131
[...] plimented the hon. member for Cumberland
(Hon. Dr. Tupper) who had with grave dignity
read the hon. member for Sherbrooke out of his
party. But the Hon. Minister of Militia, on
whose breath the government could be turned
out, had in his statesmanlike speech said that
he had no objection to the views of the hon.
member for Sherbrooke on the subject of independence, though he did not want to place
that gentleman in a position favourable to any
movement—Fenian movement he might say- towards independence.
Hon. Sir George-É. Cartier said he did not
expect any Fenian movement on the part of the
hon. member; as for the Fenians, his volunteers
would take care of them.
Hon. Mr. Huntington said the hon. Minister
of Militia had said the subject of independence
should not be taken up by this Parliament, and
apart from that he would be delighted to have
the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his colleague. He would ask the Hon. Finance Minister
and the hon. member for Cumberland, if he
was to be ruined and degraded because he had
expressed an independent opinion. The
member for Cumberland had attempted to
make a gulf between the hon. member for
Sherbrooke and his party. He (Mr. Huntington) went on to charge the Government with
slowness in proceeding with Confederation. He
had not been an ardent confederationist, but he
had accepted it and become anxious for its
success, but the Government had not adopted
measures for Confederation in Nova Scotia and
the North-West, which the exigencies of the
public service demanded. He had been aware a
year or two ago, that disaffection existed at
Red River among the half-breeds, and that they
were afraid Canada was about to absorb their
lands. He had been told that deputations had
been sent to Fort Garry, to demand from the
Governor an explanation, in order to know if
their Territory was to be ceded to Canada. He
did not know how much truth there was in all
this, but he considered that it surely must have
come to the ear of the Government. The hon.
member for Cumberland had visited the country, and had ascertained in four days what
the
government did not know before that time,
that there was disaffection, and he almost sympathized with the insurgents on account
of the
fairness and justness of the Bill of Rights
which they had formulated. Referring to the
Hon. Secretary of State, then President of the
Council, he spoke of his affection for the
people of Red River, and his gallantry in repelling aspersions upon the fairer portion
of the
population of that country, (laughter) but considered that his presence there was
an induce
132 COMMONS DEBATES FEBRUARY 22, 1870 ment for the people to hold out in their
demands. He went on to deprecate any cries of
disloyalty, and said he would not enter upon
the subject. He had no intention of making a
movement in the House on the subject of independence, and had advised his friends
that it
would be improper and unwise to introduce a
petition to Parliament upon that subject. He
had expressed this opinion before, without
compromising his honourable friends on his
right or on his left. He had thought the grave
question of colonial relations, was a fair one
for discussion in this country, as it was discussed on the other side of the Atlantic.
He had
studied and discussed this question in a political sense, and as an orator and essayist.
It had
been widely discussed in England, and had
called out an authoritative declaration that
colonies, and Canada, when they wanted to go
might do it, and the Imperial Government
would place no obstructions in the way. He
maintained that a man ought not to be ostracised because he favored independence.
The
Hon. Finance Minister was the apostle of perpetual connection, of perpetual colonial
inferiority, but the time would come when independence would be a practical movement.
Some
parties in England—among them the Tory
Standard—have recently asserted that the colonies had too much freedom, and that the British
Parliament ought to regulate the tariff and
other matters, so as to bring them more in
consonance with that of the Empire. Would not
the Hon. Finance Minister become a missionary for perpetual unity, and for the restricting,
and the taking away of some of the privileges
for which he had fought in the olden time? He
earnestly desired the success of Confederation,
but thought the only way in which Canada
could become a great country, was when she
gained her place among the nations of the
earth, and then he predicted for her a glorious
future.
Hon. Sir Francis Hincks said he would
detain the House only a few minutes, in reply
to the extraordinary personal attack that had
been made upon him by the member for Shefford. It was very unfair to charge him with
having introduced this discussion. It was introduced by the member for Lambton, who
had
thought proper to make a private and confidential letter of his a subject of discussion
in this
House. He (Sir Francis) had been blamed for
referring to a private conversation, but it
should not be forgotten that the whole of this
discussion arose from previous reference to his
confidential circular. The hon. gentleman had
charged him with putting himself forward as
leader of the Reform party. He had done nothing of the kind. No doubt the Premier
had
considered he might have some influence with
133
Reformers from Upper Canada, with whom he
had formerly acted, but he never attempted to
occupy the position of rival or leader in the
Government. They hoped to be able to bring
down a thoroughly Canadian national policy,
which would command the support not only of
Reformers, but of all the Provinces. He had
been charged with repeating private conversations, but the gentleman who had that
conversation with him, was not a private individual.
Mr. Young was a gentleman who took a very
prominent part in public affairs, was formerly
a member of Parliament, and had attended
Independence meetings with the member for
Shefford. The member for Lambton stated very
positively that there was no such thing as
annexation sentiments in the country.
Hon. Sir Francis Hincks said his opinion
was, that such sentiments did exist, and his
opinions had been strengthened by this debate,
and by the statements of the member for Sherbrooke, though that gentleman had endeavored
to-day to explain it away.
Hon. Sir A. T. Galt—I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. Does he say that I endeavoured
to explain away my statements?
Hon. Sir Francis Hincks said he would
repeat what the honourable gentleman had
said and they could judge. He said that at the
present time Independence . would lead to
annexation.
Hon. Sir Francis Hincks—That is exactly
what I say, too. He (Sir Francis) moreover
could not look forward to any time when independence would not lead to annexation.
He
took it that the member for Sherbrooke
occupied exactly the same position as Mr.
Young.
Hon. Sir A. T. Galt—I disclaim, altogether,
any responsibility attaching to me for this conversation, which the Minister of Finance
had
with Mr. Young. I had nothing whatever to do
with it. I do not share those views, and never
have expressed them; and I beg the Honourable
Finance Minister not to mix me up in the
conversation he had with Mr. Young, in which
Mr. Young stated to him that he desired annexation to flow from independence.
Hon. Sir Francis Hincks went on to say, that
he had great respect for Mr. Young, and was
his personal friend and would not say a word
to injure him. With regard to the letter which
the member for Sherbrooke referred to last
night, containing expressions of his views on
independence, sent to the Governor General, to
134 COMMONS DEBATES February 22, 1870
be transmitted to England, he hoped that if
that letter was read before this House, the
answer also would be read. He protested
against the letter being read without the
answer.
Hon. Sir Francis Hincks said there was one
sentiment of the member for Shefford with
which he cordially agreed, and that was that
the people of this country were thoroughly
loyal, and therefore he felt no danger would
arise from the views of which the gentleman
was the exponent. That gentleman had
referred to the position of inferiority and disability under which the Colonies laboured.
He
did not believe that we occupied an inferior
position. His strong objeciton to independence
was that it would deprive us of monarchial
institutions. No one would imagine that we
were going to set up a monarchy here, and the
only form of Government we could establish
under independence would be that of our
neighbours in the South, and he was sure they
would agree with him that monarchial institutions were far superior. We enjoy practically
all the independence any people could desire,
and combined with that, we had the benefit of
these institutions, which he sincerely believed
were the best which any people could possess.
It was idle to try to persuade us that we were
labouring under any disabilities. We were not,
and he sincerely hoped he would never see the
day when any other flag should wave over us
than that of England.
Mr. Mackenzie said, in reference to the
Finance Minister's statement, that he (Mr.
Mackenzie) had introduced a private circular
into discussion, that it had been discussed a
week in the newspapers (including Sunday, on
which it was written), before it was spoken of
in the House, and was public property.
Mr. Dufresne did not intend discussing the
different paragraphs of the Address; but he
wished to draw the attention of the House to
the one relating to the North-West; he considered that question to be the most important
one at issue. He regretted that the Government
had selected Mr. McDougall as Lieutenant
Governor of the North-West. When Commissioner of Crown Lands he had been sent to the
Manitoulin Islands to negotiate a treaty with
the Indians, and all recollect what trouble and
disaffection he created in trying to carry out
his mission. With this still fresh in their
memory, the Government should have made
another choice. The Indian tribes are linked
together by the same ties that bind us, and
135
what affects the interests of one affects them
all. The name of Mr. McDougall was sufficient
in itself to create an insurrection of the Indian
tribes and the half-breeds inhabiting the
North-West. He believed the Government were
honest and sincere in trying to carry out the
Confederation Government scheme; but they
must regret to-day, as all the members of the
House do, that so unfortunate an appointment
should have been made. The member for
Lanark accused the French Canadian settlers
of having been the first to rise in insurrection,
but the accusation was unfounded. The French
Canadians had proved their loyalty on many
occasions; it was once said by an eminent
statesman, now deceased, that the last shot
which would be fired in Canada in defence of
British interests, would be fired by a French
Canadian, and he might add, that the last drop
of blood which would be shed for the same
cause, would be that of a French Canadian.
The Government had made a great mistake in
selecting the member for Lanark, but the evil
could still be remedied. Let the Government
appoint as Lieutenant Governor of the North-
West an able, efficient and popular man, let
him be selected irrespective of his nationality,
and let his first duty be to conciliate the Catholic Clergy who enjoy such an immense
power
and influence over their co-religionists. He also
wanted to draw the attention of the House to
the fact that in the House there are members
who are receiving large salaries, for services
rendered as Commissioners; he could not
object to those gentlemen, whom he highly
esteemed, but he thought it was a very bad
precedent.
Mr. Scatcherd complained that the debate
was not on public questions, but on personal
differences. The reciprocity question, and the
obtaining of a market for the products of the
farmer certainly merited some consideration,
but they had been past by. He had supposed
that the acquisition of the North-West Territory, and if acquired, the construction
of a railway to open it up, might surely have engaged
the attention of the House, for if the railway
was not built, Canada would be better without
the Territory; the enlarging of the canals, and
improvement of internal navigation, to
increase trade and commerce, were subjects for
discussion of more importance, than whether
the Minister of Justice had kept faith with two
or three gentlemen whom he had admitted to
the Cabinet, and who had themselves deserted
their party to take office. Such matters were of
no importance to any one but themselves. He
held that the question of whether any member
holding views in favor of independence was
loyal, was like arguing whether any one in
favor of Fenianism in Ireland was loyal, the
136 COMMON DEBATES February 22, 1870
difference being only that those in favor of
independence were less dangerous, because
they were not so strong, (hear, hear). If any
one desired annexation, the road was not so
long but that he could go and enjoy its blessings on American soil (cheers). What
was the
use of arguing whether the Finance Minister,
who had been serving his Queen for 15 years,
should be admitted to the Cabinet? It was not
his past they had to look at but his future
conduct. Charges equally strong had been
made against the Ministers of Justice and
Militia, and the member for Sherbrooke, by the
Reform party, as had been made against him,
(Opposition cries of "no, no"), but yet they did
not disdain to enter into coalition with them.
But it has been said the Minister of Finance
had usurped the name of Reformer. If he had
declared himself the leader of the Reform
party in Ontario he must differ from him. The
real leader of the party there is George Brown,
(MacFarlane emphatically, "no, no"). The honourable member who said no, was mistaken.
He
thought the Finance Minister had done more
for Reform than probably any other man in the
Dominion, and that he did not assume too
much in writing the circular. He saw Banking
measures referred to in the address. He held
the scheme brought before Parliament last session by Mr. Rose was sound, and the best
that
had been proposed, and had it come to a vote
he would have supported it. He thought the
people of the North-West had been too severely
condemned for their conduct to the member for
Lanark, for this country had no right to
acquire that territory without consulting the
people. Having done so, he could not see how
they could expect different conduct from them.
An Attorney-General and a Surveyor-General
were taken from Canada, surveys being run
before the land was acquired, than which nothing could be more odious to the people.
All the
Provinces had been consulted before the union,
and so ought Red River. He did not believe that
the few thousand half-breeds should be called
savages, and their interests not consulted. He
intended to deal with the Government and
their measures as they came forward, and not
with them for their past acts.
After recess,
Mr. Young said that up to that moment the
speech of the hon. member for Lambton has
been unanswered, and, in fact, was unanswerable. It must be apparent that the position
of
137
the Government was different now from what
it had been last Session. He thought that it was
impossible that the people of Ontario could not
but see that the professions of the Government
had not been carried out, and that the agreement entered into at the last elections
had been
broken. The cry they went to the country with
was that party differences were to be sunk and
that however objectionable the policy of the
Minister of Justice had been in the West, the
Reformers of Ontario had a guarantee of the
presence of Reformers in the Cabinet—but
they found that almost from the commencement of the Government a deception was
practised.
Mr. Young said that there had been many
deceptions practised, and when they found two
of those who had supported it and had been
within the Ministry, were now on the floor of
the House in opposition, it seemed pretty clear
proof that some deception had been practised.
It seemed to him that the true point was
whether the Government were to go to the
country on the ground of a certain representation of the Liberal party in the Cabinet,
and
then not to carry out the agreement. They
might write over the portals of the Cabinet, as
a caution to those Liberals who entered it, the
warning, ,"Let those abandon hope who enter
here." If it could be shown that any of the
members of the Government hampered Mr.
McDougall's entrance to the North-West Territory, or in any way raised obstacles,
directly or
indirectly, to the peaceable acquisition of the
country, then that Minister had lost the right
to a seat in the Cabinet. He did object strongly
to the false faith which had been kept by the
Government to the Liberals of Ontario. With
regard to the Finance Minister, he was not
acquainted with the gentleman before he left
the country; but he was acquainted with his
history, and he knew of his ability. But when
his old friends saw the manner in which he
entered the Cabinet, when not a single member
of the Government had said that he was
pleased with the entrance of the hon. gentleman into the Cabinet, they would not consider
that his entry had been worthy of approval;
and if he only obtained the approval of Mr.
Ferguson, he did not think his influence would
amount to much. He held in his hand the
speech of the Minister of Justice on the vote of
the House of want of confidence against the
present Minister of Finance, in which he said
that in his Government he had more Walpoles
than Pitts, and it had debauched the moral
sense of the country, besides having questionable transactions in the public property.
He
138 COMMONS DEBATES February 22, 1870
(Sir F. Hincks) had not entered into the
charges against himself that had been published in the newspapers.
Mr. Young said that he should only be too
happy to hear those charges denied, but they
had not been successfully cleared up; and yet it
was to such a man that Sir John A. Macdonald
had entrusted the most important part of the
public service. He could not but apply to him in
that office the quotation of Mr. Baldwin, that
"Confidence was a plant of slow growth; when
once it was broken, it was difficult to restore
it." Then, with regard to the policy of the
Government, they had violated the Constitution in their grant to Nova Scotia; and
the
Ontario Legislature had passed resolutions
asking that Imperial legislation might be taken
which would prevent such acts in the future,
and there was no doubt that the example
would be attempted to be followed by the other
Provinces at present in the Confederation. This
would account in some measure for the disturbances at Red River. The conduct of the
hon. member for Cumberland, in regard to the
grant to Nova Scotia, was answered, and he
thought that if a different course had been
pursued in regard to this matter, the difficulties that had been experienced in Newfoundland
and Prince Edward Island would have
been overcome. He was astonished to find that
the Government had taken credit for economical management of the Dominion; and he
was
astonished even more to hear the hon. mover of
the Address refer to it. He would like to know
where the economy of the Government was to
be found. Was it in the creation of new Cabinet
officials, and in the way the Intercolonial Railway was being managed? He was afraid
that
instead of economy the very opposite course
had been pursued. The public debt of the
Dominion, after payment of the expenses contemplated, would amount to $120,000,000,
and
would entail a heavy taxation of the country. If
they put the same duties upon articles entering
the Dominion as the Americans did, they
would be in fact cutting off their noses because
the Americans did theirs. (Laughter.) He
would go for any national policy which would
benefit Canada; but he did not approve of a
tariff which would place them in the same
position as America.
Hon. Dr. Tupper said that his equal tariff
referred to articles which now went free, but
which should then be placed on an equal footing with the American tariff.
139
Mr. Young said that he would support any
measure which would place Canada on a
proper footing, if it was endorsed by the leaders of the House.
Mr. Jones (Leeds and Grenville)—I will
endorse it. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Young then passed some strictures on
the Militia Bill, and on the Banking Bill which
he said was withdrawn amid the ridicule of the
House. Gross inaccuracies in the public
accounts appeared time after time, and the
Government had agreed to pay $1,500,000 for
the North-West Territory, and had sent up a
Governor who could not enter the Territory. In
conclusion he had considered the whole of the
acts of the Government, and he, after careful
consideration, did not think them calculated to
promote the prosperity of the nation or the
cause of Confederation.
Several members rose, but gave way to
Hon. Mr. Langevin, who said that he was
not present when the hon. member for North
Lanark spoke yesterday; but he had read his
speech, and found that he had stated that the
insurgents of the North-West Territory were
encouraged in that course by the hon. Secretary for the Provinces, and that those
sitting
near and behind him sympathised with him.
He wished to ask the hon. member whether, in
speaking, he referred to members of the Cabinet who were Lower Canadians.
Hon. Mr. McDougall said if they were to go
into the discussion opened up by that question,
it would be better, perhaps, if it were postponed until they had the papers before
them.
He was not prepared to go into the question till
the papers were before the House.
Hon. Mr. Langevin said, if the hon. member
was not ready now to make good his words he
should not have used them. In fairness to an
old colleague who had been for years in the
Government with him, he should have
answered the question he put to him or withdraw his statement. A paper in this city
some
days ago published an article in which his (Mr.
Langevin's) name was freely used, and some
accusation was then made against him which
the hon. member had made last night against
some member sitting near the Secretary for the
Provinces. He was accused of having
encouraged and promoted insurrection in the
North-West country. That was a grave accusa
140 COMMONS DEBATES February 22, 1870 ion to be made against any public man, and
had it been made in Parliament he would have
nailed it at once. He now took the earliest
opportunity of stating, in his place in Parliament, that the report to which he referred
was
false and a base calumny, (hear, hear). It had
been stated that when Mr. Provencher was
sent to meet the insurgents he held a conversation with them at River Sale, and they
then
told him that they were encouraged by members of the Government at Ottawa, and his
(Langevin's) name was used. Out of the whole
population of the North-West he knew only
three individuals, Governor McTavish, Vicar-
General Thibault, and Colonel De Salaberry.
Colonel De Salaberry and Revd. Mr. Thibault
were in Canada at that time, so that the only
one then in the territory that he knew was
Governor McTavish, who was reported at that
time to be on his death bed. The only communication he had ever held with Mr. McTavish
was
at Ottawa, in presence of the Minister of
Militia and the member for North Lanark. He
had never communicated either directly or indirectly by himself or by any one else
with any
one in the North-West on any matter whatever.
If he could have been guilty of violation of his
oath of office, as this charge implied, he would
never have been where he is, nor should he
occupy the position he now holds. He felt
strongly on this point because the charge was a
serious and malicious one and had been made
when he could not at the time reply to it. The
member for North Lanark had refused to name
whom he referred to in his accusations, and
therefore he would say that his denial applied
also to the statements of that hon. gentleman;
and he would add that he was authorized by
his colleague, Mr. Chapais, to make, in his
behalf, the same denial.
Hon. Mr. McDougall was glad to have heard
the distinct denial from the hon. gentleman of
the charges made against him, but he disclaimed any responsibility for these charges,
nor was there any reason why he should be
called on or be expected to justify the statements made in the public press. He had
no
relation with any newspaper, and more especially with any newspaper in Ottawa. He
had a
case to maintain and he would maintain it; and
he desired to be on good terms with the Ministry on this question. If they honestly
desired to
carry out Confederation and to establish as
soon as practicable their authority in the
North-West, he would defend them and help
them to carry out their policy; but, on the other
hand, if it appeared to him and to the judgment
of his friends in this House that their policy
was not calculated to accomplish this object,
but likely to encourage those in resistance to
141
authority, then he would oppose them, and, if
necessary, vote to turn them out of office.
When he had suggested last night that it would
not be prudent to publish all documents just
now, some of the Government supporters had
reported that there was something in them
which he desired to conceal. On the contrary,
there was not one word which he was ashamed
of as a public man, but he had felt it his duty to
place in the hands of the Government all the
information, confidential and otherwise, that
had reached him; and such being the character
of the correspondence in the hands of the government, he did not think it would serve
public
interests to publish it all at the present time.
With reference to the report concerning the
Minister of Public Works which had been
referred to, he would say that when he first
heard that report he denied it as utterly incredible. He then explained the origin
of the story;
how that Mr. Provencher had parleyed with
the insurgents some two or three hours; they
told him the course taken by Mr. Howe when
he was in the Territory, had encouraged them
to revolt; and not only that, but that another
member of the Canadian Government had
ordered them to persist in their demands till
they secured them. Provencher denied this,
and asked for the name. They answered they
could not give the name, but if he would mention the names of the members of the Government,
they would tell him if it was one of them.
Provencher mentioned the names of three
French members of the Cabinet, and they said
he was one of them. He (Mr. McDougall)
denied at the time this statement, and subsequently he thought the solution of the
matter
might be found in the fact that the Minister of
Public Works had a brother, a high dignitary of
the church, and that, perhaps, in correspondence with the clergy of the North-West
his
name might have been taken among the people
to be that of the honourable Gentleman. He
then went on to read the report of his remarks
last night, as published, showing that all he
had said was that the insurgents relied upon
the Secretary of State for the Provinces, and
some gentleman near him, for assistance. That
statement was strictly correct. They did rely
upon the assistance of these gentlemen, and in
the speech of the Minister of Militia last night
he had argued that there was great justification for those who had taken up arms,
and
while he censured the loyal Canadians and
others who were ready to risk their lives in
defence of his own Government, he had not a
word to say in condemnation of those who had
taken up arms to resist his representative; and
when reports of the troubles manufactured by
American sympathisers were published, all
over the country, the Government, though in
full possession from him of correct informa
142 COMMON DEBATES February 22, 1870 ion, never took any pains to lay that information before the public. An attempt had
been
made to misrepresent the position of affairs,
but he would endeavour to put it in its true
light. The French half-breeds were not the only
residents of the country; there was a large
population there who had no sympathy with
Riel, with disloyalty or annexation. At the
Riviere Sale, at the time of th conference with
Riel, there were 90 men, all French half-breeds,
ready armed, under Mr. Wm. Dease, to contend
with their countrymen in support of Canada,
but on account of the position of the Hudson
Bay Company, whose officers were
hors de
combat, or winking at Riel's movements, they
disbanded. He was afraid they would find
many persons of influence, if not in the House,
at least in the country, sympathizing with
objects against the interests and wishes of the
Dominion. The hon. gentleman had provoked
the remark, but it seemed strange that if there
was no sympathy for the insurgents, their
messenger Colonel De Salaberry, fresh from
the offices of these gentlemen, should be found
repeating the slanders about the Manitoulin
Island after his (Mr. McDougall's) back was
turned. Fortunately, some of his party who had
been left behind heard him instilling stories
into the ears of the poor innocent half—breeds,
and poisoning their minds against him. His
words had been taken down, and could be produced in evidence to prove the encouragement,
as well as sympathy given them. They should
have sent a missionary of more judgment and
discretion, and one who was urged by other
views and feelings than those of hostility to
the Government of Canada and its Representative in that distant land. He had reason
to
complain that he had not met with a hearty
sympathy from some members of the Government, but that a desire had been shown to
turn
the movement into another direction, than that
to which the people of Canada, French and
English, would, he felt confident, insist it
should take. (Cheers.)
Hon. Mr. Langevin said that the member for
Lanark had brought an accusation founded on
conversations that had taken place between
Mr. Provencher and the half—breeds, and without other proof than the word of these
men. He
said he did not believe such reports, yet on
public occasions, he had made these accusations against his colleagues and members
of
the Government. What would he say if he had
143
brought charges against him, founded on newspaper paragraphs, and referred to ridiculous
accusations of that kind which had appeared?
If he (Mr. Langevin) made any accusations, he
should take care to bring proof with the accusation. Even last night he (Mr. McDougall)
brought an accusation against the government
that its members had been guilty of encouraging rebellion.
Hon. Mr. Langevin said he was not warranted in bringing such accusations, which were
calumnies from beginning to end, (hear, hear).
The hon. member had said he was, perhaps,
mistaken about the person, and that it might
be a namesake of his (Mr. Langevin), a relative—his brother the Bishop, (hear, hear).
The
honourable member knew that he, a dignitary
of the church, was not in the country and could
not answer the charge.
Hon. Mr. Langevin—No charge? It was an
accusation of the most serious character without the slightest proof. The Bishop of
Rimouski
had left home two months or so before the
other Bishops, and before there was either
trouble or rumour of trouble, and he had not
written a single line to any one in or about the
Red River country. It might perhaps, be against
another namesake of his not so high as the
Bishop but also in the church, and to whom the
hon. member had alluded. He would say at
once that against him also the charge was
groundless.
Mr. Magill said that the address was more
remarkable for what it
did not contain than for
what it did. There were two subjects of great
importance to which no reference was made:
the improvement of our Inland Navigation, and
the rearrangement of our fiscal policy, so as to
procure a home market for our products by the
proper encouragement and protection of our
manufacturing interests. The people of the
West are becoming alive to the subject, and a
growing determination for proper legislation is
rapidly on the increase. The Dominion and
local governments appear anxious to encourage
immigration to our shores, but unless measures
can be adopted to procure employment for the
immigrant on his arrival in this country, the
expenditure incurred will prove a foolish
outlay. As it is there is plenty of scope for field
labour, but if they induced the mechanic and
144 COMMON DEBATES February 22, 1870
the manufacturer from the busy hives of industry, employment must be found for them
also,
by a wise national policy. This cannot be done
by breaking down all the barriers of protection
for our own people, and throwing our markets
open as a common, to be used by our neighbours when it may suit their convenience,
who
by hostile tariffs almost entirely preclude us
from their markets. The improvement of our
magnificent chain of inland communication, is
deserving of the most serious consideration,
and no time should be lost in enlarging the St.
Lawrence and Welland Canals, so that Seagoing Ships of large dimensions, could discharge
their cargoes in our Lake ports without
previously breaking bulk. In reference to the
question of independence which had been
freely spoken of on the floor of this House by
one or two honourable members, he had a few
remarks to make. He regretted that any sentiments such as he had heard should have
been
uttered on the floor of a Canadian Parliament.
The propagation of such sentiments tended to
make the people discontented. We possess independence of the most ample form, our
laws
and institutions are framed by representatives
of our own choice, we are now an integral
portion of the greatest Empire upon earth, as
much so as London, or Dublin, and as much
entitled to the powerful protection of the
Empire as either of them, (hear, hear). Those
who think we would be made great by such a
change would find out we would be made less.
The independence advocated by the honourable gentleman referred to would be the most
abject slavery (hear, hear), to suppose that a
country like ours with its extended frontier
and populated by four millions of inhabitants,
adjacent to the grasping Republic with forty
millions strongly imbued with the "manifest
destiny doctrine" is simply absurd. He believed
that if he were guilty of advocating independence in the sense referred to, he might
justly
be accused of advocating what amounted to a
transfer of allegiance, and which he could only
characterize as disloyalty, and which if successful would terminate in annexation
to the
United States, and strip us of the highest glory
of which it is possible for us to feel proud- that of being allied to Great Britain.
In an
economical point of view it would be undesirable. We would then be under the necessity
of
not only maintaining an army, but we should
also have to maintain a navy of considerable
strength to protect our commercial marine,
whose sails now whiten every sea, (cheers).
We should also be obliged to send ambassadors
to the various foreign courts—at great expense.
These services were being now performed by
the Mother Country on our behalf, and without
any contribution from us. Under these circumstances he concluded that there was no
people
145
that enjoyed a larger amount of independence,
or civil and religious liberty than the people of
this Dominion, or no country where life and
property were more secure. With regard to his
position, in relation to the Government, he said
that he would not give them a factious opposition, but would be governed by the description
of measures which they might introduce, and if
they failed, in his judgment, in this respect, he
would endeavour to replace them by others
who could more fully realize the importance of
their position and the requirements of the
country. In reference to the North West question, he thought the action of the hon.
member
for Hants was not such as he could approve,
judging from the admissions made by the hon.
gentleman himself. He condemned his conduct
in passing Mr, McDougall on the prairie so
cavalierly, without in any way advising him as
to the state of affairs at Red River, but acted as
if he had wished him to grope in the dark,
instead of informing him as to the true state of
affairs there when he left. His conduct, also, in
ordering to be taken down a flag which had
been hoisted in anticipation of the spread of
Canadian rule in this territory, he considered
most reprehensible, especially when perpetrated, not only by a Canadian Minister,
but by
one charged by our Government with important duties in that country. The hon. member
found them in a state of chronic discontent, but
he tells us—when asked why he did not
address the people, in order to remove the fears
and unjust opinions they entertained in regard
to the intentions of the Canadian Government—that he was fearful of disturbing the
harmony prevailing among them.
Hon. Mr. Howe said that he never ordered
the flag to be taken down.
Mr. Magill said he was glad to hear the hon.
gentleman say so, but he understood him to say
the reverse. However, he said that if he did not
order it down, he should not have allowed
others to take it down, (hear, hear).
Hon. Mr. Howe explained, that he had not
ordered down the flag, nor had he made any
public remark on the subject. The flag was
hoisted, he understood, not in honour of
Canada, but in honour of himself personally.
146 COMMONS DEBATES February 22, 1870
All he had done on the subject was, to decline
to take up his residence in the House of the
party raising the flag, who was known to be
disloyal.
Mr. Bown said, that he had friends who were
prisoners in the North West, and anything said
by him might be of serious consequence to
them. In reference to the conduct of the honourable Secretary of State in the Territory,
he
said that from what he had been informed of
the case, he had been until lately inclined to
believe a good deal of what had been said in
the House on the subject. Before coming down .
to Parliament he had made up his mind to
enquire as to the sources of these reports, and
he found out that the hon. gentleman, in his
journey, had been accompanied by a Mr. Sanford, and a Mr. Turner, gentlemen who had
trade relations with the North-West. Their
friends there were Mr. Bannatyne and others
well known to hold anti-Canadian sentiments
in the settlement, if not leaders of the rebels in
Winnipeg. He took up his residence at a hotel,
the parlor of which was occupied also by his
travelling companions. As soon as his entry
into the Territory was made known, a circle
was made round him to prevent his meeting
Canadians, or those interested in Canada, and
to prevent them from holding private or confidential interviews with the Hon. Secretary
of
State. What he was reported to have said was
given out as taunts against the friends of our
country, and as proof that he was in favor of
their cause, rather than that of Canada. As far
as he (Mr. Bown) could ascertain, none of
these reports could be traced to the hon. gentleman, but were traceable to Mr. Bannatyne,
or
Mr. McKenny. The object of these gentlemen
evidently was to sow the seeds of discord between the Secretary for the Provinces
and the
friends of Canada in the Territory, and to
excite feelings of distrust against him in
Canada and amongst his colleagues, and thus
strengthen their own cause, and he was sure
that the reports circulated would be found to
have originated with those opposed to the
entry of the Canadian Governor. He (Mr.
Bown) and his friends had done all they could
to make the reception of the Governor agreable, and he was sorry that the feeling
there
was against him. As to Governor McDougall's
course of action he would say nothing under
the circumstances, but he had considered it his
duty to state what he knew of Mr. Howe's
action.
Mr. Bodwell said he had supported the
Finance Minister previously, until he saw the
report that Sir Francis said at a meeting in
147
North Renfrew that he was willing to accept
the sauce of a Conservative, and to serve in
office under the Leader of the Conservative
party. He regretted to see a gentleman who had
served so well in other Colonies, now serving
under one who had charged him with being
steeped to the lips in corruption. He had not
the confidence of any body of the Government
supporters, and certainly not of the members
of the Reform party. He hoped to have seen
that a change would have taken place in the
policy of the Government on the accession and
the appointment to office of the hon. gentleman, but he had been disappointed. He
condemned the policy of the Government with
regard to the Intercolonial Railroad, which, he
regretted to see, was supported by the Finance
Minister. He thought that the Railway would
be an engine in the hands of the Government.
He was in favour of such liberal grants of land
to railroads as were given by the United States.
The Minister of Justice said that the policy of
the Government was not changed in regard to
Banking, yet Mr. Rose had been compelled to
withdraw his Bill last session. He (Mr. Bod-
well) was sorry to hear such a declaration. The
disturbances at the North-West reflected, he
thought, upon the Government, and he did
think it strange that no further endeavours
had been taken by the Government to promote
the peaceable entry of the Governor into the
Territory. He was surprised to hear that the
Minister for the Provinces did not feel it his
duty to take any more active measures than he
had done. (Hear, hear.) He did not know
whether the Minister of Finance expected to
obtain the support of the Reform party to the
policy of Protection shadowed forth. He personally did not think it likely that those
who
had spent their lives advocating Free Trade,
would now, at his bidding, support opposite
principles.
Hon. Sir Francis Hincks said that this was
but one of the many assumptions made about
the financial policy of the Government.
Mr. Bodwell said that it was a matter for
comment. With regard to the question of
Annexation, he thought that the idea of nationality was looked upon by the Government
at
home; and he threw the charge of being Annexationists, made against the Reform party,
back
into the faces of those who made it, as being
entirely without justification. Sir F. Hincks
entered the Cabinet as a Conservative. He had
nothing to say against it; but if he entered as a
Reformer, he ought to have stepped out and
assisted those who were endeavouring to carry
Reform principles. He should support any good
measures of the Government; but must confess
148 COMMON DEBATES February 22, 1870
as to the present constitution of it that he had
no confidence in it.
Mr. Mills spoke at some length of the issues
of the last election. He said both the Minister
of Justice and the Minister of Finance admitted that an opposition was necessary while
at
the same time they were endeavouring to
annihilate the opposition by a coalition of parties. The Minister of Finance went
farther, and
maintained that after a coalition, party distinctions in the coalition are an absurdity.
He said
this was not the position taken by the Finance
Minister upon entering the Cabinet, for he
informed the country that the Minister of Justice had been graciously pleased to permit
him
(Sir F. Hincks) to bring another reformer with
him into the ministry. It was clear then there
was no fusion in the ministerial camp. If the
position taken by ministers was correct, he
(Mr. Mills) would ask how was it possible to
differ about the construction of the Cabinet?
How could they differ as to whether there
should be two reformers or three, or two conservatives or three, seeing these distinctions
were terminated by the coalition of 1867? He
said the ministry had all along been like an
Eastern Court, into which the hungry from
without were eager to be admitted, and the
holders of insecure places within, were anxious
to hasten into profitable retirement. He spoke
of the organization of the machinery of government, and maintained that ministers
had confounded a Privy Council with a Cabinet Council. He expressed a doubt as to
the necessity of
a Privy Council, but argued that as the law
provided for its establishment, that leading
members of the opposition ought to have been
made Privy Councillors, so that they might be
in the position of leaders of Her Majesty's
opposition in England, having the right to give
advice to the Governor General when the exigencies of the public service justified
such a
course. He next spoke of the innovation made
in the constitution by the Nova Scotia Act of
last session, and said the government had proceeded as if the Union was a Legislative
and
not a Federal one. He condemned the policy
from the beginning as to the acquisition of the
North-West. He maintained the members of
New Brunswick had been tricked into placing
the location of the Intercolonial Railroad in the
hands of ministers, to save the Minister of
Customs the humiliation of being opposed by a
large majority of the New Brunswick members. He next referred to the position of Sir
F.
Hincks. He said Byron called Rome the "mother of dead Empires," and that the Minister
of
Finance was the resuscitated leader of a
defunct party; that he had been made the forlorn hope of a government in danger of
dissolution, but instead of giving renewed hope, he
149
had awakened sedition. He said the hand of
time in scattering its snows upon him had not
damped the ardor of this venerable relict of a
well nigh forgotten race of dead warriors. He
said the member for South Lanark although a
conservative was most anxious to smoke the
pipe of peace with the opposition. He (Mr.
Mills) had twice referred to the saturnian age
of '64. He said, last year the member for
Lennox and the hon. member for South Lanark
were like Castor and Pollux "who fought so
well for Rome," but now when the conservative
element was strengthened in the Cabinet, for
there was still no fusion, the alliance of "the
great twin brothers" was broken, and the
defection in the conservative ranks increased.
He denied that the Receiver General had any
followers. He said the Receiver General (Mr.
Morris) was made by the Minister of Justice,
for he was truly one of his people. He criticised
the position of Dr. Tupper, and held that his
present position was an admission that he had
been unmindful of the interests of his Province
when the Union was established, and concluded by expressing the opinion that Canada
would ultimately become a part of a great British Confederacy.
Mr. Oliver trusted the Government would
come down with an efficient measure to secure
the markets of the Maritime Provinces for the
rich agricultural fields of Ontario. The delegation to the West India Islands, to
ascertain the
markets there, and their report, had cost the
Government a lot of money, but nothing had
been done. He maintained that with good markets, we should be independent of all other
nations. He did not consider the Volunteer Bill
was suited to the country, and maintained that
the success of the Volunteer force was due to
the exertions and liberality of the officers, and
patriotism of the volunteers. He thought the
expenses of officers of the staff ought to be
curtailed. With reference to the North-West, he
contended that a road ought to be made to that
Territory, or else it would be lost, and the
whole object of Confederation would be lost.
He would give the ministry fair support or
hearty opposition, according as their measures
commended themselves to his judgment.
Mr. Jones (Leeds and Grenville)—Considering the peculiar political combinations which
have taken place, I deem it my duty to my
constituents, to the members of this House, and
to the people of this Dominion, to define my
position in relation to the different parties into
which the political community is now divided.
But before doing so, I wish to correct an error
which was made in the report of my speech
delivered in this House on Friday evening last.
Now, I am represented in the city papers as
150 COMMONS DEBATES February 22, 1870
having stated "that the Reformers acted most
extravagantly when in office." I certainly did
not make use of this language; what I did say
in speaking against a Coalition form of Government was "that when the Reform element
was fully represented in the Cabinet by
Brown, Howland and McDougall, the extravagance of the Government was as great, and
even greater, than it has been since with only
one Reformer in the Ministry", and mentioned
by way of illustration that when the Reform
element was fully represented, as before
stated, the claims of the Grand Trunk Railway
for increased postal subsidy were submitted to
arbitration and the amount increased from
$70,000 per annum to $167,000 per annum. It
was also at this time that the claims of the
contractors for the construction of the Public
Buildings at Ottawa, were submitted to arbitration, by which means $90,000 were allowed
to these gentlemen over and above the amount
which they had already received—the cost of
this one arbitration amounting to $30,000. And
during the time public money was squandered
in this way there was scarcely a person to raise
his voice in the House against such an appropriation, so demoralized had the Opposition
become in consequence of the Coalition between the leaders of the opposite parties.
I do
not pretend to say but that a Coalition had not
become necessary in 1864, so equal were parties
at that time that it was almost impossible to
carry on the Government on party principles,
and the different appeals made to the country
left the two political parties in about the same
relative position. But the items of expenditure
to which I have referred show the dangers to
be apprehended from a coalition form of Government; a combination of parties which
should never be resorted to except in cases of
extreme necessity or when some great principle of State policy has to be carried into
effect,
and which one party alone is unable to accomplish. And I may state while on this subject
that the Hon. George Brown, in my opinion,
acted in a straightforward and honourable
manner in relation to the Reform party of
which he was leader. It appears he called his
reform friends together and consulted them as
to whether he should enter the government
with the Conservative party, for the purpose of
carrying into effect the great
scheme of Confederation; and, as I have been informed, the
whole Reform members of the House at that
time approved of his joining the Government.
Now the conduct of Mr. Brown on that occasion contrasts favourably with that of the
Conservative Leader, the Conservative members of
the House were never called together and consulted as to whether they would approve
of
such a combination of parties; but they were
without any such consultation called on to sup
151port men who had been previously denounced
to them in the strongest terms as Yankee How-
land and Washington McDougall. And not only
were these gentlemen taken into the Ministry
with the Conservative leaders; but also the
patronage of all the counties in Ontario represented by Reform Members who supported
the
Coalition, was exercised for the benefit of
those Reform Members and their friends; and
the Conservatives of those counties, who had
manfully contended for their party in many a
hard contest, were cast aside as persons whose
services Were no longer required. Before closing my remarks, I wish to say a few words
in
relation to the North-West Territory, which
has of late occupied so much public attention. I
think the first error made in relation to that
country, was in recognizing the claims of the
Hudson's Bay Company, and in altogether
ignoring the rights of the actual inhabitants,
who were to all appearance to be transferred to
Canada with the land, like slaves on a plantation. And the second and greater error
committed by Mr. McDougall, was in announcing his
intention of establishing a despotic government in that country, and giving as a reason
for doing so, the scattered state of the population. Now the inhabitants of a country
may not
be numerous, and still entertain as strong feelings in favor of liberty as the inhabitants
of a
densely populated country. Canada contained
but a scattered population when the people
contended for responsible government, and
secured it; and England was not densely
crowded when the barons and people demanded the charter of their liberties from King
John. I cannot endorse the war policy advocated by some warlike gentlemen in relation
to
that remote region, who wish to see an army
sent into that country to annihilate the half-
breeds. Do these gentlemen reflect on the
nature of an Indian war, and the results likely
to arise out of it. Once throw a fire-brand into
that country and kindle the flame of war, and
who can tell where the conflagration will end.
Set the Indians on the warpath and who will
be able to control their movements, and just as
sure as they cross the boundary and commit
depredations on the soil of the United States,
so sure will retaliation take place, and instead
of a war with the half-breeds we may experience the awful consequences of a continental
war. Let us give those half-breeds, and others
in that country, their constitutional rights; let
us try the effects of conciliation, and let war in
that distant country be the last resort, and only
when all other reasonable means fail. I think
Mr. McDougall made another mistake in sending Colonel Dennis to arm one portion of
the
population to fight against the other and certainly the reason assigned for selecting
such a
person to conduct a war must appear very
152 COMMONS DEBATES February 22, 1870
strange to persons acquainted with the conduct
of that gentleman at Fort Erie, who left his
command the moment the Fenians appeared,
but I suppose Mr. McDougall made the selection on the principle-
"For he who fights and runs away,
May live to fight another day;
But he who is in battle slain,
Can never rise and fight again."
I regret to see so many violent personal
attacks made on the Honourable Minister of
Finance during this debate. I was not an
admirer of that gentleman's political course;
but perhaps his past history will bear criticism
as well as that of most of our Canadian politicians. For my own part I shall judge
him rather
by his present and future conduct than by his
past acts, and I shall judge the Ministry by
their measures. I am determined not to give an
unpopular vote for the purpose of keeping
them in power, neither will I give a factious
vote for the purpose of defeating them.
(Cheers.)
Mr. Chamberlin hoped that the subject
which they had heard once more referred to in
this debate would not be again heard. He
referred to the question of independence. The
member for Shefford had mooted the subject
last session, and had afterwards gone into the
Eastern Townships and spoken to the people
on this subject, but any sympathy he met with
was derived almost exclusively from the few
annexationists there. The shrewd farmers
could not be convinced that independence was
not the half-way step to annexation. Referring
to the member for Sherbrooke, it would be
remembered that in 1850 he issued an annexation manifesto, and now to the profound
regret
of those who had admired and followed him,
like himself (Mr. Chamberlin), he was again
seeking a severance of connection with the
Mother Country. He was then content suddenly to drop the annexation project and soon
after to become the advocate of the Confederation of these Provinces. We might hope
him as
suddenly to drop independence and accept perchance the federation of the Empire instead.
The member for Shefford had urged independence among the people, as a means of securing
what he knew the people of the frontier
desired to obtain immediately, not in a distant
future—better trade relations. Therefore he
153
either mocked them or expected to carry the
work forward at once. Now he says he is not in
a hurry about it. And the member for Sherbrooke relegated independence to some dimly
distant future day, although, last summer he
made it one of the grounds of his refusal of
office. He congratulated the hon. gentleman
and the House on this change in their views,
but was it statesmanlike to make appeals to
this House and the country on merely speculative subjects, striving to make the public
mind,
already too much unsettled, still more so? That
gentleman complained of being politically
ostracised, but when a man advocates pulling
down the old flag, the withdrawal of allegiance
and severance from the empire and calls that
loyalty, he might expect all political parties to
shun him. He would not exaggerate the importance of that gentleman, but it was an
undoubted fact that his independence speech,
which was printed and circulated all over the
United States, had aided, among other things,
in inducing Americans to withhold reciprocity.
Hon. Mr. Huntington said the discussion of
Independence had been forced upon them. The
course of the honourable member for Missisquoi had been well known; when connected
with the press of this country he had published
ribald abuse of the Americans for years, calculated to excite their antipathies, and
to rouse
the most hostile feelings. It was very well to
stand in a hostile attitude to the neighbouring
republic, but as far as Reciprocity was concerned, he must not blow hot and cold.
Mr. Chamberlin said, that the charge that
he had ever indulged in ribald abuse of the
Americans had no foundation in fact.
Mr. Chamberlin replied he was not responsible for every line that appeared in that paper
during the war, for he was often absent. He
was only responsible for its general tone and
his own writings.
The remaining paragraphs of the address
were passed.
The usual formal motions respecting
engrossing the address etc., were adopted.
Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald moved that the
address be presented to His Excellency by such
154 COMMONS DEBATES February 22, 1870
members of this House, as are members of the
Privy Council Â
The House then at a quarter to twelve adjourned.
This individual participated in:
