with the men
whom I consider able to protect and preserve
our institutions and the interests of the
country in general. For this reason I am
prepared to accept the scheme of Confederation prepared by them, for I have more confidence,
as regards the preservation of our
rights and our institutions, in the men who
are now in power than in those with whom
I formerly worked. (Hear, hear.) I cannot do otherwise than declare it. It is not
my wish to insult any one; I merely state
the reasons which have decided me to go
with them; and as I find that it is always
necessary to be in favor of one party or the
other in this House, that is to say, for that
one which is considered to be the best,
I do not hesitate to state my opinion and to
declare myself in favor of the Conservative
party. (Hear, hear.) It was my intention
to reply to the speech of the hon. member
for Richelieu (Mr. PERRAULT), but I perceive that my ideas do not flow rapidly, and
moreover, I do not wish longer to fatigue
the House.
SEVERAL VOICES—Go on! go on!
MR RÉMILLARD—Well, I listened
with pain to the language used by the hon.
member for Richelieu. Should what he
said in French be repeated by some one in
English, I should greatly fear that it would
give rise to prejudice against us among the
English members. (Hear, hear.) Last
year he said to the members from Upper
Canada,—" The French-Canadians are learning the use of arms, and if you insist upon
having representation based upon population,
they will be turned against you;" and this
year he says that one Lower Canadian can
stand against ten Upper Canadians. He
considers himself fortunate in being under
788
the protection of the English flag, and yet
his whole speech was one insult to the
English Government. (Hear, hear.) Does
he forget, then, that the French-Canadians
are in a minority ? He talked a great deal
about the great men who saved our nationality ; but if those men had made use of
such language as the hon. member has done,
they would not have obtained that which
they did obtain. (Hear, hear.) Our
nationality would long since have passed
away ; for, I repeat it, his whole speech was
one insult to England and Englishmen.
Fortunately his speech was not understood
by the English members of this House, and
consequently it could produce no effect upon
them ; and those who did understand him,
moreover, are aware that he spoke for
himself alone, and that he does not represent the opinions of the Lower Canadian
members or of the Lower Canadian people.
I am therefore convinced that they will bear
no ill-will to the French-Canadians in consequence of that speech. (Hear, hear.) It
has been said that the scheme of Confederation would entail the imposition of enormous
taxes, and that we should have to provide
for the defence of the country. And yet
most of the hon. members who oppose this
scheme acknowledge that the defence of the
country must he provided for, or at least
that we must contribute our share to it.
Under the present régime, the Government
has the right of presenting a bill respecting
the militia or the defences, and the members
may accept it or may reject it if they consider it too burdensome for us ; and will
the
case be different in the Federal Parliament ?
We shall lose nothing, under Confederation,
in respect of defence, for we shall have allies
who will assist us in economising and in
preventing the adoption of any measure
which would be beyond the strength of the
country, for the people of the other provinces are no fonder of taxation than are
those of Lower Canada. It is perfectly well
known that any change in our position would
be only to our advantage, under Confederation, in relation to defence ; for if the
United
States should attack the English provinces,
they would attack all the provinces together ;
they would probably begin by attacking
Canada, because they think more of Canada
than of the Lower Provinces. In case of
difficulties arising between England and the
United States, the burthen of war would
fall upon us, for we should he first attacked.
It is, therefore, our interest to be able to
receive aid from the Maritime Provinces,
and to be able to convey the reinforcements
which they would send us, and which England would send us, by railway. As regards
defence, I am of opinion that Lower Canada
would be found to occupy the most advantageous position in the Confederacy, being
situated in the centre of all the provinces.
(Hear, hear.) In a material point of view,
we could not but grow and advance. The
annexationists of the district of Montreal
only are afraid of Confederation. Indeed,
all the commercial transactions of the dis»
trict of Montreal are with the United States.
But if we are not desirous of being annexed
to the United States, and if we are desirous
of preserving the institutions which are so
dear to us, I maintain that we must construct a Confederacy which shall be competent
to protect us from the United States.
If we will do nothing to show England that
we are disposed to improve our position in
relation to the defence of the British North
American Provinces, we expose ourselves to
see England withdraw her forces and abandon us, because she cannot, unaided, carry
on the strife with the United States. With
our help, she would be certain of victory.
(Hear, hear.) We ought, therefore, to build
up a Constitution which will establish such
relations between all the provinces as shall
make of them a single state and a single
people, who will unite in case of war. We
may change our Constitution without altering our institutions, and I maintain that
the
more monarchical our government is, the
safer will our institutions be, for in those
institutions the monarchical principle especially predominates. It is in consequence
of
our having always been at peace that those
institutions have grown and prospered. If
England should abandon her colonies. the
United States would take possession of us,
and we should soon disappear, for the American Constitution is not sufficient to protect
our institutions. The citizens of the United
States would show but little respect for
those institutions, and the law would not
be powerful enough to prevent the masses
from spreading themselves in our midst, and
from depriving us of what we hold most
dear. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, I say
that I unite with pleasure with the men
who are now proposing a scheme which
I consider to be of a nature to preserve our
institutions, our language, our laws and our
789
religion. with that great party which possesses the confidence of a large majority
of
the inhabitants of this country. (Cheers.)
DR. PAQUET —Mr. SPEAKER, although
I am not in the habit of addressing the
House, and although the question now under
consideration has already been discussed at
great length, I cannot allow so important an
occasion to pass without making known the
reasons which induce me to protest against
the constitutional changes which are now proposed, and which tend to nothing less
than
the complete overthrowing of the Constitution under which we have been governed
since the union of Upper and Lower Canada.
Since the prorogation of Parliament in June
last, I have endeavored in vain to explain to
myself the advantages which we, Lower Canadians, would derive from Confederation,
and
I had lost myself in the motives and the object of a union of this kind, when I had
the
opportunity of reading in the speech of the
honorable member for Sherbrooke that " the
scheme of Confederation had not been a new
question since the days of Lord DURHAM,
that only the question of carrying it into effect was wanting." After having read
this
significant passage, I set myself to work to
study and ascertain what were the tendencies
and spirit which actuated Lord DURHAM,
and more especially, what object he had in
view. I did not take long to convince myself,
as any Lower Canadian member may do on
reading his celebrated report, that everything
he had in view was calculated to secure our
annihilation as French-Canadians, and that
he desired neither more nor less than to subject us to a ruling power exclusively
English.
When we see, Mr. SPEAKER, the hon. members from Upper Canada rejoicing over such
a scheme, and declaring themselves so much
the more satisfied from the fact that they
would obtain, by this fine stroke of policy,
more than they had at first hoped for, when
the honorable member for Lambton (Mr. A.
MACKENZIE), whilst avowing, as he has always done, that his views are but incompletely
expressed in the language which I am
about to read, there is reason for some little
alarm. This is what that honorable gentleman
said in the House the other night :—
I believe then, sir, in the first place, that Confederation is desirable ; in the
second, that it is
attainable ; and in the third place, that it is the
best thing we can get, and this last is perhaps
the strongest reason of all for accepting it. It is
quite clear that we must have a settlement of our
difficulties in some way, and I think the scheme
proposed is a very favorable settlement of them.
think it is more than, perhaps, some of us expected, at the time when the present
Government
was formed, to bring about a settlement, and I
do think, sir, it would be the greatest act of madness that western members of this
House could
perpetrate, to vote against it. (Hear, hear.) I
am not, however, afraid that it will be voted
against by them. I believe that under it we have
obtained representation by population, that we
have obtained what we have long contended was
justly due to us, that we have obtained our legitimate influence in framing the financial
policy of
the conntry, and that beyond this we have obtained the prospect of building up a great
British
union on this continent. We should therefore, I
think, in view of these great advantages, overlook
those objections which may be regarded as antecedent to the scheme, and endeavor heartily
to
carry out the work successfully. I shall willingly
yield my support to the scheme, and I believe it
will be acceptable to the people I represent—not
only to the people of the locality, but to those
who surround me in Upper Canada.
If, Mr. SPEAKER, honorable gentlemen from
Upper Canada are permitted to give utterance to such opinions as these, I hope that
my fellow-countrymen from Lower Canada
will permit me to vindicate their rights.
(Hear, hear.) But let us proceed to examine
this Confederation, to which the practical
question is alone wanting. I read from the
report of Lord DURHAM :—
I entertain no doubts as to the national character which must be given to Lower Canada
; it
must be that of the British Empire ; that of the
majority of the population of British America ;
that of the great race which must, in the lapse of
no long period of time, be predominant over the
whole North American continent. Without
effecting the change so rapidly or roughly as to
shock the feelings and trample on the welfare of
the existing generation, it must henceforth be the
first and steady purpose of the British Government to establish an English population,
with
English laws and language, in this province, and
to trust its government to none but a decidedly
English legislature.
A little further on in the same report, I read
as follows :—
If the population of Upper Canada is rightly
estimated at 400,000. the English inhabitants of
Lower Canada at 150,000 and the French at
450,000, the union of the two provinces will not
only give a clear English majority, but one which
would be increased every year by the influence of
English emigration ; and I have no doubt that
the French, when once placed, by the legitimate
course of events and the working of natural
causes, in a minority, would abandon their vain
hopes of nationality. (Hear, hear.)
790
HON. MR. CAUCHON—He was in error.
That all related to the Union Act and to
nothing else.
MR. PAQUET—Yes; it had reference
to the beginning of the end. (Hear, hear.) A little further on I read as follows :—
A general Legislative union would elevate and
gratify the hopes of able and aspiring men.
They would no longer look with envy and
wonder at the great arena of the bordering
Federation, but see the means of satisfying
every legitimate ambition in the high offices of
the judicature and executive government of
their own union.
Again I find the following passage :—
But even in the administration of justice, an
union would immediately supply a remedy for
one of the most serious wants under which the
provinces labor, by facilitating the formation of
a general appellate tribunal for all the North
American colonies.
And again :—
The completion of any satisfactory communication between Halifax and Quebec would,
in fact, produce relations between these provinces that would render a general union
absolutely
necessary. Several surveys have proved that a
railroad would be perfectly practicable the whole
way.
And thus we come to the Intercolonial Railway; and it is easy to perceive that Lord
DURHAM, from the beginning to the end of
his report, preaches in favor of the very Confederation which we are about to have
imposed upon us. Even before Lord DURHAM,
Judge SEWELL, in 1814, had expressed opinions nearly similar to those of the noble
lord,
and in 1839 the whole of the present plan of
Confederation was traced out. The honorable
member for Montmorency pretends that Lord
DURHAM was mistaken ; but for my part I
find, in addition to the other causes of reproach
which have been accumulated against the
members of the Conference, we may urge this,
that they did not give Lord DURHAM credit
for the work he had already done, and that
they did not endorse upon the scheme of
Confederation now laid before us the words
" True copy of the scheme of Lord DURHAM
as set forth in his report to the British Government." (Hear, hear.) French-Canadian
nationality has been talked about. Lord
DURHAM speaks of it in his report in the
following terms : "The error of Lower Canada consists especially in that vain attempt
to
preserve a French-Canadian nationality in the
midst of Anglo-American states and colonies."
When is the imposition of a new nationality
spoken of, if not at the time when it is sought
to snatch from a people that which it already
possesses ? There will be opposition, I trust ;
for otherwise, Mr. SPEAKER, I cannot comprehend the logic of honorable members who
emphatically declare that they will stand by it
at any risk. I am well aware that the nationality of a people cannot be changed by
a
mere act of the Legislature ; but why should
obstacles be placed in our path, why should
we submit to the yoke of the oppressor, when
there is no legitimate ground for imposing it
upon us ? Another reason which gives me
good ground for hoping that the work of
destruction will not be accomplished in a
hurry, as desired by the honorable members
of the Administration, is that it is a difficult
matter to ostracise a people which numbers
more than a million. The example of Belgium suffices to prove it to us, and also that
of Greece, which, after three centuries of tyranny and oppression, stood up manfully
and
exclaimed, " We are still Greeks." I am
confident, then, that following their example,
in defiance of all the constitutions that may
be framed for us, and of all the vexations to
which we may have to submit, we also shall
come out triumphant from our trials exclaiming, " We are still French-Canadians."
(Hear,
hear.) The honorable members of the Government, and especially those from Lower
Canada, ought not to forget, either in our
interest or in their own, that a generation
which detaches itself from the generations
which preceded it runs the risk of being repudiated by the generations which come
after ;
that social existence is not concentrated in a
single period, that it influences the future.
These honorable gentlemen would do well to
reflect on this before imposing upon us the
practical question of Lord DURHAM. Passing
now, Mr. SPEAKER, to the financial question,
I regret that I cannot agree in the views
expressed by the honorable member for Dorchester (the Honorable Solicitor General
for
Lower Canada), who claims to have expressed
an official opinion on this head. Although he
has aflirmed that he drew them from authentlc
sources, the results which he has obtained
from his calculations ditfer from those which
I have obtained, founded upon the figures
which he has made use of to establish his
proposition. He has declared that we shall
have a surplus of $200,000.
MR. ERIC DORION—And he added
that we should be in a position to lend the
amount.
791
MR. PAQUET—I shall now submit to this
honorable House a statement of the expenditure which will be incurred by the
Government of Lower Canada :—
| Administration of justice ............ |
$364,785 |
| Deducting the salaries of the judges. . |
50,000 |
|
$314,785 |
| Education. ....................... |
254,000 |
| Scientific institutions ............... |
5,900 |
| Hospitals and charities .............. |
124,949 |
| Board of Arts and Manufactures ..... |
3,500 |
| Agriculture ....................... |
50,000 |
| Repairs and public buildings ......... |
15,000 |
| >Colonization and roads ............. |
113,000 |
| Timber cullers......... |
35,000 |
| Office and other contingencies ....... |
77,000 |
| Public works ....................... |
30,000 |
| Slides ............................ |
15,000 |
| Surveys ........................... |
30,000 |
| Court houses and gaols ............. |
10,500 |
| Rent of site of Parliament house. . . . |
4,444 |
| Legislation ..... . .................. |
200,000 |
| Executive Government ...... . ...... |
100,000 |
| Public departments ................ |
100,000 |
| Public lands ....... . ............. |
37,000 |
| Publication of the laws ............. |
20,000 |
| Elections ......................... |
15,000 |
| River police ....................... |
30,000 |
| Unforeseen expenditure ........... |
10,000 |
| Interest on the Federal debt, share of |
|
| Lower Canada.. ................. |
300,000 |
| Total expenditure ............ |
$1,885,078 |
| Local revenue estimated at about. . . . |
1,400,000 |
| Deficit ...................... |
$485,078 |
These figures are taken from the Public
Accounts for last year. Subtracting from
that sum the estimated amount of the
revenue of the Local Government, instead of
a surplus there will be a deficit of $485,088;
and I ask you, Mr. SPEAKER, how are we
to meet it otherwise than by direct taxation,
or by diminishing the public appropriations,
which are by no means excessive now?
(Hear, hear.) If we do not adapt the latter
alternative, there will remain, I say, no
other means than direct taxation. The Hon.
Minister of Finance, moreover, told us
so expressly, in these words :—
The Federal Legislature will have power to
impose any system of duties which they may
think proper to meet the expenses of its administration, whilst the local 1egislatures
will be
obliged to have recourse to direct taxation for
the same purpose, if their revenues prove insufficient.
For my part, Mr. SPEAKER, I affirm that
the country is not ready to submit to such a
state of things, and in this matter, as also
upon the scheme itself, I am quite certain
that I express the opinion of my county.
(Hear, hear.) A third point, which I would
humbly submit for the consideration of the
House, is the expediency of pressing for
the adoption of this measure before an appeal has been had to the people. I believe
and I hope that the House will have too
much respect for itself and for the people to
vote at once upon the resolutions now submitted to us. If, however, public opinion
is
not to be regarded, I flatter myself that
at all events precedents will not be treated
with contempt. We find in the History of
Canada, by CHRISTIE, that in 1823, when a
proposition was made in the Lower Canadian
Parliament to effect changes in the Constitution, the following decision was come
to
by the Government of Lower Canada, and
the paragraph I am about to read formed
part of the Speech from the Throne :—
I am commanded to inform you that His
Majesty's Ministers proposed to Parliament certain alterations in the act thirty-first
George the
Third, chapter thirty-one, principally with a view
to unite into one the two legislatures of Upper
and Lower Canada; but the measure was withdrawn and postponed to the next session,
in order
to afford an opportunity of ascertaining the sentiments of the people of those provinces
upon it.
(Hear, hear). In the same history we find
another example, which will, I believe,
strongly support me in the position I have
taken :—
In 1839 Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice in
the House of Commons, on the 3rd June, of
certain resolutions which he intended to submit
relating to the projected union of the Canadas.
He was, however, induced, on the suggestion of
Sir ROBERT PEEL, to waive them, and at once to
introduce his bill for the purpose. In domg
which he stated it to be his intention to carry it
only through a second reading, in order that it
might undergo discussion, but that having received a strong protest on the part of
Upper
Canada, against the intended union, he did not
deem it advisable to legislate that session finally
on the subject.
Here we have another fact which proves that
in England, in 1839, the measure was
opposed at its second reading, and that a
year was given to the Canadian people to
reflect upon the merits of the proposed union
of the two Canadas. (Hear, hear.) I trust
then, Mr. SPEAKER, that what was done in
1839 will again be done in relation to the
792
project of Confederation. For these reasons
I am of opinion that the Government ought
not, in the first place, to humiliate us by
taking from us the privileges to which we
are entitled, then ruin us by a scheme which
must triple the expenditure, and lastly, fail
in the respect which they owe to the people,
by refusing to consult them before changing
the Constitution. If I am not greatly mistaken, the party which is seeking these constitutional
changes is the very party which
calls itself Conservative, who obtained their
elections to preserve and guard the Constitution, and which has always opposed us
because, it exclaimed, we were the allies of
the hon. member for South Oxford (Hon. Mr.
BROWN), to whom, said they, we were ready
to concede representation by population, the
powerful lever which was to endanger all
our civil and religious institutions. Well,
what do these hon. gentlemen do to-day ?
Instead of preserving the Constitution, they
change it and indeed destroy it, by granting
to Upper Canada preponderance in the representation. I prove this by citing the following
extract from the speech of the Hon.
Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. GALT) :—
Now it became necessary to introduce into the
constitution of the Lower House the principle of
representation proportioned to population ; for
without that, Upper Canada, who has so long
demanded this reform, would never have consented to enter into the Confederation.
If Upper Canada would never have consented to enter into the Confederation without
representation by population, then she has
obtained it, as she has consented to enter the
Confederation; and why say that that measure
has not been conceded ? In conclusion, I
affirm that the proposed Confederation of the
provinces is only a Legislative union in disguise, and I will cite the language made
use
of a short time ago by a man well known
throughout the country for his talents and
his eloquence, at a meeting, held in the city
of Montreal, to condemn the Ministerial
scheme, that the present Confederation is
but the chrysalis of a Legislative union, and
that the butterfly would not be long in
making its appearance. (Cheers.)
MR. O'HALLORAN—Before proceeding,
Mr. SPEAKER, to offer a few observations on
the resolutions in your hands, I may say
that if I had any hesitation in pronouncing
on the merits of this scheme, I might have
taken a preliminary exception to the jurisdiction of this House to pass this measure.
You,
sir, and I were sent here to make laws, not
legislatures. (Hear, hear.) We were sent
here to work out the Constitution of this
country—not to undermine and destroy it.
There is not an elector from Gaspé to Sarnia,
however humble he may be, who has not just
as much right to pronounce upon this question as you and I have. Therefore, if it
were
my wish to shirk this question, which it is
not, I could justify myself by saying it was
no part of my mandate, or of the compact
between me and those who sent me here.
When we assume the power to deal with this
question, to change the whole system of Government, to effect a revolution, peaceful
though it be, without reference to the will
of the people of this country, we arrogate
to ourselves a right never conferred upon
us, and our set is a usurpation. But I rise
not for the purpose of discussing this scheme
in detail, as it has already been discussed so
fully—and I cannot possibly say much which
may not already in substance have been
said, and much better said than I could
expect to say it—but I rise to record my
protest against the usurpation which this
House, in my humble opinion, is guilty
of in undertaking to pass this measure, or,
so far as in its power lies, to impose upon
the people of this country a Constitution contrary to their wishes—a Constitution
which
they will never have an opportunity of
seeing, until they are called upon to submit to
it and obey it. I rise to protest also against
this parliamentary gag by which the attempt is made to suppress free discussion in
this House, and to compel it to adopt against
its will, or against its reason and judgment,
a measure with which, perhaps, a very large
number of the honorable members of this
House have no real sympathy. It is no
answer to me to say that I may express my
views freely—that I may fully discuss this
question. It is no answer to say that I have
the privilege of pointing out the defects of
this measure, if I am denied the privilege of
obtaining the sense of this House, and of putting on record what I may consider its
objectionable features—if I am denied the
right of submitting to the House substantive
motions and resolutions, which might perhaps
meet the sense of the majority of this House,
and which at all events would afford to the
people of this country the opportunity of
knowing the views of the honorable members
of this House upon possible amendments
which might be proposed to this measure. At
an early period of this session, I gave notice
793
of substantive resolutions which, however little they might have met the sense of
the majority of this House, express the views of a
large majority of my constituents. It
would interest them to see how far those
views met the approbation of the representatives of the people here ; it would interest
them to know how far honorable gentlemen
from Upper Canada are prepared to go to insure to the English speaking minority of
Lower Canada those rights and liberties
which they claim for themselves ; it would
afford us some criterion by which we might
measure the degree of protection we should
find in the Federal Parliament, from possible
oppression in our Local Parliament. For if
honorable gentlemen from Upper Canada, on
the floor of this House, will not hear us today, if they manifest an indifference
to the
injustice about to be inflicted upon the English speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada
by the proposed Constitution, what guarantee
have we that similar selfishness may not mark
their conduct after we shall be powerless to
rebuke it? I will read those resolutions which
I had designed to propose, for the purpose of
obtaining the opinion of the House on a
modification of this measure, which, if it
must be adopted, might possibly have been
so amended as to remove many serious objections now entertained to it by a large portion
of the people of Lower Canada. They are
in these words :—
Resolved, That assuming the Federal system
of government to be a political necessity in a
union of the British North American provinces,
any Confederation of those provinces which ignores the difference of race, language
and religion of the inhabitants of the respective states or
territories sought to be thus united, and is not
framed with a view to secure to the inhabitants
of each such state or territory the management
of their own local affairs, in accordance with
their own peculiar views and sentiments, is unwise and inexpedient, and not conducive
to good
government, or to the peace and tranquillity of
those for whom it is framed.
This resolution I put forth simply for the
sake of shewing the idea which I had in my
mind, without, I am free to confess, any
expectation that the particular modification
which I was about to propose would meet the
sense of the majority of this House, but as
giving an indication of the direction in which
the English-speaking inhabitants of Lower
Canada would consider that their interests
might be best preserved. The second resolution I designed to propose is as follows:—
Resolved, That with a view to secure to that
portion of the inhabitants of Lower Canada speakin the English language, the free
exercise and
enjoyment of their own ideas, institutions and
rights, in any proposed Confederation of the provinces, Canada should be divided into
three civil
divisions, to wit : Western, Central, and Eastern
Canada.
Why is it that objection is made to a legislative union ? The reason why so large
a portion of the people of Lower Canada of French
origin will not consent to a legislative union,
is the very reason that makes it desirable to
the English speaking population of Lower
Canada. We are in favor of a legislative
union. We desire that Canada should be a
united people, ignoring sectionalism, and basing our institutions upon one broad principle
of Canadian nationality, which shall blend all
races, and in time obliterate all accidental
distinctions of language, religion, or origin.
Our French-Canadian fellow-subjects will not
consent to this. If they will not hear our
arguments, let them listen to their own. If
Federalism is necessary for the protection of
their rights, it is necessary in a tenfold degree
for the protection of the rights of the English
speaking minority. They tell us we may rely
upon their well-known liberality and toleration.
We cannot consent to hold our liberties by
mere sufferance, when we are entitled to hold
them by right. It would be unworthy of us
to submit to such humiliation. In these
remarks which are forced from me, and which
I am compelled to make in defence of the
rights and liberties of those who sent me here,
I mean no disrespect to those of another origin
—to the French-Canadian honorable gentlemen whom I see around me. (Hear, hear.)
In many respects I sympathise with them,
and have always sympathised with them. I
desire to live among my French-Canadian
fellow-subjects in peace. I desire to maintain
those amicable relations which have always
subsisted between the English-speaking and
the French-Canadian populations of Lower
Canada. As I said before, I sympathise with
my French-Canadian fellow-subjects in many
respects. I respect their character, I admire
their laws. But this antagonism is not courted
by me. It is forced upon me. Let me call
the attention of honorable gentlemen, more
especially of those from Upper Canada, to
the position in which this proposed Constitution now before the House would place
the
English-speaking people of Lower Canada.
I may say at the outset, that although they
number only one-fourth of the population,
they pom at least one-third of the property,
794
and pay one-half of the taxes. The French-
Canadian differs very materially in many
respects from the Englishman, or the Anglo-
Saxon. He is more simple in his habits,
more frugal in his mode of life, and less disposed to novelty. He is content to ride
in a
carriage of the same fashion as that of his grandfather. He is wedded to his institutions,
his
old customs, and old laws. It is different
with the English-speaking people. They are,
as a people, more extravagant, more eager for
novelty, and in many other respects widely
different from the French-Canadians in their
tastes and habits. Of course a comparison
would be invidious, and I do not desire
to institute one. But I am not at liberty
to ignore the facts. Let us see how, under
this proposed Constitution, the English-speaking people would be placed in reference
to
their peculiar interests and their peculiar
ideas. In the first place, I would desire to
direct your attention to the 14th resolution,
by which it is provided how, especially after
the local governments are established, the Legislative Council of the General Government
is to be constituted—by its members being
appointed by the Federal Government on the
nomination of the respective local governments. We must bear in mind that in this
Local Legislature which will be imposed on
Lower Canada, the English element will not
certainly be more than one-fifth in number.
Under these circumstances, and under the
peculiar provisions with reference to the powers
granted to the local governments, by which
the legislative councillors are to be appointed
by the General Government on the recommendation of the local governments, and in the
case of Lower Canada, when its Local Government will be four-fifths French-Canadian
and
only one-fifth of English origin, think you
how many English members from Lower Canada would ever find their way to the Legislative
Council ? How would it be possible,
when the Legislative Council is to be appointed on the recommendation of the Local
Government, and that Local Government
four-fifths French-Canadian, for the English
element to obtain fair representation in the
Legislative Council ? When, I say, would an
English-speaking inhabitant of Lower Canada ever receive such a recommendation, unless
he approved himself more French than
English ? (Hear, hear.) Again, by the
23rd resolution, it is provided that "the Legislature of each province shall divide
such
province into the proper number of constituencies, and define the boundaries of each
of
them." How easy would it be, under the
provisions of that clause, for the Local Legislature to snuff out one-half of the
English constituencies in Lower Canada. They might
arrange their bounds in such a manner that
the English-speaking element would be confined within very narrow limits. There would
be a few constituencies left entirely English,
but the English population would thus be
deprived of the influence which their numbers
and wealth should give them in the Local
Legislature. (Hear, hear.) Again, the
Local Legislature will have power to alter or
amend their Constitution from time to time.
We to-day may frame a Constitution—the
English-speaking majority in this House may
frame a Constitution which would give proper
protection to the English-speaking population
of Lower Canada. But, by this scheme it
will be in the power of the local legislatures
to change that, and to modify it so as to suit
it to the wishes or prejudices of the French
majority. We would be powerless, after we
leave these halls, any longer to conserve our
rights, and the privileges which this Parliament might give us may be taken away at
the
very first session of the Local Legislature.
Then look at the powers which, under this
Constitution, are conferred on the Local Government. The first I find is the power
of
direct taxation. In the case of all governments, thc power of taxation is the most
important power they can possess. It is that
which concerns all portions and all classes of
the community, and which gives rise to the
greatest controversy, and the greatest amount
of difficulty. It is the most important of all
legislative powers, and this power is to be conferred on the Local Legislature of
a province,
where one nationality has four-fifths of the
numbers, and the other nationality contributes one-half of the taxes. Then the
Local Legislature is to have the control
of immigration—a very important subject
which deeply interests the English-speaking population of Lower Canada—but they
would have no voice in framing the measures
which might be adopted for directing and
controlling that important matter. Then
the Local Legislature is to have the control
of education. And what subject can there
be of greater importance ? And what subject is there which might be a source of
greater strife between the two nationalities,
which by this provision would be brought
into antagonism ? Even under our present
system, with sixty-five Upper Canadian English-speaking members, who would naturally
795
be expected to sympathise with the English-
speaking peeple of Lower Canada, it is a
crying grievance with the latter that they
cannot get such legislation on the subject of
education as they desire. What, then,
would they have to expect if they went into
a Legislature where four-fifths of the representatives were of a different nationality
and
a different religion, and whose prejudices
and interests were in opposition to the claims
of the one-fifth minority ? (Hear, hear.)
Then the Local Legislature is to have control of " the establishment, maintenance
and
management of hospitals, asylums, charities,
and eleemosynary institutions." Now it is a
positive fact, as I have stated before, that the
English-speaking population of Lower Canada, on account of their wealth and expensive
mode of living, their extravagant habits,
their desire for change and progress, their
different ideas generally from the French-
Canadians, consume more than one-half of
the dutiable goods that are brought into this
country, and pay one-half of the taxes ; and
yet the money which they would pay into
the public chest would be distributed by a
majority over whom they had no control—a
majority who would not in any manner sympathise with them ; and their taxes would
be
applied to objects which they might not deem
desirable—which they might, perhaps, consider detrimental to their interests. And
they would be completely without remedy,
should this proposed Constitution unfortunately be imposed upon them. (Hear, hear.)
It is painful to me to be compelled to refer
to these matters. It is not with pleasure
that I bring before the House the antagonism
which would inevitably arise between the
two nationalities, should they be brought
together into one Legislature, with such a
vast disproportion between their means of
taking their own part We are told, and
told very truly—I rejoice that it is the fact
-that hitherto the two races in Lower Canada have lived in peace. But it would be
impossible that they could any longer live
in peace; it would be impossible that with
such a disparity of numbers, and with such
antagonistic interests they should not come
into conflict. It would be a constant warfare, and this new Constitution, instead
of
settling the sectional difficulties in this
country, instead of bringing peace to this
country, instead of removing jealousies
and heart-burnings, would have the very
opposite effect. From the fact that the
field of conflict would be smaller, that the
arena would be more circumscribed, the
strife would be all the fiercer. You are not
bringing peace, but a sword. (Hear, hear.)
MR. POWELL—Does the leader of the
Opposition in Lower Canada assent to that?
(Hear, hear.)
MR. O'HALLORAN—It is not my province to inquire what any hon. gentleman
assents to or dissents from. What I have
to do is to see that the interests of those who
sent me here are not put in jeopardy. And
it will be for the leader of the Opposition to
see that he too, on his part, faithfully discharges his duty to those he represents.
But, sir, the English-speaking people of
Lower Canada are to be amused, and their
attention is to be diverted from a full examination of those serious matters which
press
themselves upon our consideration, by
cleverly drawn abstractions and sophistries,
such as new nationalities—union is strength
—a great empire—and the other plausible
pretexts that are attempted to be imposed
upon them. It would be easy to refute and
show how baseless are all these schemes of
greatness with which the people of this
country are sought to be misled. We are
gravely asked : " What man would remain
poor, when he could at once become rich ?
What man would remain weak, when he
could at once become powerful ? Who
would be diminutive, when by merely taking
thought he could add cubits to his stature
What people would continue to be a mere
colony, when by the stroke of a pen they
could at once become an empire, under a
new nationality ?" Sir, these sophistries will
not impose upon the people of this country.
Where is the demonstration furnished us
that by this scheme you would add one
dollar to the wealth of this country, or
one human being to its inhabitants, or one
inch to its territory ? We do not find it
afforded during the course of this debate. I
have listened attentively to the arguments
in favor of the scheme, but no attempt has
been made to demonstrate these things. It
has been repeatedly stated that we are about
to consolidate the strength of this country,
in order to resist invasion ; but I should like
to know in what manner such an end is
promoted by this measure. Are we not
already united under one Government? Are
we not already living under the control of
the same executive power? Do we not fight
under the same flag, and pay allegiance to
796
the same Sovereign? Is not every man in
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland,
and Prince Edward Island just as much
under the control of the head of our Government as the inhabitants of this province?
It is all sophistry this idea that we are going
to increase the strength of this country by
the proposed union with the Lower Provinces An attempt is made to alarm us
by sensational rumors about invasion, and it
is stated that we must put forth every
possible strength to save ourselves from
being swallowed up by the neighboring
republic; and we are gravely told that
through the action of a number of self-
constituted delegates assembled around a
green table, and adopting certain resolutions,
the whole of the physical laws relating to
our country are to be changed. Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island are to be
brought up into Lake Ontario, and the
whole of our territory is to be compacted,
consolidated and strengthened. Our extended frontier is no longer to be exposed to
attack, and, if attacked, will be much more
easily defended. Is not this the most absurd
sophistry? Can paper resolutions change
the laws of nature, or modify the physical
geography of the country. Will not Newfoundland be as isolated from this province
after Confederation shall have been adopted,
as it is to-day? I think, sir, it is generally
admitted that Canada is unequal to the
defence of its own frontier against invasion
from the only quarter from which it is
apprehended. It is also admitted that the
Maritime Provinces are alike unequal to the
defence of their own frontier. By what
process then will you demonstrate to me,
that by adding the frontier of the Lower
Provinces to that of Canada, and by adding
the force of those provinces to our own,
there will not be the same defencelessness
as at present? Will there not be the same
disproportion between the defensive power
and the object to be defended? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SPEAKER, in the first place I perceive
no immediate necessity for those constitutional changes. I think that our present
Constitution is ample for the wants of the
people of this country, and that all the difficulties, either real or imaginary, under
which
we labor, might be solved within the limits
of our present Constitution. I consider all
our difficulties to be merely sectional, arising
neither from differences of religion, of origin,
of language, or of laws. On examination it
will be found that they are merely fiscal
difficulties, and that they arise from the fact
that our General Government does not confine itself to the true end and object of
its
existence. Do away with your local grants,
and your absurd system of compensating for
one improper expenditure by the creation of
another. Let there be no expenditure for
merely local purposes, or for purposes that
do not preperly come within the functions of
the General Government. (Hear, hear.)
By what rule of right, for instance, are
the inhabitants of Upper Canada called
upon to pay for the redemption of the
seigniorial tenure of Lower Canada; and
what right has Lower Canada to be called
upon to meet the extravagant municipal
indebtedness of Upper Canada? If our
difficulties arise from differences of language
and races, how comes it that the English-
speaking people of Lower Canada have so
long harmonized and sympathized with the
extreme Ultramontane party of Lower Canada?
(Hear, hear.) I think you cannot find any
reason for it, except on the supposition that
they remain united for the purpose of
maintaining their sectional power and influence, under a system by which the
common exchequer is deemed a legitimate
object of public plunder. Each section
seems to have always regarded the public
chest as fair game; and it is undeniable that
Lower Canada has generally had the best
of it. These things caused dissatisfaction
in the minds of people from other sections
of the country, and they undertake to form
combinations for the purpose of obtaining
from the public chest similar undue advantages. The remedy for this state of things
is to deprive the Legislature of the power
to make grants for local objects. Let
there be no revenue collected more
than is absolutely necessary for the
general expenses of the country, and
let it be distributed for these general purposes with due economy, and we shall hear
nothing more of sectional difficulties. (Hear,
hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, in connection with
this same idea, I find in my own mind
another very important consideration connected with the administration of the
government of our country. It has now, I
believe, ceased to be a crime to "look to
Washington." Not long ago, the term
"looking to Washington" was one of reproach. But that time has passed away,
and our friends on the other side of the
797
House have not only looked to Washington,
but absolutely gone there, and imported the
worst features of the republican system for incorporation in our new Constitution.
While
they were doing this, I regret very much
that they did not import from Washington,
or from some other parts of the United States,
their ideas of economy in the administration
of the fiscal affairs of the country. (Hear,
hear.) I regret they did not import from that
country a very important principle prevailing there, to the effect that the Government
of the day shall impose as few burdens upon
the people as possible. To-day, sir, we are
paying the man who stands at that door to
admit you to this chamber a greater annual
salary than is paid to the Governor of the
State of Vermont. We are paying the man
who stands in that corner with his paste
brush to wrap up our papers, more than the
indemnity allowed to a United States senator. We pay the Governor General a greater
allowance than is received by the President
of the United States of America. We are
the most heavily taxed people, and pay larger
salaries for the work performed, in proportion to our resources, than any other people
in the world.
MR. O'HALLORAN—It has been said,
and it seems to be thought a strong argument in favor of this scheme, that we must
do something; that our affairs cannot with
advantage go on in the same channel in
which they have been doing; and that there
is a necessity for some change. It is made
a complaint that legislation is obstructed by
party strife, and that the country suffers
for the want of new laws. Sir, if there
is one vulgar error in political economy
more false and unsound than another,
it is that the prosperity of any country
depends on the amount of its legislation.
We have, as a general thing, too much legislation. If I may use the term, we are legislated
to death. And when I have seen bills
pouring into this House by the hundred at
every session, I have said to myself :—
"What, in Heaven's name, will become of
this country if all these bills should, by any
possibility, ever become law? " (Laughter.)
The idea seems to prevail, that in this country even the grass cannot grow unless
its
growth is regulated by an Act of Parliament.
No charge in the Constitution of this country
will remedy the difficulties of which you
complain, for they have their source within
ourselves. It is honest, economical administration you require, not legislation, or
a
change in our form of Government.
"'Bout forms of government let fools contest,
That which is best administered is best."
You may remove your seat of government to
Ottawa, and increase your Legislature from
130 to 194 members, . but you will find the
same difficulties under any system of government which you may adopt, so long as you
continue extravagant sectional expenditure.
Those difficulties will still meet you in the
face, so long as the legislature or legislatures
of the country are permitted to exercise
functions that do not properly belong to a
general government; so long as you refuse
to compel localities to meet their own local
expenditure by local means, you will find the
same causes producing the same effects in
Ottawa as in Quebec. CĹ“lum non animam
mutant qui trans mare currunt. (You but
change your skies by the proposed constitutional changes.) I remarked, at the outset,
that I must deny to this House the right to
impose on this country this or any other
Constitution, without first obtaining the
consent of the people. Who sent you here
to frame a Constitution? You were sent
here to administer the Constitution as you
find it. Throughout the length and breadth
of British North America, there is not one
other government that has dared to arrogate
to itself the right of changing the Constitution of their people without consulting
them,
except ours. I am surprised, sir, that even
this strong Government of ours have dared
to assume this power, when, sooner or later,
they must go before the pe0ple of the country.
(Hear, hear.) There comes to my hand,
this evening, a resolution proposed by the
Honorable Attorney General of Newfoundland in the Legislature of that colony. It is
instructive as shewing that there was one
uniform sentiment, throughout all the Lower
Provinces, in favor of submitting the question
to the people. It was so submitted in New
Brunswick—it met its fate. It is now about
to be submitted to the peeple of Nova Scotia. The Administration ol this province
have been wiser in their generation than
those of the Lower Provinces. They did
not dare to submit it for the consideration of
the people—a course which, if not exhibiting
wisdom on their part, shows, at the least,
that skill and craft in public matters for
798
which most of them have become famous.
(Hear, hear.) The resolution I have referred to, and which embodies the policy of
the
Government of Newfoundland on this question, is as follows :—
Resolved,—That having had under their most
serious and deliberate consideration the proposal
for the formation of a Federal union of the British
North American Provinces, upoh the terms contained in the report of the Convention
of delegates, held at Quebec, on the 10th of October
last—the despatch of the Right Honorable the
Secretary of State for the colonies, dated December 3rd, 1864—the observations of
His
Excellency the Governor in relation to this subject in his opening Speech of the present
session
—and the report of the Newfoundland delegates—
this committee are of opinion, that having regard
to the comparative novelty and very great importance of this project, it is desirable
that before
a vote of the Legislature is taken upon it, it
should be submitted to the consideration of the
people at large, particularly as the action of the
other provinces does not appear to require that
it should be hastily disposed of, and as (the
present being the last session of this Assembly)
no unreasonable delay can be occasioned by this
course ; and they, therefore, recommend that a
final determination upon this important subject
be deferred to the next meeting of the Legislature.
(Hear, hear.)
AN HON. MEMBER—That is the report
of a committee.
MR. O'HALLORAN—Yes, it is the
report of a committee ; but it was submitted
to the Legislature by the Hon. Attorney
General as the policy of the Government.
Of course, if the resolution is not carried in
the Legislature, then the scheme is doubly
defeated. In this little, petty province,
whose interests, as compared with ours, are
of trifling importance in relation to the
scheme, the Government considers that the
question is one of sufficient moment to
demand that before the slightest action is
taken upon it by the Legislature, the people
should be consulted ; but in this large
province, with its comparatively large population, and with important interests to
be
affected, the scheme is to be hurried through
without allowing the people to have a voice
in the matter, or even to have time for its
consideration. (Hear, hear.) They are to
have no voice in determining what kind of
government they and their children are to
live under for years to come. Mr. SPEAKER,
I know very well that it is a bold declaration
for me to make, that this Parliament has no
right to deal with this question; but, sir, I
make it not hastily nor unadvisedly, because
I defy honorable gentlemen to find a precedent for their proposed action in any free
country under similar circumstances. We
are not living to-day in a time of revolution or of great emergency ; but, even
if our circumstances were different, I
doubt very much if any of the precedents
that have been referred to, as having occurred many years ago and in troublous times,
could again be practised or adapted, even in
England, from which country we draw all
our precedents. The precedents which have
been invoked in approval of the course that
has been adopted by the Government prove
too much. If they form a justification for
the course we are pursuing, then you might
prove by the same means that this House
had the power to perpetuate its existence
beyond the limit fixed for the termination
of the present Parliament, or vote ourselves
members for life. We might just as well
constitute ourselves life members of the
Federal Legislature of the proposed Confederacy, as to take the action that is contemplated.
I know that it is represented as
very important that the measure should be
carried-into immediate operation ; but that is
a matter of mere expediency, and has nothing
to do with constitutional principles. (Hear,
hear.) The Irish union has been triumphantly referred to as a precedent for this
measure. To my mind it is a most unfortunate one, and little deserving of our imitation.
Let me show you how this matter
has been regarded by one, whose authority
will not be disputed. I read from MAY'S
Constitutional History of England, page 505
of the 2nd volume. Speaking of the union of
Ireland with England, he says :—
A great end was compassed by means the
most base and shameless. GRATTAN, Lord
CHARLEMONT PONSONBY, PLUNKETT, and a fev
patriots, continued to protest against the sale of
the liberties and free Constitution of Ireland.
Their eloquence and public virtue commanded the
respect of posterity ; but the wretched history of
their country denies them its sympathy.
This, sir, is the judgment of the impartial
English historian upon the means by which
this great national crime was consummated,
and it is the just enconium on the noble
few whose patriotic efforts failed to prevent
it. I read it, in anticipation, as the future
history of the wrong now about to
perpetrated on the people of this country;
and while it implies, on the one hand, in no
doubtful terms, the well-merited praise of
799
the small band who stand here to-night for
the rights of the people, in opposition to this
scheme, it pronounces, on the other, the
just condemnation of those who trample on
those rights, and who forget, in the pride of
their brief authority, who it was that raised
them to the positions they occupy, not that
they might coerce, but carry out the will of
the people, the only rightful source of all
political power. ( Cheers.)
MR. J. S. ROSS—I will not attempt to
address the House at any great length at
this late hour of the evening, as I think
it very desirable that this debate should be
brought to a close at as early a day as
possible; and believing that that is the
prevailing opinion in this House, I shall
endeavor to be as brief as I can. The hon.
gentleman who has just taken his seat has
referred to one matter on which I shall not
at present say anything, on which I shall
not commit myself. I suppose that it will
be very well understood what I refer to,
without my alluding to it more particularly.
But there was another statement which he
made—that there was no necessity for any
change—on which I shall dwell shortly, and
endeavor to show that there was a necessity
for a change. It must be in the recollection
of every hon. member in this House, that
one year ago affairs were in such a state-
such difficulties presented themselves, that
legislation was becoming almost impracticable.
No better proof of this could be desired
than that the Government of the day found
themselves so surrounded With difficulties in
the House, that they declared themselves
unable to carry on the administration of the
affairs of the country in a satisfactory manner. Now, why should a Government
possessing so much talent and ability as
that Government did, make that declaration,
if there was no necessity for it? (Hear,
hear.)
MR. ROSS—Although I always entertained a very high opinion of the honorable
gentleman who was Premier of that Government, I differed from him politically. Then,
Mr. SPEAKER, there is another matter to
which I shall refer, to show that this House
did acknowledge that there were difficulties
in the way. A motion was made by the
honorable member for South Oxford for the
appointment of a committee on constitutional
changes. That committee reported to this
House, and I will just read the last paragraph of that report in support of what I
have said :—
A strong feeling was found to exist among the
members of the committee in favor of changes in
the direction of a Federative system, applied
either to Canada alone, or to the whole British
North American Provinces, and such progress
has been made as to warrant the committee in
recommending that the subject be again referred
to a committee at the next session of Parliament.
Now, this was signed by twelve gentlemen,
and among them I find the honorable member for Chateauguay, who then declared that
there was a necessity for some change. I
think, Mr. SPEAKER, that this clearly shows
that the matter was not brought upon us in
a hurry, that the scheme now before us is a
subject which has been looked forward to for
some time. When we refer to that period,
we find that the Government of the day
placed their resignations in His Excellency's
hands, a new Government was formed
which met the House on the 3rd of May,
and on the 14th of June they were
defeated. At that time, I believe, they
had obtained from His Excellency permission to dissolve the House. An effort
was made, however, to effect a change in the
Administration, in order that it might command a majority of this House, and be
enabled to carry on the business of the
country. After some time, a reconstruction
was effected, and in the programme which
the present Government adopted, they did
announce that they would take up this question, and that when they met the House the
next session, they would be prepared to lay
before the House a measure for the purpose
of removing existing difficulties, by introducing the Federal principle into Canada,
coupled with such provision as will permit
the Maritime Provinces and the North-West
territory to be incorporated with the same
system of government. If there were
objections to a change, why were they not
made at that time? Did not the House
commit itself, then, by receiving it without
any objection ? Hence I think that the Government pursued a manly, straightforward
course in coming down and announcing what
their scheme was ; and whether that scheme
is a good or a bad one, they have redeemed
their pledges; they have met this House
with a scheme for the Confederation of the
British North American Provinces. (Hear.)
Whether this scheme is all that we could
desire or not, is perhaps a matter on which
800
we shall not be unanimous. I for one, ever
since I have thought anything about politics, have always looked forward to the time
when such a scheme as this might be carried
out. I have been an advocate of a legislative
union. I think that is the correct principle,
but I am not ashamed to say that I am open to
conviction, and in dealing with a great
question like this we must not expect to
have everything to meet our own views; we
must be prepared to make concessions, and
take the best we can get. (Hear, hear.)
We know the hesitation with which the
Constitution of the United States was
accepted; that WASHINGTON—the father of
that great country—expressed himself, as
well as many other eminent persons, against
it, but accepted it as the best that could be
had. We find the same expressions falling
from the gentlemen of the Conference which
prepared this measure. They believe that it
was the very best that could be had under
the circumstances. (Hear.) Now, if we
look for one moment at the work of the Conference which met here in Quebec, whether
the scheme is what we all could desire for the
benefit of the country or not, we must admit
that the gentlemen who composed that Conference were men of ability, men of mind,
men who have for years been the guiding
spirits of public affairs. (Hear, hear.) And
the honorable gentlemen from the Lower Provinces stand in their respective provinces
equally high with those who represented Canada, and I am ready to believe that the
delegates who composed this Conference approached the question in a spirit of the
truest patriotism, with the honest endeavor to
settle the difficulties of the country, and
in the hope that the scheme would be acceptable to the people, and be the means of
bringing us together, and consolidating and building up in this part of the glorious
Empire,
a government that would be lasting and
stable. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) And, Mr.
SPEAKER, I think there has been nothing
that has proved more acceptable, or that has
been better received by the people of the
country. (Hear, hear.) So far as I am concerned, I took the opportunity of bringing
the subject before my constituents, and when
I read the first clause of the resolutions—
" The best interests and present and future
prosperity of British North America will be
promoted by a Federal union under the
Crown of Great Britain, provided such union
can be effected on principles just to the several provinces," sir, it met with their
hearty
cheers. (Hear, hear.) Although I have not
the honor to represent one of the largest
constituencies in Upper Canada, yet I represent one that I am proud of—the people
of the good old county of Dundas are sound
at the core; they do glory in British connection, and nothing would induce them to
support me or any other representative who
would give an uncertain answer to the question of whether we should retain that connection
or not. (Cheers.) Sir, I believe that
the time is upon us, when we look at the surrounding difficulties, for us to make
some
change, and there is an uncertainty in the
minds of Canadians at present that we ought
to get rid of, and the sooner we approach the
subject the better. The sooner we find out
that we have a great future to establish, that
we have a country here of which we may feel
proud and rejoice in, I think, sir, the sooner
that state of things is brought about the better. (Cheers.) Not only in a Canadian
point of view is this desirable, but also for
the sake of our position alongside of our
neighbors, with whom, I am sure, we all desire to remain at peace, if they will only
leave
us in quiet amongst ourselves. That is all
that we desire, but at the same time it is
well that these people should understand that
we have no desire whatever, not the most
remote intention, of connectin our destinies
with theirs. (Cheers.) Now, Mr. SPEAKER,
it is said that this matter is new, and that it
is forced upon us. I recollect reading, some
years ago, most able letters written by Hon.
Mr. HOWE, of Nova Seotia, addressed to
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, to show how necessary
this union was.
DR. PARKER—I would like to ask the
honorable gentleman if those letters were not
in favor of a legislative union?
MR. ROSS—I think they were; but I believe that if he—the writer of them—had
found himself at Quebec as one of the delegates, he would have done just as they did.
Again, I find that at another time in our country, in 1849, in the city of Kingston,
one hundred and forty gentlemen, chosen by the people—the ablest and foremost men
of the country, and presided over by a gentleman who
has since left this state of action—a gentleman of high mind, and universally respected
—I mean the late Hon. GEORGE MOFFATT—
that organization, the British League, acknowledged that to lay a basis for the future
of
this country, a union of the British North
American Provinces was essential. (Cheers.)
If I had time, sir, I could show that se
801
periods in the House of Commons, the union
of these provinces has been spoken of as what
must eventually take place. And since the
subject has been under discussion in this
country, I have read with the greatest satisfaction, in the press of the United States,
articles showing the advantages of this union;
and in particular one very able article in the
Chicago
Times, in which the writer pays the
people of this country a high compliment for
the foresight with which they are seeking to
protect their interests in the future. (Hear,
hear.) There are other authorities to which I
could refer to show the advantages of a union
of these provinces. Whether Legislative or
Federal unimportant—union is strength, and
union is desirable if we expect future growth
and greatness. I think the arguments are
in favor of a legislative union. When we approach the subject fairly, we must acknowledge
that it is not reasonable to suppose that the
people of the Lower Provinces should prefer
a Federal to a Legislative union. I can quite
understand why they appreciate the advantages
of the local parliaments; to ask them to give
up their whole machinery of government, and
to place themselves in the hands and at the
tender mercies of a people who would have
the commanding influences in the legislation
of the country, and with whom they are comparatively little acquainted, would be asking
rather too much. here is also some reason
to fear why a legislative union would be too
cumbersome. Many think that too much of
the time of the Legislature of the country
would be taken up with the local business of
the different sections of the province. I
believe, after this machinery has been
well in Operation, and after we have become better acquainted with each other , that
we
shall find we can work together, and that
this has been a movement in the right direction,
by bringing together the people from all parts
of the country. We she find that our
interests are better understood, indeed that
they are one ; it will be the more easy to do
away with the local parliaments, and to merge
them all into one. (Hear, hear.) Then, sir,
there will be this advantage from the present
scheme—we shall have the machinery for
governing the whole country in existence; and
it will be easy for those who desire it—if in
the wisdom of the people who will be living
under the institutions of the country at that
time, it is thought desirable—the necessary
machinery will be in existence for consolidation,
and the change will not be of that radical nature
that it would be at the present moment. Take
another view of the case, which I believe will
be borne out by the facts; if we are united—
if we shew to the world at large that we have
resolved upon a more enlarged sphere of existence for the future— the population of
this
country will increase to such an extent, that
there will be work enough for the local governments as well as for the General Government.
I think, also, that the system will have
the effect of inducing, on the part of the local
administrations, a spirit of emulation in the
way of conducting their respective governments as cheaply and as economically as possible.
I have no doubt, too, that when the
local parliaments are once established, the
peeple will see the advantage of material
changes in the municipal institutions of the
country; those institutions being to a greater
degree subordinated to the local governments. At all events, these are all matters
for future consideration, and possibly for
future action. (Hear, hear.) I shall now,
Mr. SPEAKER, refer briefly to the question of
Confederation in a commercial point of view.
It is stated that in this respect no benefit
will accrue to the country—that there will be
no increase of trade between the provinces.
But I ask this House to look at the matter in
this light—and I am sorry to say that we
have good reason for so viewing it—there
can be no doubt of the fact. The United
States have given notice of the abrogation of
the Reciprocity treaty, and there is too much
cause for the apprehension that the bonding
system will also be done away with. Well, if
we are cut off from all these facilities and advantages, what is our position ? We
are cut
off from the ocean for six months of the year,
and in this respect our position of dependency
on a foreign power is a most humiliating one.
(Hear, hear.) The construction of the Intercolonial Railway has been insisted upon
as
a commercial necessity, and although it may
be an expensive work, I think the time has
come when it must be built. I may briefly
state my own sition in regard to that undertaking. When the appropriation was
brought up for the Intercolonial Railway survey, so strongly was I opposed to that
scheme
at the time that I voted against it. But, as
I have already stated, I now see the necessity
for it. I believe the time has come when this
railway should be constructed. (Hear, hear.)
I hope it will be constructed in a proper and
economical manner, and, when it is built, I
believe that in a commercial point, our position will be greatly improved. (Hear,
hear.)
It is impossible for any honorable gentleman
to shew that by means of that railway no
increase of trade will spring up between the
802
different provinces. Western Canada is decidedly an agricultural country ; it has
a large
surplus of grain, and it must find an outlet
for it. Shut out from the United States, and
deprived of winter communication, where are
we to go? To store and house it throughout
the winter months would be a great cause of
loss. It is said that the export of grain during
the winter is not profitable. But do not the
United States ship continuously large quantities of flour and products to England
and to
other parts of the world in the winter season ?
And what should hinder us from pursuing
the same course if we have the Intercolonial
Railway ? (Hear.) Hon. gentlemen may
attempt to argue that such is not the case, and
endeavor to conceal the fact; but I firmly
believe it to be the policy of the United States
to introduce coercive measures, with the view
of making us feel that our commercial interests
are identified with them, and I believe they
will continue that course of policy towards
us, not perhaps to the extent of immediate
invasion and attempted subjugation, but I
fear that their policy will be one of a restrictive kind, so as to make us feel as
much
as they can our awkward position of dependence. Such, I believe, is their policy.
They
do not intend immediate invasion, but instead of that, they will, so to speak, put
on
the screws, in order, if possible, to make us
feel that our interest is witn them and not
separate from them. (Hear, hear.) I can
very well see and very well understand the
meaning of this desire to annex Canada, although many have maintained that such is
not their wish. Going back to the early history of the United States, I find that
even in
the articles of Federation of the United
States, it is provided by the 11th article
that Canada, acceding, shall be entitled to
participate in all the rights and privileges of
the union, whilst they refused to allow any
other country to come in unless with the consent of nine states. The war of 1812,
too,
evinced a strong disposition on the part of
our neighbors to attach Canada. And I believe that the statesmen of the United States,
in our own day, are animated by the same
far-seeing policy in regard to this country,
and that they are now applying a little gentle
pressure to make us feel that our interest is
no longer to remain isolated from them, but
to connect our destiny with theirs. Not long
since I listened to a certain lecture in this
city, in which it appeared to me that inducements were purposely and designedly held
out for us to connect our destinies with those
of the people of the neighboring States. It
was said that the great cause of difficulty in
the United States was now removed, and that
there was no obstacle now in the way of their
material and social progress. Well, sir, I acknowledge that they are a great people,
and
that their advancement has been great ; but I
fail to perceive that, if true to ourselves, we
have not the same advantages. (Hear, hear.)
At all events, if our advantages are not so
great, they are sufficient for all our purposes
and we ought to be satisfied. There is one
other consideration to which I desire to allude. When we look at the people who inhabit
these provinces, and consider from
whence they come and what are their characteristics, that they are a progressive,
enterprising and go-a-head people, is it reasonable
to suppose that we are always going to remain in this state of uncertainty ? Is it
reasonable to suppose that we are always to
be divided into different provinces, with an
imaginary line ? Have we no desire or wish
to expand and grow ? And, I ask, is it possible that we can hope to attain national
greatness in a separate state of existence? I
think that the interests of the several provinces should be consolidated. There is
no
disputing the resources of the country, so far
as territory is concerned. Stretching from
the Atlantic to the Pacific, it is ample for the
support and sustenance of a great people. I
have even heard it said, by persons who are
good authority on the subject, that they
believe the child is now born who will sœ
British North America inhabited by a population of 60,000,000. This may be going too
far, but I think there can be no doubt a
large increase to our numbers will take place
when we shall have given effect to the scheme
now in contemplation. (Hear, and cheers.)
The honorable member for Hochelaga (Hon.
Mr. DORION) stated in the course of his remarks that it would be a dark day for Ca
nada should these resolutions be adopted.
Mr. SPEAKER, that may be that honorable
gentleman's opinion ; but I must say that I
differ from him entirely. On the contrary,
I believe it will be a dark day for the whole
country if we cannot agree upon some plan
for securing our speedy union. (Cheers.)
The honorable gentleman also stated that the
scheme was far too conservative in its character. Well, I can understand why the honorable
gentleman should find fault with it on
that account, but I confess that that does
not trouble me in the slightest degree.
(Cheers.) He declares that it will destroy
803
the great Liberal party. I should be sorry
to see such a calamity. I have always professed to be a liberal—a moderate man in
politics. (Hear, hear.) While I would be
sorry to see any great party destroyed by this
scheme, I would particularly regret to witness the destruction of the great Liberal
party. (Hear, hear.) I believe, however,
that that party will not be destroyed in any
such manner. After this great scheme is
perfected, we will have parties the same as
before. There may be some changes as regards individuals, but I trust that at all
events there will still be a great Liberal
party. (Cheers and laughter.) Party is
necessary for the good government of the
country ; but I trust that party feeling will
not be manifested for the sake of creating
divisions and discords, but that all parties
will unite to build up a power here which
will be felt and respected throughout the
world. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The honorable member for Brome (Mr. DUNKIN)
made some remarks which it struck me were
very singular in their character, but which
are a fair instance of the manner he adopts
to illustrate and substantiate his views. He
quoted from English statesmen and English
publications all that could possibly be cited
to throw doubt upon the scheme ; but the
moment English opinion was invoked in its
favor, he turned round and declared that
English views on Canadian affairs were entirely unreliable. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
As, however, that honorable gentleman is
not present, I shall not refer further to his
statements. The honorable member for Cornwall (Hon. J. S. MACDONALD), for whom I
have always entertained the highest respect,
said that the cry of annexation had been
raised in order to push this scheme through.
Well, sir, if I am not mistaken, the honorable
member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION)
said that this was the very measure to bring
about annexation. (Laughter.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—The Premier stated that we were being driven towards
annexation, and that this scheme would stop
it.
MR. ROSS—I think I have detained the
House too long already ; and if opportunity
presents itself I will claim the indulgence of
the House while I refer to one or two other
points hereafter. (Cries of " Go on!") As I
said before, I believe the gentlemen who met
in Quebec approached the matter in a spirit
and with a desire to adopt a Constitution which
would be for the good of the whole country.
And although I do not entirely concur in the
resolutions—although there are some things
about them which I would desire to see
changed, I shall give them my support as a
whole. Take the Constitution of the Upper
House for instance—I would prefer rather to
see the present system retained ; but as the
delegates thought fit to change it, I would not
feel justified in voting against the whole scheme
on account of my objection to one or two
items of detail. (Hear, hear.) We must
expect to give up to a certain extent our
opinions in order to the attainment of greater
benefits than we at present enjoy. I, at any
rate, feel it my duty to act in this manner,
and I feel also that the honorable gentlemen
will deserve the best thanks of the country
if the scheme which they have brought
down shall be carried into effect. I do
hope that whatever may take place— that
whatever checks this scheme may meet with
—it will eventually be successful, and that
Addresses will be passed by the respective
legislatures asking Her Majesty to pass a
measure giving effect to this scheme. When
this Constitution shall have been perfected
and ratified—when there shall no longer be
any doubts about its containing the principles
upon which the government of the country is
founded—every true-hearted and loyal Canadian will have cause to rejoice that his
lot has
been cast in such a highly-favored land.
(Cheers.)
MR. BOWMAN—As the discussion on
this great question appears to be rapidly
drawing to a close, I desire to offer a few remarks upon the scheme of Confederation
before voting for it. The question of constitutional reform is not a new one in Canada.
It
is a question which has occupied the attention of the statesmen, the press and the
people of this country for a number of years ;
and so urgent have been the demands for reform on the part of the people of Upper
Canada, that it has been found impossible to form
a Government under our present system, for
several years past, which could command a
majority in the House sufficiently large to
carry on the business of the country with
success. The people of Western Canada have,
for a number of years, agitated strongly for
increased representation in Parliament, the
justice of which few will pretend to deny.
Owing to the disparity in the population of
the two sections of the province, and the
manifest injustice which is done to Upper
Canada, I am satisfied that some change
must be made soon, with a view of establish.
804
ing a more satisfactory system of government. (Hear, hear.) The people are so
thoroughly in earnest on this question, that I
am persuaded they are prepared to give a fair
trial to any scheme which offers a reasonable
prospect of inaugurating a better and more
satisfactory state of affairs. (Hear, hear.)
There are, in my opinion, two methods by
which this may be done. The first is a legislative union between Upper and Lower
Canada, based upon representation by population ; the second is by a Federal union
either
between the two Canadas or between all the
British North American Provinces. Unless
one or other of these two remedies is speedily
applied, there is great danger that an entire
separation of the two provinces may ultimately take place, which, in my opinion, would
prove fatal to our existence as a British
colony. (Hear, hear.) Our proximity to
the United States makes it necessary that
the union should be maintained at almost any
cost. In order to effect a change in our Constitution, it is highly desirable to obtain
the
consent of a majority of the representatives of
both sections of the province ; for, although a
scheme might be adopted by the majority of
one section, aided by the minority of the
other section, it would not give such general
satisfaction as could be desired. The demands made by the people of Upper Canada
for representation by population under the
existing union, have hitherto been resisted
by the people of Lower Canada with a degree
of determination that has convinced even the
most sanguine advocates of that measure
that it is impracticable, at least for some
time to come. Admitting, then, that representation by population under the existing
union cannot be obtained, I think it is our
duty to endeavor to find some other solution
of our sectional difficulties. In my opinion
the formation of a system of government based
upon the Federal principle, with a Central
Parliament which shall have the control of
matters common to all the provinces, and a
Local Legislature for each province to manage local affairs, is the only system which
will
prove satisfactory to the people of these provinces. Such is the scheme now under
discussion by this House. It is said by some
of the opponents of the present scheme that
there is no necessity for a change, that the
people of Upper Canada have abandoned
their agitation for constitutional reform, and
that they are perfectly content to go on as they
are. I can only say to those honorable gentlemen that they are entirely mistaken.
The
desire for a change is as strong now as ever,
and the people of Western Canada will never
be satisfied until their just demands are conceded in some shape or other. (Hear,
hear.)
We are not the only people who ave found it
necessary to alter their Constitution. There
is hardly a nation in the civilized world which
has not, from time to time, found it itself
compelled to change its form of government
in order to keep pace with the ordinary progress of events ; and we generally find
that
those great political changes which result in
the consolidation or disruption of empires,
are brought about by violent civil commotions, involving the sacrifice of thousands
of
valuable lives and the expenditure of millions
of money. Of this fact we have a melancholy
example in the present condition of the United
States. The Constitution of that country
was laid down by some of the wisest and
ablest statesmen, yet in less than a century after its formation, the people who
have hitherto looked. upon it as being
the most perfect Constitution in the world,
find themselves in the midst of a most disastrous war, trying to remove a constitutional
difficulty which has given them a vast
deal of trouble. Now, if we shall succeed in
laying down a permanent basis for the consolidation of these provinces—if we shall
succeed in forming a union which will result
in the perpetuation of British institutions on
this continent, and thus check the absorbing
influence of the neighboring republic—we
shall confer a great boon upon posterity, and
prevent much bitter strife among ourselves.
(Hear, hear.) While deliberating upon this
scheme, we should divest our minds as much
as possible of old political associations, in
order that we may give it that calm and deliberate consideration which its great importance
demands. When we consider the sectional difficulties to be adjusted, the conflicting
interests which are to be reconciled, and
the prejudices which are to be overcome, it is
evident that we must consider this scheme in
the spirit of compromise. Mutual concessions must be made, so as to respect the rights
and feelings of all, so far as it can be done
without doing an injustice to any. In reference to the scheme now before the House,
allow me to say that although there are some
of its details to which I am opposed, yet,
taking it as a whole, I believe it is the best
that can be obtained under our peculiar circumstances, and therefore I feel it to
be my
duty to support it. That part of the scheme
which provides for a nominated Legislative
805
Council I believe to be contrary to the wishes
of a majority of the people of Western Canada, and particularly of my own constituents.
I think it will be admitted that the
elective system has given us a class of representatives in that body which would do
honor to any country in the world, and I
should prefer to see that system continued.
But while I would be prepared to vote for an
amendment which would have for its object
the perpetuation of the present system, provided it could be done without interfering
with the success of Confederation, yet I do
not believe that my constituents are prepared
to reject the whole scheme, simply because
there are a few features in it which are not
exactly in accordance with their views. And
I can assure you, MR. SPEAKER, that I have
no desire to do so. The opponents of the
scheme appeal to the French population,
telling them that their nationality is in danger,
that they will be entirely absorbed in the
Central Legislature, and that their rights and
liberties will be interfered with. Then the
same parties tell the English of Lower Canada that their nationality and their schools
will be entirely at the mercy of the French in
the Local Legislature. And, with a view of
obtaining the defeat of the scheme in the
west, they appeal to the pockets of the people
of Upper Canada, asserting that they will
have to bear the greater proportion of the
taxation under the new system. Now, I
think it has been clearly shown that the
Maritime Provinces will contribute their full
share towards the public revenue—that they
will pay as much per head as Upper Canada,
and much more than Lower Canada, so that
the financial argument against Confederation
cannot be substantiated. Those honorable
gentlemen who are trying to defeat the scheme
by appealing to the prejudices and sectional
animosities of the people of Lower Canada,
should bear in mind that they are pursuing a
course which is calculated to mar the harmonious working of any system of government,
and that if they should succeed in defeating the scheme, it would go very far to
convince the people of Upper Canada that
Lower Canada is determined not to consent
to any measure of justice to Upper Canada.
(Hear, hear.) It is also asserted that this
scheme will bring about a separation from the
Mother Country. Now, I believe that the
advocates of union are as desirous to perpetuate our connection with Great Britain
as
its opponents, and that it is desirable to maintain that connection as long as possible.
But
assuming that we are laying the foundation
of a British North American Empire, which is
destined to become independent of the Mother
Country, after our resources have become
sufficiently developed, and our vast territory
has been filled up with an industrious, intelligent and thrifty population, I do not
think
such an anticipation should induce us to vote
against it. Another objection which is raised
against this scheme is the supposition that
the Maritime Provinces will oppose the opening up of the North-West territory, which
is
an unwarrantable assumption on the part of
the opponents of Confederation ; for I think
it will be found that even the people of those
provinces will see that it is for their interest
to have that portion of our dominions opened
up for settlement. Such a course would extend
their field for trade and commerce, in which
the Maritime Provinces are extensively engaged, so that the advantages would be of
a
mutual character. A great deal has been
said about submitting the scheme to the
people before it is finally adopted, and I must
say that I could never make up my mind to
vote for it without first having an expression
of popular opinion upon it in some way or
other, unless I were perfectly satisfied that a
large majority of my constituents are in favor
of it. I took the precaution to hold a number
of public meetings in the constituency which
I represent, in order to obtain the views of
the people upon it, and, in almost every instance, a large majority present at those
meetings, not only expressed themselves in favor of
the general features of the scheme, but also
expressed a desire that it should be dealt with
and adopted by this Parliament without first
holding a general election. I shall take much
pleasure in voting for the scheme now before
the House, believing that by so doing I shall
best discharge my duty to my constituents
and to the country at large. (Cheers.)
MR. WALSH said—1t was my intention,
during the earlier stages of this debate, to
have asked the House to bear with me while
I made some lengthened remarks on the important subject embraced in the resolutions
now in your hands. It was my intention
to review the circumstances which made it
necessary that the scheme now submitted
should be placed before the inhabitants of
British North America—to trace fully the
course of the sectional agitation with reference to the difficulties between Upper
and
Lower Canada—and to show how it had
gradually grown in importance, until the
time had arrived when we had to accept
806
one of two alternatives—a dissolution of the
existing union between Upper and Lower
Canada, or some larger scheme, such as that
now contemplated by the people of these
provinces. I should also have stated at
some length my reasons, if we had to decide
between these alternatives for opposing the
former. I believe—and I think hon. gentlemen almost unanimously in this House
agree with me—that the union existing between these provinces at the present time
has, in all its important bearings, more than
realized the most sanguine anticipations of
those who were concerned in bringing it about.
We have seen, since the union, an increase
in the population, revenue and resources of
these provinces seldom witnessed in the
history of any country. We have seen two
peoples entirely dissimilar in race, language
and institutions—having nothing in common
but their joint allegiance to the same Crown
—we have seen those two peoples rapidly becoming one people—one in name, one in
object, one in feeling. And I believe that
in every respect the union under which we
now live has been most happy in its results.
If I had gone, therefore, into the subject, as
I originally intended, I should have stated
fully my views upon it in all its bearings.
And I should have stated, as I now state,
that if I had had to give my vote whether
the connection between these two provinces
should remain, or whether it should be dissolved, and we should go back to the state
of separate existence in which we were before the union, I should have been found
for one most hostile to a dissolution of that
union. (Hear, hear.) But circumstances,
over some of which this House has not control, while others are within our control,
have led to a probable termination of this
debate at an earlier period than I had anticipated, and I will not trespass on the
patience of the House, at this late hour, by
detaining honorable members with any
lengthened remarks. In the few observations I shall offer, I will confine myself
to a reference to some of the leading
features of the scheme now before us I
shall not, as many honorable gentlemen
have done, go into lengthy quotations of
other men's opinions, or comment on the
effect of different systems of government in
other countries. I will confine myself to
what I consider, from the best means of information I can obtain, the probable effect
and bearing of this proposed scheme upon
ourselves. (Hear, hear.) I agree with
many honorable gentlemen who have preceded me, when I say that since I first gave
attention to public matters, I have looked
forward to the time when a more intimate
connection between these British American
Provinces would not only be desirable, but
would become absolutely necessary. I look
upon it as desirable in a military point of
view, and in a commercial point of view. It
must be evident to any honorable gentleman
who has occupied a seat in this House—even
for the short period that I have had the
honor of a seat here—that the opinion of
the House of late years has very materially
changed with reference to the defences of
the country. I am satisfied that we have,
irrespective of party, become more alive to
our duty in that respect; and that the people
of this country, acting through those who
sit here as their representatives, are prepared
to take upon themselves their just share of
responsibility for the defence of these provinces. (Hear, hear.) And I look upon
this scheme of union as a most important
step in that view ; because while we rely, as
we do rely to a great extent, on the assistance of the home Government for the defence
of this country, it must be evident to all
of us that these provinces, acting in concert
with each other, and all acting in concert
with the home Government, can organize a
more effective system of defence than we
could do if we remained separate and isolated.
(Hear, hear.) I believe this question should
be considered chiefly from a commercial point
of view. We must necessarily consider the
question in connection with the more intimate commercial intercourse which it is contemplated
will result from the construction
of the Intercolonial Railway. A new market
for our commodities will be opened up by
the removal of the barriers to trade which
now exist between us. Believing, as I do,
that our commercial relations with our sister
provinces should be free and unrestricted, I
am heartily in favor of the construction of
this railway. After stating that upon these
general principles I am in favor of the union
of these provinces, I may also state that had
I my choice, and were my vote to decide the
question, I would say " give us a Legislative
union," because I believe it would have, for
its effect, the bringing of all the colonists
more immediately into contact and connection with each other, rendering our interests
much more identical than by the Federal
plan But I infer, from the speeches made
on the floor of this House at the opening of
807
this debate, by honorable gentlemen who
were delegates to the Conference held in
this city, that the two schemes were discussed in that Conference—the Legislative
and the Federal—and that the former was
found to be impracticable. It is, therefore,
not possible for us now to decide the question
in favor of a legislative union. We have
evidence before us that is satisfactory to my
mind, that probably all of the other provinces would refuse to take part in a legislative
union. The Honorable Attorney General
West, in his speech at the opening of the
debate, gave us sufficient information on the
point to convince the House that this question had been fully discussed in the Conference,
and the legislative plan rejected, on
account of its being impracticable. For this
reason, sir, believing that the choice before
us is either to accept a Federal union or reject
the proposal entirely, I give my assent to
the present scheme without hesitation.
(Hear, hear.) It is brought as one of the
strongest arguments against this union
that the Federal Government will be far
more expensive than our present system. That may be true to some extent;
but my impression is that it will not be
found true to the extent represented. We
must bear in mind that we have in each
province a Government fully constituted,
with all the machinery necessary for carrying on the business of government. Therefore
the new machinery required would be very
little, and would amount simply to the local
legislatures for Upper and Lower Canada.
Upon these general principles then, I must
say that I shall give my adhesion to the
scheme of union submitted to us ; and as was
well remarked by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. J. S. ROSS), the language in
which the scheme has been laid before us
must prove very acceptable to all who are in
favor of a union such as that proposed. The
gentlemen composing the Conference could
not have used language more acceptable to
me than that in which the first resolution is
couched, except in the use of the word
"Federal," instead of "Legislative." The
resolution reads :—
The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will
be promoted
by a Federal union under the Crown of Great
Britain, provided such a union can be effected on
principles just to the several provinces.
Now, sir, I am prepared to say here, and I
think I but echo the voice of every hon.
gentleman present, that all the people ask is
that the union be based upon principles just
to the several provinces. (Hear, hear.) We
ask nothing more. Again, sir, the language
employed in the third resolution is most
satisfactory :—
In framing a Constitution for the General
Government, the Conference, with a view to the
perpetuation of the connection with the Mother
Country, &c., to the promotion of the best interests of the people of these provinces,
desire to
follow the model of the British Constitution, so
far as our circumstances will permit.
Surely, sir, we all agree that no better model
can be found, or better system of government
followed, than that of the British Constitution. (Hear, hear.) One of the features
of this scheme that commends itself strongly
to my approbation is the marked distinction
between the system that is submitted to us,
and that which is in existence in the neighboring republic. I believe that to a great
extent we may trace the unfortunate difficulties that exist in that country to the
absurd
doctrine of state rights. Instead of their
Central Government having, in the first instance, supreme power, and delegating certain
powers to the local or state governments,
the very reverse is the principle on which
their Constitution is founded. Their local
governments possess the principal power,
and have delegated certain powers to the
General Government. In the scheme submitted to us, I am happy to observe that the
principal and supreme power is placed in
the hands of the General Government, and
that the powers deputed to the local governments are of a limited character. (Hear,
hear.) I am glad also to observe that in the
proposed organization of the General Legislature of the united provinces, that question
which has so long agitated the people of
Canada—representation by population—is
in a fair way of being satisfactorily solved.
It is proposed that in the General Legislature, or House of Commons as it is to be
called, each province shall be represented
in accordance with its population, thereby
removing that which has been so long a
source of agitation in Upper Canada, and of
vexation to Lower Canada, and which has
led to the discussion of the scheme now before the House. In reference to the organization
of the Legislative Council, I may say
that I have always been found among those
who opposed the introduction of the elective
principle into the constitution of that body
808
in this province, and I, therefore, find no
difficulty in giving my hearty assent to the
change now proposed. I have always believed,
and I still believe, that we could not expect
two branches of the Legislature, owing their
existence to the same source, and being
elected by the same class of voters, to work
in harmony for any length of time. (Hear,
hear.) It may be called a retrograde movement, yet I can heartily assent to it, because,
in my opinion, it places things where they
should have been left. In pressing upon
this House the adoption or rejection of these
resolutions as a whole, I believe the Government are actuated by the best motives,
and
that it is their duty to do so. But whilst I
am prepared to give my vote in that direction, I am also quite willing to admit the
force of the objections urged by the Colonial
Secretary in his despatch to the Governor
General of the 3rd December last, in relation to the constitution of the Upper House,
so far as the limiting of the number of members is concerned. I for one, although
there
is no doubt that these resolutions will be
passed by this House precisely in the form
in which they have been submitted to us,
am quite content that the Imperial Parliament should make such alterations in that,
or any other respect, as they consider necessary, and I shall bow with very great
satisfaction to such amendments. (Hear, hear.)
There are two or three questions in connection with these resolutions upon which I
desire to offer a few remarks. One of them
is that of education. We have already had,
in the course of this discussion, a good deal
said on this subject. I would simply say, as
one of those who gave effect by my vote to
the present law of Upper Canada for the
establishment of separate schools, that in
doing so I believed that I was according to
the minority of one section of the province
what I conceived the minority of the other
section were entitled to, thus doing justice to
all. It gives me, therefore, great satisfaction to observe the recognition in these
resolutions of the principle that the rights of the
minorities, in each section, with respect to
educational facilities, should be guaranteed.
I confess that if I were living in Lower
Canada, I should not feel that I was
being justly treated in being called upon
to contribute by taxation to the support
of schools to which I could not conscientiously send my children. (Hear, hear.)
I have the satisfaction of knowing that, after
giving my vote upon the last Separate School
Bill, and going back to my constituents, they
were fully satisfied with the explanation I
gave them, and my action was endorsed by
them. Another question that I look upon
as of very great importance to these colonies,
is not dealt with in these resolutions in that
manner to which its importance entitles it.
I refer to the management and sale of our
Crown lands. I am very sorry to observe
that they are to be confided to the control
of the local legislatures. I believe that if,
in any one question more than another, the
Government of this province have failed in
their duty in times past, it is in the management of our Crown lands. The complaint
I
have to make is that they have not made use
of those lands in establishing a wise and
liberal system of immigration, by offering
them free to all who would come and settle
upon them. It cannot but be humiliating to
every person having a stake in this province
to observe the torrents of immigration that
pour from the Mother Country into the
neighboring republic; and especially so
when they see them passing through the
whole length of Canada by multitudes to the
Western States. (Hear, hear.) We have,
in times past, failed to hold out such inducements as would stop that tide of immigration
from flowing past us. I fear that by
leaving those lands in the hands of the local
legislatures, the immigration question will
be dealt with, in future, in the same narrow
spirit in which it has been treated in times
past. I would have been very highly pleased
if I could look forward to the future with
the hope that our General Legislature would
adopt a large, enlightened, and liberal scheme
of immigration, sending their agents to all
the European ports from which the largest
tide of immigration sets in, for the purpose
of explaining to the people the advantages
they could derive from settling in these provinces. I am, therefore, very sorry to
see
that the delegates were obliged to make the
arrangement they have made with reference
to this important question. (Hear, hear.)
Now, sir, in reference to another of the
questions embraced in these resolutions,
though not forming a part of the proposed
Constitution, I am prepared to admit here
that my opinions have undergone a very
material change since I first came into this
House. I refer to the construction of the
Intercolonial Railway. I came here, in
1862, decidedly hostile to our assuming any
portion of the expense of constructing that
road. I believed, at that time, that it
809
construction would be of no advantage to
Canada; but the course of events has convinced me that the time has now arrived
when we should take upon ourselves our fair
share of the expense of constructing this
important work. It cannot be satisfactory
to any Canadian, on going to New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, to find that he is a
stranger in a strange country, and among a
people who, though living so close to Canada,
have no commercial intercourse with us.
Although they are neighbors of ours, in one
respect, yet they are neighbors with whom
we have no intercourse. It is very desirable
that the barriers to our intercourse should
be removed, and the construction of the
Intercolonial Railway is, in my opinion, the
only effectual means of removing them. Mr.
SPEAKER, it has been argued by a great many
of those who have taken part in debating this
subject that this House is assuming for itself
a power that it does not, or ought not to
possess, in disposing of the question without
submitting it to the popular will. It is said
that before these resolutions take effect an
expression of public opinion should be had
through a general election. Some of those
honorable gentlemen who have taken this
position have stated as a reason for advocating that course that the public mind was
not
yet properly informed as to the effect of the
proposed change, and that, therefore, time
should be given until public opinion is prepared to decide upon it. But with a strange
inconsistency those same gentlemen are flooding this House with petitions from the
electors, not asking for delay, not asking for further time to consider the matter,
but asking
that the scheme be not adopted. They in
effect show by their petitions that they have
considered the subject—that they know all
about it—that their opinions are fully formed—and that the measure ought not to be
adopted. Either the public mind is fully
ripe for the adoption or rejection of the
scheme, or else those electors are signing
petitions without having sufficient information on which to base the opinions they
express. But, sir, there is such a thing as
obtaining public opinion on almost any question, and very correctly too, without going
to the polls; and, for my part, I find
elections very inconvenient. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) I believe the majority of the
electors of Upper Canada have read those
resolutions, and understand them about as
well as many members of this House; and,
sir, we have every reason to believe that the
sentiment of Upper Canada at least is
largely in favor of the adoption of this
scheme. (Hear, hear.) I took occasion to
consult my constituents before coming to
this House on the present occasion. I held
meetings in the various municipalities in the
county, and I believe, sir, according to the
best of my ability, I did submit this scheme
to the electors of that portion of the province. I have heard a good deal said here
about the importance of having the question
submitted to a vote of the people.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I would like
to ask the gentleman whether he laid any
figures before his people to shew the difference between the cost of a Legislative
and a
Federal union. Unless he did that, the
people were not in a position to express an
opinion as to what was best for their
interests.
MR. WALSH—I did not submit figures
to shew the difference in cost between a
Federal or Legislative union, for the simple
reason that until the organization of the
local governments is decided upon, it is
not possible to give reliable figures, and I
therefore think the people as competent to
make calculations on this subject as myself
or my hon. friend, lawyer though he be.
(Hear, hear.) I may say, however, in
answer to the hon. gentleman, that I did
state to my constituents that the resolutions
now under consideration place in the hands
of the present Legislature the preparation of
the constitutions and the organization and
composition of the local governments of
Upper and Lower Canada; and that as the
Federal Government is to pay an annual subsidy of eighty cents per head of its population
to the respective provinces, for carrying
on their local governments and the construction of local works, any sum required over
and
above that subsidy must necessarily be raised
by direct taxation, and in that fact we have
the strongest possible guarantee that in the
arrangements made by this Legislature, and
in the subsequent management of their
domestic affairs by the local governments,
the strictest simplicity and economy will be
observed. (Hear, hear.) So much, Mr.
SPEAKER, in answer to the question of the
hon. gentleman. The difference between us
on this question being that whilst we are
both advocates of a legislative union, he will
accept none other. I, believing that unattainable at present, am prepared to accept
810
the system now proposed, hoping that the
experience of the people will soon induce
them to agree to the abolition of the local
governments, and the adoption of the legistive system. (Hear, hear.) I may add—
and I do so with great personal satisfaction—
that the meetings which were held in my
own county were largely in favor of the
scheme, and that resolutions approving of it
were moved and seconded, in almost every
instance, by persons of different political
opinions. (Hear, hear.) I was going on to
remark, that it is said by many members of
this House that the scheme could not be
submitted to the people, because the Government in sending the resolutions to the
members of the Legislature marked them " Private." Now, sir, I managed to get over
that
difficulty without trouble. A copy of the
resolutions was sent to me, and as I was
precluded from making use of them in that
form without violating the confidence reposed in me, I turned to the newspaper
version of the same resolutions, and finding
it to be a
verbatim copy of the original,
when I attended my meetings I read from
the newspaper and not from the private
document itself. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
I think other hon. gentlemen might have
taken the same course with safety to themselves and profit to their constituents.
(Hear, hear.) Without wishing to detain
the House longer, I shall content myself by
simply expressing my regret that on a question of such paramount importance—a question
which towers in magnitude above all
others that have ever come before this House
—a question which not simply affects Canada,
but the whole British North American Provinces—a question which does not only
interest us, but will be felt in its influence
upon future generations—I have, I say, to
express my deep regret that such a question
should not have been treated apart from
party feeling, party prejudices, and a desire
for party triumph. (Cheers.) Our object
in considering this subject should not be to
put one party out of office and another
party in, but to determine what will most
conduce to the present and future prosperity
of the British North American Provinces.
(Hear, hear.) It is a matter of indifference
to me, so far as it affects this question, who
occupy the seats on the Treasury benches. I
look upon this question irrespective of party
feelings. From the present position of these
provinces, I think it is our duty and our
interest alike to give effect to these resolu
tions so far as we can do so. If they fail
through the action of the Lower Provinces,
we shall not be responsible. If we believe
that the resolutions will be conducive to
our interests, we are bound to sustain the
hon. gentlemen who agreed to them as a
basis of union. Believing this to be the
proper course to be pursued, I shall, as Ihave
already said, have great pleasure in giving
them my support. (Hear, hear.) There is
just one other remark that I may perhaps be
permitted to refer to, which fell from the
hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. BOWMAN), that I decidedly dissent from. The
hon. gentleman spoke of this scheme as one
which, if adopted, would conduce to independence. I must object to that view
being taken of it. If I thought that the
adoption of the scheme now before us could
in any respect have the effect of severing
these colonies from the Mother Country,
whatever the consequences might be, I
should have no hesitation in giving my vote
against it. I believe there is nothing more
ardently to be desired—no greater glory
attainable than for these colonies remaining
for all time to come, as we are now, dependencies of Great Britain.
HON. MR. COCKBURN—The honorable
member for North Waterloo referred to it as
a means of maintaining our independence
against the United States.
MR. WALSH—I do not desire to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, and I am
glad to hear that I have misconceived the
tenor of his remarks. Mr. SPEAKER, I have
detained the House longer than I purposed
doing when I rose. I have touched very
briefly on some of the general features of
the scheme; but I have not occupied
valuable time in quoting authorities, or in
reading passages illustrative of the past
political history of hon. gentlemen on either
side. It matters very little to me, in considering this question, what certain hon.
gentlemen thought twelve months ago about
representation by population or any other
subject. This is a question to be decided
by itself, and upon its own merits; and believing that the adoption of this scheme,
so
far as we in Canada are concerned, will be
fraught with great benefits to ourselves as
well as to those who may come after us, I
repeat that it will afford me great pleasure
in giving my support to the resolutions.
(Cheers)
MR. GIBBS said—Mr SPEAKER, in rising
at this late hour, I feel, in common with
811
many hon. members who have preceded me,
that the debate has been sufficiently protracted, and should be brought to a close
as
speedily as possible. Nevertheless, as a
member lately elected to represent a wealthy
and populous constituency, largely engaged
in commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural pursuits, I deem it my duty to state
my
views on the proposed union of the British
North American Provinces, now under the
consideration of this House. In my opinion,
sir, the gentlemen who occupy the Treasury
benches deserve credit for the earnest and
energetic manner in which they have applied
themselves to carry out the pledges which
they gave the country during the course of
last summer. (Hear, hear.) I look upon
it that the vote about to be taken is a
foregone conclusion, and, for all practical
purposes, might as well have been taken as
soon as the resolutions had been read and
spoken to by the Hon. Attorney General
West. I have remarked, sir, that almost
every hon. member that has spoken has
expressed himself as favorable to a union of
some kind or other with the Maritime
Provinces. When the delegates from the
eastern provinces met at Charlottetown, Prince
Edward Island, they contemplated a legislative union among themselves; but when invited
to visit Quebec for the purpose of holding
a conference with a view to a union of the
whole of the colonies, the Federal principle
was sustituted for the Legislative, Lower
Canada and the eastern provinces voting
as a unit for it, while the members representing Canada West were divided, the Hon.
Attorney General West preferring a Legislative union, and the Hon. President of the
Council a Federal one. The subject of
" Union of the Provinces " has been looked
upon with favor, not only by our own statesmen, who have of late years regarded it
as a
measure calculated to remove the difficulties
which have surrounded the legislation of
the country, but by leading statesmen of
England as well, who view the proposal
favorably, as being the means of building
up a great nation, and also of preserving
monarchical institutions on this continent.
(Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, whatever may
have been the points of difference which
gave rise to the lengthened discussions of
the Conference, there was one upon which,
judging by the speeches of the delegates,
and also from the resolutions themselves,
there was perfect unanimity—that of loyalty
and attachment to the Throne of Great
Britain. (Hear, hear.) One would have
thought it unnecessary to incorporate such
a sentiment in the resolutions, yet the first
of the series gives utterance to it and is
thus expressed :—
The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will
be promoted
by a Federal union under the Crown of Great
Britain.
With regard to the future of this proposed
union, it is curious to note what is said and
written in reference to it, some urging that
its inevitable result will be a separation
from our present happy connection with the
Mother Country, and ultimate independence;
while another class, equally confident, declares
that it will lead to annexation with the
United States. (Hear.) Whatever the ultimate fate of such a union may be, it is conceded
by all parties that there exists a
necessity for a change of some kind in the
political relations existing between Upper
and Lower Canada, and it is gratifying to
reflect that an expedient has been devised
for allaying the rancourous party spirit that
has been too frequently exhibited on the
floor of this House. (Hear, hear.) We may
congratulate ourselves, sir, that while our
republican neighbors are engaged in bloody
strife, one portion spilling its best blood in
order to obtain a new Constitution, we can
discuss the propriety of making a change in
our own, which has not been inaptly termed
a "bloodless revolution," without let or
hindrance, but on the contrary with the full
consent and authority of the power to which
we owe allegiance. (Hear.) The provisions
of this new Constitution have been widely
disseminated, and in some sections thoroughly discussed. In the riding which I have
the honor to represent, public attention was
drawn to Confederation during the recent
election, and I am fully justified in stating,
that with a few exceptions here and there,
there were not to be found many dissentients
to it. (Hear, hear.) It is true that upon
one or two occasions there were found leading men who took the ground that they did
not think it desirable to enter into this
union, but such instances were rare. One
of these gentlemen, the reeve of one of the
most important townships in the riding,
attended a meeting, where he met a large
number of the electors; but after he had
delivered his address, he could not find one to
812
respond to the sentiments he had expressed.
(Hear, hear.) Another gentleman, an ex-
reeve and an ex-member of Parliament—
although he never had the honor of taking
his seat in this House—also addressed a
large meeting, but with the same result as
in the previous case. The only opposition
which was manifested throughout the contest was not to the scheme itself, but to
points of detail. (Hear, hear.) The Constitution of the Legislative Council was the
principal one referred to, my opponent
contending that the Upper House should
continue an elective body, as at present,
instead of being a nominated Chamber, as it
is proposed to make it. I can sustain the view
taken by the Hon. President of the Council
in his opening address the other evening,
when he said he would not hesitate to go
into any liberal constituency in Western
Canada and obtain their sanction to this
principle. (Hear, hear.) Such at all events
was the result in South Ontario. I am free
to admit that a change was not asked for in
the constitution of the Legislative Council;
but although the resolutions make the
change, there is a feeling abroad in the
country that on this account the scheme as
a whole should not be rejected. (Hear,
hear.) Whenever a point was attempted to
be made against me that I was endeavoring,
by my advocacy of the nominative principle,
to build up an aristocracy in this country,
and that the result would be the locking up
of the lands of the province in the hands of
a privileged class, I replied that such had
not been the case in the past, and that in a
country like ours such could never be its
results; and I further stated that the leader
of the Reform party, the Hon. President of
the Council, had himself stood almost alone
on his side of the House in 1850, in resisting the change from the nominative to the
elective principle. My desire, sir, is to see
the union carried out only on a fair and
equitable basis, and this, I think, is likely
to be attained in the manner proposed for
the assumption by the Central Government
(at $25 per head) of the debts or portion of
debts for which each province is new liable.
I regret, however, that so high a figure as
80c. per head has been fixed upon as the
subsidy to the local legislatures, for I fear
the revenue will be so large that taken in
connection with the revenues derivable from
local sources, the surplus, after defraying the
expenses of government, may induce that
extravagance which has been so frequently
deprecated in the past, and which by this
arrangement may be continued in the future.
I have taken some pains, sir, to ascertain
what will be the probable position of Upper
Canada under the arrangement as proposed,
and I find that its revenue and probable expenditure will be about as follows :—
REVENUE.
| Law fees ..................... |
$100,000 |
| Municipal Loan Fund ........... |
180,000 |
| U. C. Building Fund ........... |
30,000 |
| Grammar School do ........... |
20,000 |
| Crown lands .................. |
280,000 |
| Education Fund ............... |
8,000 |
| Public works ................. |
64,000 |
| Subsidy at 80 cents ............. |
1,117,000 |
| Other sources ................. |
32,000 |
|
$1,831,000 |
EXPENDITURE.
| Administration of justice ....... |
$275,000 |
| Education . . .. . .. . . ........... |
265,000 |
| Literary and scientific institutions. |
10,000 |
| Hospitals and charities ......... |
43,000 |
| Agricultural societies . . ........ |
56,000 |
| Gaols, from Building Fund. . . . . . |
32,000 |
| Roads and bridges ............. |
75,000 |
| Expense of managing Crown lands |
75,000 |
| Interest on liabilities over assets. . |
225,000 |
| Interest on proportion of debt |
|
| to be assumed, say ........... |
150,000 |
| Balance available .............. |
625,000 |
|
$1,831,000 |
In this statement I have not included the
Municipality Fund, as the receipts are distributed the following year amongst the
municipalities. Estimating the expense of
the Local Government at $150,000, we have
a balance of $475,000 per annum for local
purposes. I regard the subsidy as altogether
too large, and shall hope to see it very
materially reduced. (Hear, hear.) My hon.
friend from North Ontario, upon the hypothesis that the Maritime Provinces contribute
one-fifth of the revenue of the proposed Confederacy, and the balance by the
Canadas, in the relative proportion of two
dollars by Upper Canada to one dollar by
Lower Canada, founds an argument thereon,
shewing that each additional representative
gained for Upper Canada will cost $17,000.
Now, Mr. SPEAKER, I apprehend that when
the union is accomplished and the duties
equalized, this seeming objection will, to
some extent at least, be removed, for it is
well known that the Maritime Provinces
consume much more largely of imported
813
goods, per head, than we do. (Hear.) But
let this principle be extended to county and
township matters, and it would necessitate
appropriations to the wealthier townships, in
the proportion each contributed to the revenue
of the county—a principle which has never
been contended for, and facts will go to
show that it is seldom done even upon population, as is proposed by this scheme. But
as it was necessary to establish some basis
for contributing to the expenses of the
local governments, without compelling them
to resort to direct taxation, I think the
principle adopted, that of population, is not
unjust. (Hear, hear.) Again, it is argued
that as Canada West contributes in the proportion already alluded to, that in the
payment of subsidies she will contribute more
than her fair proportion in the proposed
Confederacy. To this I reply, if the hypothesis that the proportion which Upper and
Lower Canada respectively contribute to the
general revenue be correct, and that the
subsidy should be based upon revenue and
not population, then undoubtedly the argument is a good one. But, sir, let us see
if
the proposed arrangement is not a great
improvement on the present method of distributing the public funds. It is well known,
sir, that the complaint which Upper Canada
has made in the past was that the appropriations were made, not upon revenue, nor
even
according to population, but in utter disregard of both. Under the system which
has hitherto prevailed for dividing money
grants, of the proposed subsidy to the two
Canadas ($2,005,403, or 80 cts. per head),
| Upper Canada would have received one-half ..... . ......... |
$1,002,701 |
| Whereas, according to population ............... ...... . |
1,116,872 |
| Difference in favor of the
proposed system over the
old one ........................ |
$ 114,171 |
As the moneys have been distributed equally
in the past between Upper and Lower Canada, I maintain that the balance of the
public debt, say $5,000,000, to be apportioned between them, should be divided in
the same way, and not, as proposed by the
Hon. Finance Minister, on population. But
it is said the scheme will lead to extravagance. I had hoped, Mr. SPEAKER, that
an alliance with the frugal and thrifty population of the eastern provinces would
induce the very opposite, and lead to greater
economy in the public expenditure than we
have had in the past. (Hear, hear.) With
reference, sir, to the cost of the local governments, that subject has been left in
the
hands of the local legislatures entirely,
the resolutions shewing whence their income shall be derived, and what the subsidy
shall be without compelling a resort to direct
taxation. I claim for this scheme, Mr.
SPEAKER, that it will give us national importance. (Hear.) But here again it is
objected that to obtain this we must have a
vast population. When the colonies now
forming a portion of the American union
severed the connection from the parent state,
their population was set down at 2,500,000,
and although an impression has very generally obtained that they have increased in
population faster than we have, an examination into the facts shows that such is not
the case—for in 1860 their population
reached 30,000,000, an increase of 1,200
per cent, while ours in the same period had
increased from 145,000 in 1784, to 3,000,000
in 1861, or over 2,300 per cent. (Hear.)
Confederation, sir, would give us nationality
—I speak of British nationality—a nation
created from the fragmentary portions of the
provinces of Britain on this continent, but
still retaining its allegiance to the British
Crown. Then, sir, it is claimed that the
commercial advantages which may arise
from Confederation of the provinces can as
readily be obtained by a Legislative as a
Federal union. This is admitted; but as
that is not obtainable, and as a union would
remove the barriers to commercial intercourse and foster the trade between the
colonies (each of which now effects more
exchanges with the United States than with
all the rest of the provinces), it is desirable
that the union should take place. (Hear.)
This leads me, sir, to remark upon the
probable abrogation of the Reciprocity treaty.
The country will be glad to know, from the
announcement made to the House on Monday last, that the Ministry is alive to the
importance of entering into immediate negotiations, through the English Government,
with that of the United States, for the
renewal of this treaty. (Hear, hear.) I am
not of the number who believe that the
advantages accruing from this treaty have
been all on the side of Canada; for, from the
statements lately published, it appears that
the whole trade of 1854 was... $24,000,000
| And in 1863............. |
43,000,000 |
An increase in ten years of
814
nearly 180 per cent. ..... . $19,000,000
| The exports from Canada to the
United States amounted in
ten years to . ....... ....... |
$150,000,000 |
| Imports into Canada in do |
195,000,000 |
|
$45,000,000 |
The difference in favor of the United States
being paid in gold.
| In 1854 free goods imported
into Canada from the United
States amounted to . ......... |
$ 2,000,000 |
| And in 1863 ................ |
19,000,000 |
| Increase in ten years 850 per ct. |
$17,000,000 |
I do not fear, sir, but that the treaty will be
renewed; enlightened counsels will prevail,
and, with the better feeling existing between
the two countries, the subject will be taken
up in a proper spirit, and legislated upon
accordingly. (Hear.) The construction of
the Intercolonial Railway is said to be a
necessity of the proposed union, and without
it there can be no union except in name.
Calculations have been made which show
that this road cannot be used for carrying
heavy merchandise at remunerative rates,
more especially flour, which it has been
shown would cost $2.25 per barrel from
Toronto to Halifax, at two cents per ton per
mile. The Grand Trunk Railway now carries flour from Toronto to Montreal for 25
cents per barrel during winter, and at the
same rate a barrel of flour would cost $1.22.
If this could be done, the difference in cost
between winter rates and shipping via the St.
Lawrence in summer, at 85 cents per barrel,
would be made up in a saving of storage,
interest, and insurance. Then there is the
military aspect of the subject, which has
already been thoroughly discussed. I contend, sir, that union with the Maritime
Provinces not only allies us more closely to
them and to each other, but also to that
power which alone could render us aid
whenever subjected to attack ; and, regarded
from this point of view, this railroad is said
to be a necessity. Lord DURHAM in his
report said :—
An union for common defence against foreign
enemies is the national bond of connection that
holds together the great communities of the
world, and between no parts of any kingdom or
state did the necessity exist of such a union
more obviously than between the whole of these
colonies.
(Hear, hear.) In conclusion; sir, if we reject
the proposed union, what is offered as a
substitute? In the absence of anything
better which will settle our existing difficulties, shall we reject the opportunity
now
presented and that may never recur? Rather
let us, as members of the same family, unite
for weal or for woe. By it we secure enlarged
commercial intercourse, greater security in
case of attack, a remedy for the existing difficulties between Upper and Lower Canada,
and also render more lasting the connection
now existing with the Mother Country.
(Hear.) While in favor of this measure,
but believing that it should be submitted for
the approval of those who are to be affected
by the contemplated change, I shall feel it
to be my duty in the first instance to vote
against the "previous question," in order
that such an amendment may be put, reserving the right to vote for the amendment of
the hon. member for Peel, when that shall
come up for discussion, its object being to
submit the question for popular sanction.
(Cheers.) If this, however, shall fail, I
shall vote, Mr. SPEAKER, for the resolution
now in your hands.
The debate was then adjourned.
Cet individu a participé aux :
