The Speaker took the chair at three o'clock.
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA BILL
The debate on the motion on concurrence in
the Bill intituled: "An Act to amend and continue the Act 32 and 33 Victoria, chapter
3; and
to establish and provide for the government of
the Province of Manitoba" was then resumed.
Mr. Ferguson moved an amendment striking
out the residence of one year requisite for
qualification, as provided in the Bill. This was
the same as that applied to the district of
Algoma. They were about to send young volunteers into the district, and it was hoped
that
many of them would remain after the rebels
had been put down. He thought that they ought
to extend the same liberality to those men as
was extended to settlers in the district of
Algoma.
Hon. Sir George-É. Cartier said the intention of the Government in sending troops to
Red River was not to swamp the voters there at
the polls. It was said that an attempt would be
made to do so, as had been done in the neighbouring Republic, where troops were sent
from
State to State to carry elections for the Government. He admired the United States
in
many things, but was not content to follow
them in that matter. With regard to the Bill
itself, it was the intention to give the vote to
bond fide settlers. He called on his supporters,
therefore, to oppose the amendment. It was not
the intention of the Government to deprive
settlers like Drs. Schultz, Lynch and others
who might be obliged to leave the country for a
time, of their votes, as the amendment proposed by the Government would show. The
16th clause as they desired to have it, was to
the effect that every made subject of Her
Majesty, 21 years of age and not subject to any
legal incapacity, who within 12 months, previous to the day of election, had been
a resident,
though he might be absent for a time from the
country, should have a vote.
Mr. Ferguson was pleased to see his hon.
friend had provided for such cases as those of
Drs. Schultz, Lynch, and other loyal refugees
to give them the right of the franchise. He
1494 COMMONS DEBATES May 10, 1870
denied that he desired to send volunteers into
the Territory to control votes. What he really
wished was that as soon as the rebellion was
suppressed and matters settled that they might
become
bona fide settlers and should have the
right to vote. He therefore insisted that any
one of those men, who was an actual
householder of a month, should have a right to
vote, no matter what might be his nationality
or creed.
Hon. Sir George-É. Cartier said the proposition of the Government was more liberal still.
It only required a residence of twelve months
while the amendment of his hon. friend
demanded that the voters should be householders.
Mr. Bowell said the Bill provided for the
first election only, and not for subsequent elections. Under the proposed measure
of the Government the future emigrants to Manitoba
would be at the mercy of old settlers with
respect to the franchise. He was no advocate
for universal suffrage, but he would like to see
a more liberal policy pursued towards the settlers in the new country. He would like
to refer
to another matter. The Secretary of State for
the Provinces had, in his speech yesterday,
referred in most insulting terms to the loyal
people of the Territory, and at the same time
he undertook the defence of Riel and his followers. The hon. member had the impudence
to
ask the House to support a Government of
which a man expressing such sentiments was a
member. Then the hon. member had gratuitously undertaken the defence of that meek
and lowly priest, Father Ritchot, who had done
more than any other man in the Territory to
prevent the entrance of the hon. member for
North Lanark into the Red River country.
Messrs. Scott and Bannatyne had also been
defended by the hon. member for Hants; but
not a word was said about the fact that the
same fair fingers which had written the certificate of good character for the hon.
member had
also woven the Fenian flag that was hoisted at
Fort Garry. He considered it due to loyal gentlemen who had been driven from Red River,
mainly through the influence of the hon.
member for Hants, to rise and make that protest against the insults which had been
heaped
on them.
Mr. Young hoped the House would provide
that every British subject in Manitoba should
have a vote at the first election held there. If
the clause proposed by the Government should
pass, all who went there last year and this
spring would be deprived of the right of franchise. He put it to the sense of justice
and
fairness of the House, and insisted that settlers
going to Manitoba, who should be householders
1495
there for one month before the first election,
should have a right to cast their vote.
Hon. Mr. Dunkin denied that the amendment proposed by the Government was a
concession. It was simply expressing more
clearly than before what they always intended
to do. He referred to the troubles in Kansas
and Nebraska as the natural result of the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Cardwell.
Mr. Mills—Squatter sovereignty, the very
thing you proposed.
Hon. Mr. Dunkin denied that such would be
the effect of that Bill, but if one month's residence were to be a qualification,
then the Territory might be swamped by American citizens.
Mr. Mills said that was easily provided
against by giving a vote to naturalized British
subjects only who had never become naturalized citizens of the United States. While
the
House should take such steps as would confirm
the present occupants of Manitoba in their
rights, they should also guard against doing
injustice to new settlers from other parts of the
Dominion. It would be unfair and unwise to
deprive Canadians who should settle in a new
Province of political rights which they possessed in the Province they had left. There
was
no doubt that the population would more than
double before the second election, so that members chosen at the present election
would soon
cease to represent the population with the
exception of the minority that had elected
them. The hon. Minister of Militia surely was
not afraid of emigrants from Quebec being less
fit to exercise political rights in Manitoba than
in the Province they had left.
Mr. Bellerose in French defended the character of Ritchot, and denounced Mr. Bowell's
irreverent mode of speaking of the clergy.
Mr. Bowell, in reply, said he was prepared to
denounce a rebel no matter what his position,
creed, or nationality might be. If the hon.
member for Bellechasse wished to uphold his
clergy in treason, he (Mr. Bowell) would not
spare them even though he might in doing so
hurt the over-sensitive feeling of the hon.
member.
Mr. Fortier, in French, also defended the
Catholic clergy from the attacks of the member
from Ontario, and spoke in strong terms
against the Military movement against the
half-breeds.
1496 COMMONS DEBATES May 10, 1870
Mr. Bodwell said the employment of a great
many residents in Manitoba was such that they
could not be householders, and, consequently,
while he agreed with the hon. member for
Cardwell, he went further, and would move
that any
bona fide settler, resident in the Province one month previous to the election should
be entitled to vote.
Hon. Mr. Holton had supported the Bill so
far, believing it to be most liberal in its character, and one which they would not
have
attempted last Session, and not even this Session, but for the Democratic revolution
which
had taken place in the interval. He considered
the amendment proposed by Mr. Bodwell was
in consonance with the wide liberal and democratic principle of the Bill, and consequently
he would vote for it.
Mr. Mackenzie said the amendment of the
Government was simply universal suffrage for
those who had been in the Territory twelve
months previous to the election. Now that term
was too long. In the neighbouring States every
male resident of the age of 21 had a right to
vote. While he did not approve such universal
suffrage as that, he believed that in their new
Province they should be as liberal as their
neighbours—and give those who had been residents there one month previous to the election
the right of voting.
Mr. Rymal wished to know if the clause
allowed loyal refugees to vote when they
returned to Manitoba and met with the approval of the Ambassadors of Louis the First.
(Hear) It seems that all the rest of the Bill was
submitted to them before it had been presented
to the House. That was one of the provisions of
the Bill. But was any provision made for the
disqualification of those who had imprisoned
and murdered loyal men in the North-West?
Far different was the treatment which the
rebels had received at the hands of the Government in '37. When he was young he remembered
when rebels were brought in with ropes
round their necks. They were never consulted
or treated with until some of them had been
strung up and the rest brought into the most
abject submission. But now his hon. friend the
mover of the Bill, seemed to have forgotten it
was he and his compatriots in the rebellion of
'37 who were not treated with and requested to
send delegates to the British Government in
order to make known their wants and wishes,
and never till some of them were strung up and
1497
all subjected did the British Government send
out Lord Durham to enquire into the cause of
the rebellion. Then did the Ambassador tell
them they were justified in resisting the
Family Compact. But the British Government
had changed its tactics between the rebellion
of '37 and '70. Strange that a difference between latitude and longitude should bring
about that change. He could not understand it,
but it appeared to him there was behind the
throne some power that was yet to make its
appearance.
A vote was taken on Mr. Bodwell's amendment, and it was lost by yeas, 35; nays, 83.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bolton,
Bowman, Brown, Connell, Currier, Dobbie,
Holton, Macdonald (Glengarry), Mackenzie,
Magill, McConkey, McDougall (Lanark),
McMonies, Metcalfe, Mills, Morison (Victoria
North), Oliver, Perry, Redford, Ross (Dundas),
Ross (Prince Edward), Ross (Wellington,
C.R.), Rymal, Scatcherd, Scriver, Snider, Stirton, Thompson (Ontario), Wallace, Wells,
White, Wright (York, Ontario, W.R.) and
Young—35.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Archibald,
Beaty, Beaubien, BĂ©chard, Bellerose, Benoit,
Blanchet, Bourassa, Bowell, Brousseau, Burton,
Cameron (Peel), Campbell, Carling, Caron,
Cartier (Sir G.-É.), Cartwright, Casault,
Cayley, Chamberlin, Chauveau, Cheval,
Cimon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Daoust, Dorion, Drew, Dufresne,
Dunkin, Ferguson, Forbes, Fortier, Fortin,
Gaucher, Gaudet, Gendron, Gibbs, Godin,
Gray, Hincks (Sir F.), Holmes, Howe, Huot,
Hurdon, Jackson, Jones (Leeds and Grenville),
Keeler, Killam, Kirkpatrick, Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois, Lawson, McDonald (Lunenburg),
McDonald (Middlesex West), Masson
(Soulanges), Masson (Terrebonne), McDougall
(Trois-Rivières), McKeagney, Merritt, Morris,
Morrison (Niagara), O'Connor, Pelletier, Pinsonneault, Pope, Pouliot, Pozer, Ray,
Read,
Renaud, Robitaille, Ryan (King's, N.B.),
Savary, Shanly, Stephenson, Tilley, Tremblay,
Walsh, and Willson.—83.
Mr, Ferguson's amendment was lost by yeas,
41; nays, 76.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bolton, Bowell,
Bowman, Brown, Connell, Dobbie, Drew, Ferguson, Holmes, Jones (Leeds and Grenville),
Macdonald (Glengarry), McDonald (Lunenburg), Mackenzie, Magill, McConkey, McDougall
(Lanark), McMonies, Merritt, Metcalfe,
1498 COMMONS DEBATES May 10, 1870
Mills, Morison (Victoria North), Munroe,
Oliver, Perry, Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross
(Prince Edward), Ross (Wellington, C.R.),
Rymal, Scriver, Snider, Stirton, Thompson
(Ontario), Wallace, Wells, White, Willson,
Wright (York, Ontario, W.R.), and Young—41.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Archibald,
Beaty, Beaubien, BĂ©chard, Bellerose, Benoit,
Blanchet, Bourassa, Brousseau, Burton, Cameron (Peel), Campbell, Carling, Caron, Cartier
(Sir G.-É.), Cartwright, Casault, Cayley,
Chamberlin, Chauveau, Cheval, Cimon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Daoust,
Dorion, Dufresne, Dunkin, Forbes, Fortier,
Fortin, Gaucher, Gaudet, Gendron, Gibbs,
Godin, Gray, Hincks (Sir F.), Holton, Howe,
Huot, Hurdon, Jackson, Keeler, Killam, Kirkpatrick, Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois, Lawson,
McDonald (Middlesex West), Masson (Soulanges), Masson (Terrebonne), McDougall
(Trois-Rivières), McKeagney, Morris, Morrison
(Niagara), O'Connor, Pelletier, Pinsonneault,
Pope, Pouliot, Pozer, Ray, Read, Renaud, Robitaille, Ryan (King's, N.B.), Savary,
Shanly,
Stephenson, Tilley, Tremblay, and Walsh.—76.
Hon. Mr. McDougall moved in amendment
to the 16th clause that no person arrested for
any felony shall be entitled to vote.
Mr. O'Connor would not say whether he was
in favour of the substance of the motion proposed by the hon. member for North Lanark,
but he was surprised to find that there should
be such a difference between it and the one
proposed by that gentleman yesterday, which
only defined persons who were ineligible to act
as members of the Legislature.
At 6 o'clock the House rose for recess.
After recess,
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA
Hon. Sir George-E. Cartier then resumed
the debate on Hon. Mr. McDougall's amendment on the Manitoba Bill. With regard to
the
Legislative Assembly provided by the Bill, it
must be placed on the same footing as the
Legislatures held in other Provinces, neither at
Quebec nor at Toronto had any one dared to
prescribe rules for those Assemblies, but a different course was proposed by the hon.
gentleman with regard to Manitoba. Why did not the
hon. member state his reasons for doing so?
The true reason was that some persons, who
might have been mixed up in the late or local
disturbances, should be prevented from the opportunity of election. The hon. member
had
pronounced his own condemnation, for at the
end of the letter read last night he said, "You
have placed me in the position of a felon," and
he complained of his treatment by the Government. The laws in the Territory were of
a
mixed character, the criminal law of England
being the law there to a greater extent than
here, and any one who had been concerned in
the illegalities committed there had to be tried
by those laws. There would be arrests on both
sides, and why should they adopt such an
odious proceeding as was proposed. He thought
it would be better for the hon. member not to
follow up that line of conduct. He sympathized
with Hon. Mr. McDougall, but he would not aid
in carrying his feelings of disappointment into
permanent legislation affecting this new Province. Similar difficulties had arisen
in Upper
and Lower Canada, and the treatment of those
facts should not be different in the case of
Manitoba. That House had always had the
right to expel from its body any member who
was unworthy to sit in it, and he quoted a case
which took place in 1858, that of Mr. O'Farrell,
in the County of Lotbinière, where an adverse
petition was discharged, but a Committee of
the House was appointed and the member
eventually expelled as being unworthy of a
seat in the House. They ought not to presume
that there would be less wish to preserve the
character of the House in Manitoba. O'Donavan Rossa was a case in point in the English
Parliament. The time of accusation would
come, and probably there would be too much of
it; but they ought not to place a provision in
the Bill which would have the effect of producing disquiet.
Hon. Mr. Cameron ridiculed the idea of
making persons under arrest non-eligible for
election, as it would involve the consequence
of considering everyone under arrest guilty of
crime; and the provision proposed was not
required in that House, or in the Legislative
1500 COMMONS DEBATES
May 10, 1870
Assemblies, because they had the power to
expel a member convicted of felony; but, in the
case of the Senate, other considerations arose,
and the necessity of such a clause was clear.
The Bill, if passed with that provision, would
be a fire-brand, and would place those people
on a different footing from those of the other
Provinces. It would make innocent persons
liable to be arrested merely for the purpose of
preventing their election. He thought that such
an opportunity should not be offered.
Hon. Mr. McDougall was not surprised at
the arguments of the member for Peel; but he
was a little surprised at those of the Minister
of Militia. In making the appeal that he had, he
desired to say once for all that he should perform his double duty to the best of
his ability,
without regard to any personal relations that
might have existed in the past. Reference had
been made to his misfortunes; but he did not
consider them to be altogether misfortunes. He
believed that the Minister of Militia held
towards him sentiments of quite a friendly
character; but he must remember that they
both had public and representative duties to
perform in which no private duties had any
right to interfere. The House was not to be
influenced by any position he might have held
in times past. The measure was before the
House and it was for them to see that in framing a Government for the new Province,
and in
view of what had taken place, they should so
far respect public opinion in Canada, the British feeling of the Dominion, that should
render
it beyond peradventure that any one that had
been guilty of murder and robbery should be
elected a member of the Legislature. He
thought if some such provision was not made
that they should have such men as Riel, Lepine
and the traitors who sat in conclave on poor
Scott elected to the Legislature. It would be
extremely unwise, and under the peculiar circumstances, it was not more than just
and
right in view of the highest interests of the
Dominion to put it beyond the power of the
people to elect such men to the administration
of the affairs of the Province. The hon. gentleman had referred to the Quebec Conference,
and said no such provision had been made in it
as that, but the agreement was that the law
should exist as it was till Parliament should
see fit to alter it. He admitted the House was
competent to deal with such matters; but he
thought it would be a disgrace to allow such
men as Riel to be elected to the Legislature in
the new Province.
1501
Hon. Mr. Le Vesconte wished to know if the
enactment proposed by the hon. member for
North Lanark would not cast a stigma on the
people of Manitoba as thieves and robbers?
Hon. Mr. McDougall said if the people up
there were afraid of being excluded by such a
clause then they were not fit to be entrusted
with self-government. He was ready to substitute the word guilty in lieu of arrest,
but he did
think that those who had been guilty of felony
should not have seats in the House, which
might be the result unless a clause like that
submitted was introduced into the Bill.
Hon. Col. Gray said the present law was
sufficient to meet all cases. They should avoid
the appearance of personal legislation.
The amendment was lost on a division.
Mr. Mackenzie moved to expunge the 27th
Section and insert in lieu thereof "that whereas it is expedient to appropriate a
portion of
such ungranted lands for families of half-breed
residents, it is hereby enacted that the children
of such half-breeds resident in the Province
shall be entitled to receive a grant of not more
than 200 acres each on attaining the age of 18
years in such mode and on such conditions as
the Governor General in Council may from
time to time determine." He assumed that 200
acres were sufficient for each child as they
came of age. That would be definite, and would
relieve the Province from the calamity of
taking up the 1,400,000 acres at once.
Hon. Sir George-É. Cartier said that would
be merely a change in the way of disposing of
the land. They had been taunted with giving
away too much land; but he was aware that in
the Province there were no less than 10,000
children which would involve the giving of
2,000,000 acres. The Government had therefore
he thought made a better bargain than the hon.
gentleman's proposal.
Division was then taken—Yeas, 37; Nays, 80.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bolton, Bowell,
Bowman, Brown, Connell, Dobbie, Drew, Ferguson, Grover, Macdonald (Glengarry), MacFarlane,
Mackenzie, Magill, McConkey,
1502 COMMONS DEBATES May 10, 1870
 McDougall (Lanark), McMonies, Metcalfe,
Mills, Morison (Victoria North), Munroe, Â
Oliver, Perry, Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross Â
(Prince Edward), Ross (Wellington, C.R.),
Scatcherd, Snider, Stirton, Thompson
(Ontario), Wallace, Wells, White, Wright
(York, Ontario, W.R.), and Young—37.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Archibald,
Beaty, Beaubien, BĂ©chard, Bellerose, Benoit,
Blanchet, Bourassa, Bown, Brousseau, Burton,
Cameron (Peel), Campbell, Carling, Caron,
Cartier (Sir G.-É.), Casault, Cayley, Cheval,
Cimon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Currier, Daoust, Dorion, Dufresne,
Dunkin, Forbes, Fortier, Fortin, Gaucher,
Gaudet, Gendron, Gibbs, Godin, Gray, Heath,
Hincks (Sir F.), Holmes, Holton, Howe, Huot,
Hurdon, Jackson, Keeler, Kirkpatrick, Lacerte,
Langevin, Langlois, Lawson, Le Vesconte,
McDonald (Middlesex West), Masson (Soulanges), Masson (Terrebonne), McDougall
(Trois-Rivières), McGreevy, McKeagney, Merritt, Morris, Morrison (Niagara), O'Connor,
Pelletier, Pinsonneault, Pouliot, Pozer, Ray,
Read, Renaud, Robitaille, Ryan (King's, N.B.),
Savary, Scriver, Shanly, Stephenson, Tilley,
Tremblay, Walsh, and Willson.—80.
Mr. Oliver moved that the Education clause
be struck out.
Hon. Mr. Chauveau hoped the amendment
would not be carried. It was desirable to protect the minority in Manitoba from the
great
evil of religious dissensions on education.
There could be no better model to follow in
that case than the Union Act, which gave full
protection to minorities. It was impossible to
say who would form a majority there, Protestants or Catholics. If the population were
to
come from over the seas, then the Protestants
would be in a majority. If, as had been asserted, Manitoba was to be a French preserve,
then
the Catholics would be a majority. He did not
care which, because he desired only to see the
new Province freed from discussions, which
had done so much injury in the old Provinces
of Canada. They presented a problem to the
whole world, and the question was, could two
Christian bodies, almost equally balanced, be
held together under the British Constitution?
He believed that problem could be worked out
successfully.
Hon. Mr. McDougall said the effect of the
clause, if not struck out, would be to fix laws
which the Local Legislature could not alter in
future, and that it would be better to leave the
1503
matter to local authorities to decide, as in the
other Provinces. He quite agreed with his hon.
friend in giving the same powers to this Province as the others, and it was for that
reason
that he desired to strike out the clause.
Hon. Sir George-E. Cartier referred to the
manner in which the Red River country had
been settled, and grants of land which had
been made to the clergy for the purposes of
education.
Mr. Mackenzie was prepared to leave the
matter to be settled exclusively by the Local
Legislature. The British North America Act
gave all the protection necessary for minorities; and local authorities understood
their own
local wants better than the General Legislature. It was his earnest desire to avoid
introducing into the new Province those detrimental discussions which had operated
so
unhappily on their own country, and therefore
hoped the amendment would be carried.
After a long discussion a division was taken
on the amendment—Yeas, 34; Nays, 81.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bolton, Bowell,
Bowman, Brown, Connell, Dobbie, Drew, Ferguson, Jones (Leeds and Grenville), Kirkpatrick,
Macdonald (Glengarry), Mackenzie,
McConkey, McDougall (Lanark), Metcalfe,
Mills, Morison (Victoria North), Oliver, Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross (Prince Edward),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Ross (Wellington, C.R.),
Rymal, Snider, Stirton, Thompson (Ontario),
Wallace, Wells, White, Wright (York, Ontario,
W.R.), and Young—34.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Archibald,
Beaubien, BĂ©chard, Bellerose, Benoit, Blanchet,
Bourassa, Bown, Brousseau, Burton, Cameron
(Peel), Campbell, Carling, Caron, Cartier (Sir
G.-E.), Casault, Cayley, Chauveau, Cheval,
Cimon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Daoust, Dorion, Dufresne, Dunkin,
For-
tier, Fortin, Gaucher, Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gendron, Gibbs, Godin, Grant, Gray, Grover,
Heath, Hincks (Sir F.), Holmes, Holton, Howe,
Hurdon, Keeler, Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois,
Lawson, Le Vesconte, McDonald (Lunenburg),
McDonald (Middlesex West), Masson (Soulanges), Masson (Terrebonne), McDougall
(Trois-Riviéres), McGreevy, McKeagney, Merritt, Morris, Morrison (Niagara), O'Connor,
Pelletier, Perry, Pinsonneault, Pope, Pouliot,
Pozer, Ray, Renaud, Robitaille, Ryan (King's,
N.B.), Savary, Scatcherd, Scriver, Shanly, Stephenson, Tilley, Tremblay, Walsh, and
Willson.—81.
1504 COMMONS DEBATES May 10, 1870
Hon. Mr. Holton asked the Minister of
Militia what provision had been made to
extend the Criminal Code of the Dominion to
the new Province? He had looked through the
Bill and could see no such provision made in it.
Hon. Sir George-É. Cartier said the Criminal Law now prevailing there, which was the
English Code, would continue in force until the
people of the Province were prepared for the
laws of the Dominion.
Hon. Mr. Cameron said the laws in force in
Red River Territory included all crimes except
capital offences, and offences the punishment
of which was transportation, which could be
tried only in the Courts of Lower and Upper
Canada.
On a motion for the third reading.
Mr. Mackenzie said he would not oppose it.
The Opposition had endeavoured to amend its
objectionable features, and having failed in
that, they threw the responsibility wholly on
the Government of the measure as it stood.
They had declined from first to last to accept
any amendment, except the one that was
forced on them by a strong expression of the
opinion of the House at the outset; but believing that it was necessary to have some
Bill
passed, to have some form of Government
established there, he did not ask for the Bill to
be passed on a division, and so far as he was
concerned it might pass without any opposition whatever.
The Bill was read a third time and
recommitted.
On the motion of
Hon. Sir George-É. Cartier
for the purpose of amending the 10th clause
relating to elections, as he had proposed in the
early part of the evening, the amendment was
concurred in and the Bill passed.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE—
NORTH-WEST VOTE
The adjourned debate on the motion on concurrence on the item respecting the North-
West Territories, reported from the Committee
of Supply on the ordinary estimates, with Mr.
Masson's amendment, was resumed.
Hon. Mr. Dunkin moved in amendment to
recommit this item to the same Committee to
which a similar vote in the Supplementary
Estimates had been referred, with a view to
placing them in a juxtaposition.
1505
Hon. Mr. Holton raised the point of order,
that both were revotes of the same sum. The
proper course would be to discharge either
order.
Hon. Sir Francis Hincks said that the object
of the Government and the hon. gentleman
was the same, but they had taken advice and
were of opinion that that was the correct
course to adopt.
After some discussion,
The Speaker ruled that the House could only
know, so far as itself was concerned, one item
upon its order, and he thought if that stood
alone there could be no question that the
House could refer it back to the Committee of
Supply. Then the question was, had the House
tided over its own order in any way, and
deprived itself of the power of sending the
item to its own Committee? He thought not,
and therefore ruled that the motion of Hon. Mr.
Dunkin was in order.
Mr. Dufresne thought that if, in addition to
the cost of acquiring the rights of the Hudson's
Bay Company, there had been added the cost of
a war, which might possibly be a war of extermination, few would have been found to
vote
for annexing the North-West Territory, particularly as some members of the House,
himself among the number, hesitated, in view of
the enormous expenses likely to be entailed, to
support the proposition, when it was believed
the Territory could be acquired peaceably. It
would be said that peace was already made,
and that the rights of the people of the Territory were acknowledged. What then, he
asked,
was the necessity for the proposed expedition,
which might result in stirring up angry feelings afresh, and enkindle a war which
might
involve the dismemberment of the Dominion
itself? He objected, therefore, to that military
expenditure as, even if no effectual military
resistance could be offered to it, the half-
breeds might burn and devastate the country,
leaving the expedition in the same condition as
the French troops at Moscow.
Hon. Sir Francis Hincks appealed to the
House not to raise a discussion at that stage,
but wait for the motion for concurrence.
Hon. Mr. Holton agreed with the hon.
Finance Minister that it would be better to
advance the item a stage that night, as the
session was very far advanced.
Mr. Masson (Soulanges) said it was entirely
the fault of the Government that the discus
1506 COMMONS DEBATES May 10, 1870
sion on his motion had not taken place sooner.
He had placed the motion on the papers fully a
month ago, but it had always been shifted so as
to put off the discussion till the day before
prorogation.
Mr. Masson (Soulanges)—Yes, when half
the House has gone home. I will have the discussion to-night.
Mr. Masson (Soulanges) said that he would
stay till November before he would let the
matter drop. The policy of the hon. Minister of
Finance would ruin the country. He (Mr.
Masson) had said so when the appointment
was made and he believed it still. He now
desired to know if it was the intention of the
Government to grant an amnesty in Manitoba,
now that the Bill had been passed. It was but
fair to give that information. From the day that
motion had been placed on the orders the Government had steadily avoided saying anything
about the object of the expedition to the North-
West. If it was on a peaceful mission, they were
sending too many; if for war, they were sending too few. He found in the Bill of Rights
that
the army in the Territory was to be composed
only of inhabitants; and if the Government had
acceded to that demand, how did they propose
to send that force? He intended to move an
amendment on the supplementary vote similar
to that he had already moved to the item under
discussion.
Mr. Gaucher asked if it was the intention to
draft the militiamen, whether they were disposed to serve or not.
Hon. Sir George-É. Cartier, in French, said
the expedition was one of peace, and was
necessary for the acquisition of the Territory.
The Canadian Government was in this matter
acting in accordance with the Imperial authorities. The measure which had just passed
the
House, was one of pacification, and was necessarily preceded by an expedition to re-establish
the authority of the Queen and restore order
and security to life and property in the country. It was necessary to send troops
to protect a
large portion of the people there who were at
the mercy of an armed minority. The spirit
which had been shown by England towards
Ireland showed that she desired to do justice to
all her Possessions, and as well to Red River as
to others. It was necessary that her authority
1507
should be established there, and it was for that
purpose the expedition was to be sent, and not
for the purpose of carrying on war. It was the
desire of the Convention that troops should be
sent and every one must be aware that in
consequence of the troubles which had existed,
unless authority was re-established and troops
sent to maintain it, there was a danger of
various sections of the people engaging in civil
war, whereas if the law Courts were to be able
to exercise their powers, they must be supported by the force necessary. Irregularity
had
taken place on both sides, and it was probable
that the Imperial Government, as was its
custom, would grant an amnesty to offenders.
With regard to Mr. Gaucher's question, the
composition of the force shewed that it was not
sent with a feeling of hatred, different creeds
and races being mixed together.
Hon. Mr. Holton interrupting, suggested
that the discussion should be postponed till
to-morrow.
This individual participated in:
