Council Chamber, Upper Fort Garry
Wednesday, 16 March 1870
Noon — The President in the Chair. Representatives assembled.
Hon. Mr. Bunn moved the adoption of the motion of which he had given notice.
Hon. Mr. Bunn called attention to the fact that in the original French motion the words "
les droits des gens" occurred and had been translated "the rights of men." The English translation being
vague he changed the words in question to "our rights as British subjects."
The President — It is our duty to weigh carefully how we word our resolutions and what we do. While
seeking to be as explicit as possible, we must be respectful and dignified, not merely
for own sakes, but on account of the Imperial authorities (hear, hear). The French
phrase used in the original motion is very expressive and alludes to our rights as
men — a people — a nation. In that capacity we have been ignored. All I wish to impress
upon Hon. gentlemen is, that they should exercise as much care as possible in wording
their resolutions.
Hon. Mr. Scott suggested the insertion of the words "our rights as a people," instead of "our rights
as British subjects."
Hon. Mr. Bunn — I object to the alteration. It is only as British subjects that we have any right
to complain of the transfer. If we were the subjects of any other Power, we would
not have a word to say in the matter.
Hon. Mr. Scott — I still think the words "British subjects" not only unnecessary, but that they
take away from the real essence of the motion. The second resolution, of which notice
has been given, provides for our rights as British subjects.
The President — We have of course, our rights as a people and, standing on these general rights,
we say we have been ignored and we complain. But, these rights being granted to us,
we feel sure we are always British subjects. In effect there seems little difference
between the two wordings proposed.
Hon. Mr. Bunn — There is not very much difference. But for the purpose of being concise, I prefer
to leave my motion as it stands. I grant the principle advocated by the President,
that every people have rights, but from whom must they claim them? Suppose in accordance
with that general principle, we say we have rights, from whom must we claim them?
From the Crown of England undoubtedly, as British subjects.
Hon. Mr. O'Donoghue moved in amendment — That we, the representatives of the inhabitants of the North-West,
consider that the Imperial Government, the Hudson Bay Company and the Canadian Government,
in stipulating for the transfer of the Government of this country to the Dominion
Government, without first consulting, or even notifying the people of such transfer,
have entirely ignored our rights as a people.
The President — The people of course, had the right to be consulted. There is only the right of
conquest against it.
Hon. C.J. Bird supported Mr. Bunn's motion. He said — The insertion of the words "our rights as
British subjects" I consider only consistent. It does not alter our rights as a people
in any way, but rather strengthens them. Suppose we were aliens, manifestly it would
not lie in our mouth to complain of the transference to Canada. But as British subjects,
and as such only, have we a right to complain.
The President — After all, there is here in some respects a distinction without a difference. We
complain not because we are British subjects merely, but because we are men. We complain
as a people — as men — for if we were not men we would not be British subjects.
Hon. Mr. O'Donoghue — Unquestionably, it is our business, as a people, to say that we cannot be bartered
away as an article of commerce. It is admitted that the high contracting parties might
have entered into this arrangement if they had first notified the people and obtained
their assent to the transfer. But no such notification was given — our people were
deprived of a right common to all men — and of course they felt aggrieved (cheers).
The hon. member from Mapleton, (Mr. Bunn) would have us affirm that it was only because
we were British subjects we had a right to be consulted. Now, I would go farther,
and hold with the hon., the President, that as men we cannot be trafficked in — bartered
away at the pleasure of any Government. We are free men and as such have rights altogether
apart from those we acquire by being British subjects (cheers).
The President — For my part, in stating that one form of expression is about as acceptable as another,
I do so, although having the sincerest desire to guard closely the interests of the
people (cheers). The President subsequently suggested for the sake of being more explicit,
that the words "subjects of this country", at the end of the resolution, be expunged,
and the words "people of the North-West Territory" be inserted.
Hon. Mr. Bunn's motion, as amended, was then put and carried on a
division.
Hon. Mr. Bunn moved in amendment, that the following be added to the resolution after the word,
"respected" — "and we feel assured that as British subjects such rights and properties,
usages and customs will undoubtedly be respected."
The President — I may say here, once for all, that we cannot hope to conduct parliamentary business
as they do in London or Ottawa. But we must seek to be as orderly and business-like
as possible in our proceedings, and I hope this will be the endeavor of every hon.
member.
On the suggestion of
Hon. Mr. O'Donoghue, the word "sufferings" was added to the second clause of the resolution, making it
read, "which sufferings they still endure."
The resolution then read — "That notwithstanding the insults and sufferings borne
by the people of the North-West heretofore — which sufferings they still endure —
the loyalty of the people of the North-West towards the Crown of England remains the
same, provided the 'rights, properties, usages, and customs of the people be respected
— and we feel assured that, as British subjects, such rights, properties, usages and
customs will undoubtedly be respected."
At half-past one the House took a recess for an hour and a half.
Three o'clock, P.M. — Legislature again in session.
Hon. Mr. Bunn, seconded by
Hon. Mr. Bannatyne, moved that the Constitution of the Provisional Government for Rupert's Land and
the North-West Territory be now drawn up,— that a committee be appointed to draft
the same, and submit it for the approbation of the Legislative assembly, and that
said committee be composed of — French Representatives — The Hon. the President, and
Hon. Messrs. Lepine, O'Donoghue, and Bruce; — English Representatives — Hon. Messrs.
Tait, Bird, Bunn, and James Ross, Esq., Chief Justice.
The President — The resolution is a very important one. Before beginning, it is necessary, of course,
to have some bounds. We are only a Provisional body, but it seems to me that it would
be well to show, in the way proposed, what are the aims of the present Government.
Hon. Mr. O'Donoghue objected to any person not a member, being appointed on that, or any other committee
of the House. It was unparliamentary and would afford a bad precedent.
Hon. Mr. Bunn — At this stage,— when we are about to devise a constitution, I think it perfectly
competent in us to try and secure the services of a gentleman of ability — and one
who, though not occupying a seat in the House, is from his position and talents, eminently
qualified to assist us in the work about to be undertaken.
Hon. Mr. O'Donoghue — I do not object to Mr. Ross on personal grounds, I merely object to his being placed
on the committee as giving precedent which is not only unusual, but which would in
all probability work ill, as in the event of the Chief Justice being placed on a Parliamentary
committee, there is no reason why three or four other outsiders should not be placed
on that or any other committee.
The President — This little discussion shows clearly the necessity for a speedy definition of the
powers and privileges of this House.
On motion of
Mr. O'Donoghue, seconded by
Hon. Mr. Scott, the name of Hon. Mr. Bannatyne was substituted for that of the Chief Justice, in
the motion and it was carried as amended.
The Hay Privilege
Hon. Mr. O'Donoghue gave notice that he would introduce a bill providing that the two-mile hay privilege
heretofore enjoyed shall, by act of this Legislature be converted into fee simple
ownership; and that all disputes arising between parties as to the right of this privilege,
shall be referred to the committee appointed by the House for settling such disputes.
Hon. Mr. Bunn, seconded by
Hon. Mr. Scott, moved that when the House adjourns it stands adjourned till Friday morning at ten
o'clock, in order to enable the committee which had been struck to get through its
labors. — Carried.
The House then adjourned.
This individual participated in:
