Ninth Day
Council Chamber, Upper Fort Garry
Thursday, 3 February 1870
Eleven o'clock, A.M. — Convention in session.
Debate resumed on article 19.
Mr. Riel, in French, as translated by Mr. Ross — I would call attention to the fact that,
under this article we decide on the rights, both of foreigners and natives. Of course,
whatever our decision is, some parties will have fault to find. As a principle of
action, we must seek to do what is right, and at the same time have a special regard
to the interests of the people of this country. We must seek to preserve the existence
of our own people. We must not by our own act allow ourselves to be swamped. If the
day comes when that is done, it must be by no act of ours. I do not wish in anything
I may do to hurt the stranger; but we must, primarily, do what is right and proper
for our own interests. In this connection, all outsiders are to be looked upon as
strangers — not merely Americans, but Canadians, English, Irish and Scotch. All are
strangers in the sense that they are outsiders, that they do not appreciate the circumstances
in which we live, and are not likely to enter fully into our views and feelings. Though
in a sense British subjects, we must look on all coming in from abroad as foreigners,
and while paying all respect to these foreigners, we must at the same time respect
ourselves. The circumstances of our country are peculiar; and if therefore we do anything
peculiar, looking at analogous cases, it must be explained on the principle that we
are a peculiar people in exceptional circumstances. For myself, I am for leaving the
article as it stands, except as regards the period of the voter's residence. One year
is too short; two years are too short; and as for three, that would be a fair matter
for consideration. If we allow all residents of one year in the country the right
to vote, it is not impossible but in the second year they may rule us; and that surely
is not for us to seek. Looking at the composition of this Convention, I am not sure
that this will triumph, but those who come after will thank us for our efforts, even
if we should fail.
Mr. Schmidt, seconded by
Mr. C. Nolin, moved in amendment — "That every man of this country, except Indians, who has attained
the age of twenty-one years, and every British subject, a stranger to this Territory,
after three years of residence in the Territory,— shall have the right to vote; and
every foreigner, not a British subject, shall have the right to vote after residing
the same length of time in the Territory, on condition that he take the oath of allegiance."
Mr. Scott — Merely taking the oath of allegiance does not make a man a British subject. He
must declare his intention to be a British subject, and when that is done, he takes
the oath of allegiance.
Dr. Bird proposed in amendment that instead of the words, after "three years' residence,"
the words be inserted "every British subject being a householder, after one years'
residence in the Territory."
Mr. Scott — The last amendment seems to conflict directly with the spirit of Mr. Schmidt's
motion, that there should be no property qualification.
Mr. Riel — In my opinion the original motion is better than the amendment. We cannot look
on property as the best test of title to vote. In this country, in fact, the poorer
we are, the more honest we are; and to say that only the rich are to be entitled to
exercise this right, is slander on our people. My own opinion is that the system prevailing
in the States is better than that in Canada. I have seen more disturbance in Montreal
at elections than ever I have seen in the United States. Liberty to vote is what would
be best for us. There should be no discrimination against foreigners. Let us do justice
to them.
Mr. Ross — I am very much astonished that Mr. Riel, who is working for the people of the country,
should make such a speech. I am astonished. However, as the day is far advanced, I
would suggest that we adjourn for dinner.
At half-past one, the Convention adjourned for an hour and a half.
Three o'clock, P.M. — Debate resumed.
Mr. Scott — By the amendment it seems that foreigners — American or British subjects — having
no property in the country, have no right to vote, although they may have lived here
100 years. That is directly making a property qualification.
Mr. Riel, after translating Mr. Scott's remark, went on to allude to the question of property
qualification. I think, he said, it is unjust that a man should be required to be
a householder before he can vote. Suppose a man's house were burned down, is he to
be deprived of his vote? Does he lose his intelligence, because his house happens
to be burned down? To advocate a property qualification is to speak in the interests
of the rich as against the poor. Are there more honest men among the rich than among
the poor? Are we not honest, though poor? Taken as a whole, where are there honester
people than among the poor? Suppose, instead of choosing Mr. Bruce to be the head
of the Provisional Government, we had chosen a man on account of his riches. The good
results flowing from his Presidency would not have been felt.
Mr. Ross — I do not deny the force of Mr. Riel's remarks. I am quite willing that he should
ascribe to the poor man all honesty which, we know, generally characterises that class.
I am also quite willing to admit that among those who have property there may be a
great deal of deceit, chicanery and dishonesty. But that is aside of the question
we are discussing. I cannot regard our natives and half-breeds as poor in the sense
alluded to. I think our population is extremely well off, and will compare favorably
with the rural population of any foreign country (cheers). I am proud of this and
thankful for it. For poor people we must go to those foreign countries. I do not think
that our people will ever be classed among that miserable class of paupers who have
to be clothed and fed from day to day, and nurtured like children. We are well off
— hardly a poor person within our whole limits. Almost every man has a house and land,
horses and cattle. Thanks to our industry and intelligence, we have a settlement,
composed of men not in the rank of paupers (cheers). This question of the voting power
is one of great importance: for the voters, after all, will have to decide all the
questions which come up in the Legislature,— they have the source of power in their
hands. If we put this source of power in the hands of parties not working for the
good of the country, we are practically doing this: while on the one hand we secure
certain benefits; on the other we provide machinery to cheat us out of them. For my
part I would wish to secure greater benefits for the people of this country than are
asked either by the motion or amendment. It is important, in giving a man the right
to vote in any country, that that man should have some interest in the country. In
this country we have a mixed population. Take the population at present here, and
I would be quite willing to look upon them as having an interest in the country, even
though they had not a shilling or a house. But in view of emigration, we ought to
provide that a man shall have some material interest in the country before he be allowed
to vote. The original resolution proposed that a man having had three years' residence
in the country, without any household qualification, should have a vote. The amendment
proposed one year's residence and household qualification. My opinion is that it ought
to be three years' residence and household qualification for all except the present
inhabitants. We should fence ourselves in such a way as to prevent us from being swamped
by outsiders having no stake in the country. I am certain that what I have proposed
is for the benefit of the present people of Red River. A great many of the claims
we make, may, if granted, do good to the country. But is it certain that they are
all going to do good to the present population of the Settlement? I am doubtful of
it, and we must be on our guard lest we, practically, go through the unpleasant process
of cutting our heads off, by demanding something which will vitally injure us. As
to the three years' qualification I tell you frankly it shuts me out from the polls.
But I do not care for that: for if it shuts me out, it shuts out, probably twenty
others whom I would like to see deprived of the voting power.
Mr. Ross — I would almost wish to see an exceptional law in your favor (laughter). It is objected
that by making the term three years, instead of one, we may keep away men of capital
and means, for every such man who would be debarred from exercising the franchise
for three years, fifteen or twenty would also be excluded, whose votes would be an
injury to the country. Allow a man who is not a householder to vote, and you may find
that vote set off in Winnipeg, for instance, against that of such men as Mr. Andrew
McDermott or Mr. Bannatyne (hear, hear).
Mr Scott — While I believe with Mr Ross, that the three years' residence would not be a bad
stipulation; I cannot support a property qualification. It is well known that the
poor people more than any other class in the country need a representative. For the
poor more than the rich, is the protection of good laws needed. If the rich only are
represented among the law-makers of the country, what follow? The laws are made for
the rich and are of such a character as will make the rich man richer and the poor
poorer. What cares the rich man for placing an efficient school system within reach
of all? He can educate his children at a private seminary. Look again at the priests
across the river, who are sworn to poverty. Are they to have no voice in the making
of the laws, because they are not rich? It is preposterous. Why, on the same principle,
if the twelve apostles came to this country, they would not have any vote either (laughter).
Is it, I would ask, the house or the man who is to vote?
Mr. Cummings — I say there is scarcely a poor man in the country. I have been here eleven years
and I hardly ever saw a poor man yet (hear, hear). And here I altogether differ with
Mr. Scott. There is scarcely a man in this country but has a house and land and is
making a good living unless he is too lazy.
Mr. Scott — I spoke of the poor people who came here — not the poor people of the country.
The people here now, are all to have the right to vote.
Mr. Riel, in French, recommended strongly to the consideration of the Convention the substance
of Mr. Ross's remarks — specially in so far as they related to the three years' residence
as against one.
Mr. O'Donoghue — It is not clear to me that all those born in the country shall be entitled to vote
on coming to the age of twenty-one. I think that not only those in the country at
present, but all born here hereafter, on coming to that age, should be entitled to
vote. As to a property qualification, I do not think that any kind of a house ought
to do; and I also think there should be a distinction between those who own and those
who rent houses.
The Chairman — The object of those proposing and supporting the amendment is to prevent the foreign
element coming here from exercising electoral rights for three years. For my own part,
I have very serious misgivings as to the propriety of this three- years period. It
seems to imply a very great distrust, on our part, of British subjects who may come
to this country from any other Colony (hear, hear). I do not know that there are any
sufficient grounds to warrant such distrust, provided things are properly directed,
and provided, as has already been provided, that the population of the country have
a fair share of the power in the Legislature. My own ideas would hardly have led me
to think of more than two years. Perhaps such a period as that might be looked on
as justifiable in the peculiar circumstances of the country. But three years,— I am
afraid, if incorporated into a law,— might stand in the way of the progress and prosperity
of the country. Then again, as to the property part of the qualification, if we believe
that the two great functions of government are the protection of life and property,
it cannot be thought strange that we should look a little at the question of property
in fixing the voting qualification. If the parties to the amendment could have adopted
this intermediate period of two years, I think it might be feasibly put forward. Let
us look at it in the light of the other Colonies. In the Australian group, for instance,
they do not ask a man what part of the Empire he comes from, or whether he has property
or not. Universal suffrage prevails there. To a man who has been six months in the
country and is twenty-one years of age, the invitation is freely given,— Come along
and vote. Now if that period has been fixed in these Colonies,— Colonies which are
allowed all over the world to have very liberal constitution[s],— and if, even in
Old England, this period of three years would not be listened to,— may you not be
exposing yourselves to very considerable danger in asking for this very long period
of probation?
The Chairman — Simply this, if you will pardon me for stating so palpable a truism: inasmuch as
three is more than two, a person in coming into the country may not unreasonably take
fright at the figure of three, whereas he might be contented with two (hear and laughter).
A man,— a very desirable man — might be deterred from coming into the country by the
difference between the figures three and two. I quite enter into the desire of those
who wish for some special legislation in favor of those who have lived all their days
in a country like this. And if I may be permitted to allude to myself, I believe you
can all hear me witness that in the discharge of my public duties, I have always endeavored
to see that special care should be taken of the interests of our comparatively unsophisticated
people when they were brought into contact with the conditions of a more advanced
civilization. I have always made it my duty to see that the community among whom my
lot has been cast for nearly a quarter of a century, should suffer as little as possible
from that contact (cheers). I can therefore see some reason for some special legislation
— but I think you are going too far in this exceptional direction. I do not press
my suggestions, but simply place them before you. Let some special precautions be
taken, if you will, to prevent the people from being suddenly submerged. But let your
measures not be such as to roll back the tide of population which is required to make
this the great country we desire it to become (cheers).
Mr. Riel, after alluding to the Chairman's remarks said — I think three years quite short
enough. It is impossible to say what danger may beset us after we enter Confederation,—
and three years of this amount of protection is the very least we could ask. We must
keep what rights and property we have now by every means in our power. The grasshoppers
did us some damage a year ago, and threw us back. They might do so this year, and
that would throw us within two years of the time when the privileges of these outsiders
would come into force. If the question of two years is urged, I must say that I would
feel very much inclined to go for four. It strikes me as a novelty to see a representative
of the Company here,— a Company which has hitherto denied the right of voting altogether
— to see such a representative endeavoring to make the time as short as possible until
the period of voting comes.
Mr. K. McKenzie — As a newcomer from Canada this proposed law would act unfairly towards me in shutting
me out.
Mr. Ross — All those in the country at present, of twenty-one years of age, have the right
to vote.
Mr. Riel — If we had any guarantee that the men coming from Canada were such honest and good
men as Mr. McKenzie, we would welcome them heartily to every privilege. We would wish
that four railroads, instead of one, were built to hurry them in (laughter and cheers).
But unfortunately the bad will come in with the good.
Mr. Scott — Is it the intention of the Convention to allow women to vote? No doubt many such
will come in and be householders (laughter).
The Chairman — All these resolutions will have to be submitted to a good deal of filing.
Mr. Ross — Mr. Schmidt's motion gives every stranger the right to vote at the end of three
years, even if he has not a cent's worth of property in the country. The amendment
requires not only a three years' residence, but that he should hold some property.
Mr. Riel — The motion is so extremely important that I wish the Convention would allow me
time for a short conference with Mr. Ross on the subject.
Mr. Riel and Mr. Ross having conferred together, Mr. Schmidt's amendment was put and
carried, in the following shape:—
"That every man in the country (except uncivilized and unsettled Indians) who had
attained the age of twenty-one years, and every British subject, a stranger to this
country, who has resided three years in this country and is a householder, shall have
a right to vote at the election of a member to serve in the Legislature of the country
and in the Dominion Parliament; and every foreign subject, other than a British subject,
who has resided the same length of time in the country, and is a householder, shall
have the same right to vote on condition of his taking the oath of allegiance,— it
being understood that this article be subject to amendment exclusively by the Local
Legislature."
"20. That the North-West Territory shall never be held liable for any portion of the
£300,000 paid to the Hudson Bay Company, or for any portion of the public debt of
Canada, as it stands at the time of our entering the Confederation; and if thereafter
we shall be called upon to assume our share of said public debt, we consent only on
condition that we first be allowed the amount for which we shall be held liable."—
Carried.
Mr. Riel, in French,— interpreted by Mr. Ross — We have got to-night to the last of the articles,
and I cannot lose this opportunity of making a few remarks. We have been now some
fifteen days or thereabouts in consultation on matters of the gravest importance,
and the spirit shown all through the Convention has been most praiseworthy. We have
shown ourselves to the world to be capable of discussing creditably, matters of the
utmost political consequence. If differences have occurred, they have been only such
as would naturally arise between men of intellect and reason in discussing important
matters (cheers). I sincerely congratulate the Convention on this, and heartily wish
the members,
bon noir [sic] (cheers).
A short interval having elapsed,
Mr. Riel again rose and said — The committee to whom was referred the consideration of the
points to be brought before the Convention drew up two lists, one to be presented
to Mr. Smith on the event of our seeking admission into the Dominion as a Territory;
the other in the event of our going in as a Province. The conditions under which a
Province stands in the Confederation, are laid down in the Confederation Act. It is
a very simple matter, and probably in the forenoon of to-morrow might be discussed
without difficulty. As a Territory we have made out our list; but the list for admission
as a Province, has also its advantages.
Mr. Ross — It is a question whether we should not direct the Secretaries to make out for Mr.
Smith a copy of the List of Rights, and present them, with a view to his being called
on to pass an opinion on them to-morrow morning.
Mr. Riel opposed the latter suggestion, and ultimately the Convention adjourned till the following
morning.
This individual participated in:
