LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
WEDNESDAY,
February 8, 1865.
The Order of the Day for resuming the
debate on the Resolution for a Union of the
British North American Colonies, having been
read,-
HON. GEORGE BROWN rose and said: Mr.
SPEAKER, it is with no ordinary gratification I rise to address
the House on this occasion. I cannot help feeling that the struggle of
half a life-time for constitutional reform—the agitations in the
country, and the fierce contests in this chamber—the strife and the
discord and the abuse of many years,—are all compensated by the great scheme
of reform which is now in your hands. (Cheers.) The Attorney General
for Upper Canada, as well as the Attorney General for Lower Canada, in
addressing the House last night, were anxious to have it understood that
this scheme for uniting British America under one government, is
something different from "representation by population," — is
something different from "joint authority," —but is in fact the very scheme
of the Government of which they were members in 1858. Now, sir, it is
all very well that my honorable friends should receive credit for the
large share they have contributed towards maturing the measure before the
House; but I could not help reflecting while they spoke, that if this
was their very scheme in 1858, they succeeded wonderfully in bottling
it up from all the world except themselves (hear, hear)—and I could not help
regretting that we had to wait till 1864 until this mysterious plant
of 1858 was forced to fruition. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) For myself, sir,
I care not who gets the credit of this scheme, —I believe it contains
the best features of all the suggestions that have been made in the
last ten years for the settlement of our troubles; and the whole feeling in
my mind now is one of joy and thankfulness that there were found men
of position and influence in Canada who, at a moment of serious crisis, had
nerve and patriotism enough to cast aside political partisanship, to
banish personal considerations, and unite for the accomplishment
of a measure so fraught with advantage to their common country.
(Cheers.) It was a bold step in the then existing state of public feeling
for many members of the House to vote for the Constitutional Committee
moved for by me last session—it was a very bold step for many of the
members of that committee to speak
and vote candidly upon it—it was a still bolder thing for many to
place their names to the report that emanated from that committee,
—but it was an infinitely bolder step for the gentlemen who now
occupy these treasury benches, to brave the misconceptions and suspicions
that would certainly attach to the act, and enter the same Government.
And it is not to be denied that such a Coalition demanded no ordinary
justification. But who does not feel that every one of us has to-day ample
justification and reward for all we did in the document now under discussion? (Cheers)
But seven short months
have passed away since the Coalition Government was formed, yet already
are we submitting a scheme well-weighed and matured, for the erection
of a future empire, —a scheme which has been received at home and
abroad with almost universal approval.
HON. MR. BROWN —My hon. friend dissents from that, but is it possible truthfully to deny it?
Has it not been approved and endorsed by the governments of five
separate colonies ?—Has it not received the all but unanimous approval
of the press of Canada?Has it not been heartily and unequivocally
endorsed by the electors of Canada ? (Cries of hear, hear, and no,
no.) My honorable friend opposite cries "no, no," but I say "yes, yes."
Since the Coalition was formed, and its policy of Federal union
announced, there have been no fewer than twenty-five parliamentary elections—fourteen
for members of the Upper House, and eleven for
members of the Lower House. At the fourteen Upper House contests, but three candidates
dared to show themselves before the people in
opposition to the Government scheme; and of these, two were rejected,
and one—only one—succeeded in finding a seat. (Hear, hear.) At the eleven
contests for the Lower House, but one candidate on either
side of politics ventured to oppose the scheme, and I hope that
even he will yet cast his vote in favor of Confederation. (Hear,
hear.) Of these twenty-five electoral contests, fourteen were in Upper
Canada, but not at one of them did a candidate appear in opposition to
our scheme. And let it be observed how large a portion of the
country these twenty-five electoral districts embraced. It is true
that the eleven Lower House elections only included that number of
counties, but the fourteen Upper House elections embraced no
fewer than forty counties. (Hear, hear.) Of the 130 constituencies,
therefore, into which Canada is divided for representation
85 in this chamber, not fewer than fifty have been
called on since our scheme was announced to pronounce at the polls their
verdict upon it, and at the whole of them but four candidates on both
sides of politics ventured to give it opposition. (Cheers.) Was I not right
then in asserting that the electors of Canada had, in the most marked
manner, pronounced in favor of the scheme ? (Hear, hear.) And will
honorable gentlemen deny that the people and press of Great Britain have
received it with acclamations of approval?—that the Government of England have cordially
endorsed and accepted it?—aye, that even
the press and the public men of the United States have spoken of it
with a degree of respect they never before accorded to any colonial
movement? Sir, I venture to assert that no scheme of equal magnitude,
ever placed before the world, was received with higher eulogiums, with
more universal approbation, than the measure we have new the honor
of submitting for the acceptance of the Canadian Parliament.
And no higher eulogy could, I think, be pronounced than that I heard a few
weeks ago from the lips of one of the foremost of British
statesmen, that the system of government we proposed seemed to him a
happy compound of the best features of the British and American
Constitutions. And well, Mr. SPEAKER, might our present attitude in Canada arrest
the earnest attention of other countries. Here is a
people composed of two distinct races, speaking different languages, with religious
and social and municipal and education
institutions totally different; with sectional hostilities of such a
character as to render government for many years well-nigh impossible;
with a Constitution so unjust in the view of one section as to justify any
resort to enforce a remedy. And yet, sir, here we sit, patiently and
temperately discussing how these great evils and hostilities may justly
and amicably be swept away forever. (Hear, hear.) We are endeavoring
to adjust harmoniously greater difficulties than have plunged
other countries into all the horrors of civil war. We are striving to
do peacefully and satisfactorily what Holland and Belgium, after years
of strife, were unable to accomplish. We are seeking by calm discussion to
settle questions that Austria and Hungary, that Denmark and Germany, that Russia and
Poland, could only crush by the iron
heel of armed force. We are seeking to do without foreign intervention
that which deluged in blood the sunny plains of Italy. We are striving to
settle forever issues hardly less momentous
than those that have rent the neighboring republic and are
now exposing it to all the horrors of civil war. (Hear, hear.)
Have we not then, Mr. SPEAKER, great cause of thankfulness
that we have found a better way for the solution of our troubles than that
which has entailed on other countries such deplorable
results? And should not every one of us endeavor to rise to the magnitude
of the occasion, and earnestly seek to deal with this question to the
end in the same candid and conciliatory spirit in which, so far, it
has been discussed? (Loud cries of hear, hear.) The scene presented by this
chamber at this moment, I venture to affirm, has few parallels in
history. One hundred years have passed away since these provinces
became by conquest part of the British Empire. I speak in no boastful
spirit—I desire not for a moment to excite a painful thought—what was
then the fortune of war of the brave French nation, might have been
ours on that well-fought field. I recall those olden times merely to mark
the fact that here sit to-day the descendants of the victors and the
vanquished in the fight of 1759, with all the differences of language,
religion, civil law, and social habit, nearly as distinctly marked as
they were a century ago. (Hear, hear.) Here we sit to-day seeking amicably
to find a remedy for constitutional evils and injustice complained
of—by the vanquished? No, sir —but complained of by the conquerors!
(Cheers by the French Canadians.) Here sit the representatives of the
British population claiming justice—only justice ; and here
sit the representatives of the French population, discussing in
the French tongue whether we shall have it. One hundred years have
passed away since the conquest of Quebec, but here sit the children of the
victor and the vanquished, all avowing hearty attachment to the
British Crown—all earnestly deliberating how we shall best extend the
blessings of British institutions—how a great people may be
established on this continent in close and hearty connection with Great
Britain. (Cheers.) Where, sir, in the page of history, shall we find a
parallel to this? Will it not stand as an imperishable monument to the
generosity of British rule? And it is not in Canada alone that this
scene is being witnessed. Four other colonies are at this moment occupied as
we are—declaring their hearty love for the parent State, and
deliberating with us how they may best discharge the great duty entrusted to their
hands, and give their aid in developing the
teeming resources of these vast
86 possessions. And well, Mr. SPEAKER, may the work we
have unitedly proposed rouse the ambition and energy of every true man in
British America. Look, sir, at the map of the continent of America,
and mark that island (Newfoundland) commanding the mouth of the noble
river that almost cuts our continent in twain. Well, sir, that
island is equal in extent to the kingdom of Portugal. Cross the
straits to the main land, and you touch the hospitable shores of Nova
Scotia, a country as large as the kingdom of Greece. Then mark the
sister province of New Brunswick—equal in extent to Denmark and
Switzerland combined. Pass up the river St. Lawrence to Lower Canada—a
country as large as France. Pass on to Upper Canada, —twenty thousand
square miles larger than Great Britain and Ireland put together. Cross
over the continent to the shores of the Pacific, and you are in British
Columbia, the land of golden promise,—equal in extent to the Austrian
Empire. I speak not now of the vast Indian Territories that lie betweengreater in
extent than the whole soil of Russia —and that
will ere long, I trust, be opened up to civilization under the auspices of
the British American Confederation. (Cheers.) Well, sir, the bold
scheme in your hands is nothing less than to gather all these countries into
one —to organize them all under one government, with the protection of
the British flag, and in heartiest sympathy and affection with our
fellow-subjects in the land that gave us birth. (Cheers.) Our scheme is to
establish a government that will seek to turn the tide of
European emigration into this northern half of the American continent—that
will strive to develope its great natural resources—and that will
endeavor to maintain liberty, and justice, and christianity throughout the
land.
HON. MR. BROWN —The hon. member for
North Hastings asks when all this can be
done? Sir, the whole great ends of this Confederation may not be realized in the lifetime
of many who now hear me. We imagine not
that such a structure can be built in a month
or in a year. What we propose now is but to
lay the foundations of the structure—to set in
motion the governmental machine that will
one day, we trust, extend from the Atlantic to
the Pacific. And we take especial credit to
ourselves that the system we have devised,
while admirably adapted to our present situation, is capable of gradual and efficient
expansion in future years to meet all the great pur
poses
contemplated by our scheme. But if the honorable gentleman will only recall to mind
that when the United States seceded from
the
Mother Country, and for many years afterwards their population was not nearly equal
to ours at this moment; that their internal
improvements did not then approach to what
we have already attained; and that their trade
and commerce was not then a third of what
ours has already reached; I think he will see
that the fulfilment of our hopes may not be so
very remote as at first sight might be imagined
—(hear, hear.) And he will be strengthened
in that conviction if he remembers that what
we propose to do is to be done with the cordial
sympathy and assistance of that
great Power
of which it is our happiness to form a part.
(Hear, hear.) Such, Mr. SPEAKER,
are the
objects of attainment to which the British
American Conference pledged itself in October. And said I not rightly that such a
scheme
is well fitted to fire the ambition and rouse the
energies of every member of this House?
Does it not lift us above the petty politics of
the past, and present to us high purposes
and great interests that may
well call forth all
the intellectual ability and all the energy and
enterprise to be found among us ? (Cheers.)
I readily admit all the gravity of the question
—and that it ought to be considered cautiously
and thoroughly before adoption. Far be it
from me to deprecate the closest criticism, or
to doubt for a moment the sincerity or patriotism of those who feel it their duty
to oppose
the measure. But in considering a question
on which hangs the future destiny of half a
continent, ought not the spirit of mere fault- finding to be hushed ?—ought not the
voice of
partisanship to be banished from our debates?
—ought we not to sit down and discuss the
arguments presented in the earnest and candid
spirit of men, bound by the same interests,
seeking a common end, and loving the same
country? (Hear, hear, and
cheers.) Some
honorable gentlemen seem to imagine that the
members of Government have a deeper interest
in this scheme than others—but what possible
interest can any of us have except that which
we share with every citizen of the land ? What
risk does any one run from this measure in
which all of us do not fully participate ? What
possible inducement could we have to urge this
scheme, except our earnest and heartfelt conviction that it will inure to the solid
and
lasting advantage of our country ? (Hear,
hear.) There is one consideration, Mr. SPEAKER, that cannot be banished from this
discussion, and that ought, I think, to be remembered
87
in every word we utter ; it is that the
constitutional system of Canada cannot remain as it
is now. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) Something
must be done. We cannot stand still. We
cannot go back to chronic, sectional hostility
and discord—to a state of perpetual Ministerial
crises. The events of the last eight months
cannot be obliterated ; the solemn admissions
of men of all parties can never be erased. The
claims of Upper Canada for justice must be
met, and met now. I say, then, that every one
who raises his voice in hostility to this measure
is bound to keep before him, when he speaks,
all the perilous consequences of its rejection,- I say that no man who has a true
regard for
the well-being of Canada, can give a vote
against this scheme, unless he is
prepared to
offer, in amendment, some better remedy for
the evils and injustice that have so long threatened the peace of our country. (Hear,
hear.)
And not only must the scheme proposed in
amendment be a better scheme—it
must be
something that can be carried. (Hear, hear.)
I see an honorable friend now before me, for
whose opinions I have the very highest respect,
who says to me : " Mr. BROWN, you should
not have settled this part of the plan as you
have done ; here is the way you should have
framed it." " Well, my dear sir," is my reply,
"I perfectly agree with you, but
it could not
be done. Whether we ask for parliamentary
reform for Canada alone or in
union with
the Maritime Provinces, the French Canadians
must have their views consulted as well as us.
This scheme can be carried, and no scheme
can be that has not the support
of both sections of the province."
is the question !
Hon.
Mr. BROWN —Yes, that is the question and the whole question. No
constitution
ever framed was without defect; no act of
human wisdom was ever free from
imperfection; no amount of talent and
wisdom and
integrity combined in preparing such a scheme
could have placed it beyond the
reach of criticism. And the framers of this
scheme had
immense special difficulties to overcome. We
had the prejudices of race and
language and
religion to deal with; and we had
to encounter
all the rivalries of trade and
commerce, and
all the jealousies of diversified local interests.
To assert, then, that our scheme
is without
fault, would be folly. It was
necessarily the
work of concession ; not one of
the thirty-three
framers but had, on some points, to
yield his
opinions; and, for myself, I freely admit that
I struggled earnestly, for days
together, to
have portions of the scheme amended. But,
Mr. SPEAKER, admitting all
this—admitting
all the difficulties that beset
us—admitting
frankly that defects in the measure exist—I
say that, taking the scheme as a whole, it has
my cordial, enthusiastic support, without hesitation or reservation. (Hear,
hear.) I believe it will accomplish all, and more than all,
that we, who have so long fought the battle of
parliamentary reform, ever hoped to see accomplished. I believe that, while granting
security for local interests, it will give free scope
for carrying out the will of the whole people
in general matters—that it will draw closer
the bonds that unite us to Great Britain—and
that it will lay the foundations deep and
strong of a powerful and prosperous people.
(Cheers.) And if the House will allow me
to trespass to a somewhat unusual degree on
its indulgence, I am satisfied that I can clearly establish that such are the results
fairly to
be anticipated from the measure. Mr. SPEAKER, there are two views in which
this scheme
may be regarded, namely, the existing evils it
will remedy, and the new advantages it will
secure for us as a people. Let us begin by
examining its remedial provisions. First, then,
it applies a complete and satisfactory remedy
to the injustice of the existing system of parliamentary representation. (Hear,
hear.) The
people of Upper Canada have bitterly complained that though they numbered four hundred
thousand souls more than the population
of Lower Canada, and though they have contributed three or four pounds to the general
revenue for every pound contributed by the
sister province, yet the Lower Canadians send
to Parliament as many representatives as they
do. Now, sir, the measure in your hands
brings this injustice to an end ;-—it sweeps
away the line of demarcation between the two
sections on all matters common to the whole
province ; it gives representation according to
numbers wherever found in the House of Assembly ; and it provides a simple and convenient
system for re-adjusting the representation after each decennial census. (Cheers.)
To this proposed constitution of the Lower
Chamber, I have heard only two objections.
It has been alleged that until after the census
of 1871, the number of members is to remain as at present; but this is a mistake.
Upper Canada is to receive from the start
eighty-two representatives, and
Lower Canada
sixty-five; and whatever increase the census
of 1871 may establish will be
then adjusted.
It has also been objected that though the resolutions provide that the existing Parliament
88
of Canada shall establish the electoral
divisions
for the first organization of the Federal Parliament, they do not determine in whose
hands
the duty of distributing any additional members is to be vested. No doubt on this
head
need exist; the Federal Parliament will of
course have full power to regulate all arrangements for the election of its own members.
But I am told by Upper Canadians—the constitution of the Lower House is all well
enough, it is in the Upper House arrangements
that the scheme is objectionable. And first,
it is said that Upper Canada should have had
in the Legislative Council a greater number
of members than Lower Canada.-
HON. MR. BROWN —The honorable member for North Hastings is of that opinion; but that honorable
gentleman is in favor of a legislative union, and had we been forming a legislative
union, there might have been some force in
the demand. But the very essence of our compact is that the union
shall be federal and not legislative. Our Lower Canada friends
have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower
House, on the express condition that they shall have equality in the Upper
House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step; and, for
my part, I am quite willing they should have it. In maintaining the
existing sectional boundaries and handing over the control of local matters
to local bodies, we recognize, to a certain extent, a diversity of
interests; and it was quite natural that the protection for those interests,
by equality in the Upper Chamber, should he demanded by the less
numerous provinces. Honorable gentlemen may say that it will erect a
barrier in the Upper House against the just influence that Upper Canada will
exercise, by her numbers, in the Lower House over the
general legislation of the country. That may be true, to a certain extent,
but honorable gentlemen will bear in mind that that barrier, be it
more or less, will not affect money bills. (Hear, hear.) Hitherto we
have been paying a vast proportion of the taxes, with little or no control
over the expenditure. But, under this plan, by our just
influence in the Lower Chamber; we shall hold the purse strings. If, from
this concession of equality in the Upper Chamber, we are restrained
from forcing through measures which our friends of Lower Canada
may consider injurious to their interests, we shall, at any rate, have
power, which we never had before, to prevent them from forcing through
whatever we may deem unjust to us. I think the compromise a fair one,
and am persuaded that it will work easily and satisfactorily. (Hear, hear.) But it
has been said that the members
of the Upper House ought not to be appointed by the Crown, but should
continue to be elected by the people at large. On that question my views
have been often expressed. I have always been opposed to a second
elective chamber, and I am so still, from the conviction that two elective
houses are inconsistent with the right working of the British
parliamentary system. I voted, almost alone, against the change when the
Council was made elective, but I have lived to see a vast majority of
those who did the deed wish it had not been done. It is quite true, and I
am glad to acknowledge it, that many evils anticipated from
the change, when the measure was adopted, have not been realized. (Hear,
hear.) I readily admit that men of the highest character and
position have been brought into the Council by the elective system, but it
is equally true that the system of appointment brought into it men of
the highest character and position. Whether appointed by the Crown or
elected by the people, since the introduction of parliamentary government,
the men who have composed the Upper House of this Legislature have
been men who would have done honor to any legislature in the world. But what
we most feared was, that the Legislative Councillors would
be elected under party responsibilities; that a partisan spirit
would soon show itself in the chamber; and that the right. would soon
be asserted to an equal control with this House over money bills. That fear
has not been realised to any dangerous extent. But is it not possible
that such a claim might ere long be asserted? Do we not hear, even
now, mutterings of a coming demand for it? Nor can we forget that the
elected members came into that chamber gradually ; that the large
number of old appointed members exercised much influence in
maintaining the old forms of the House, the old style of debate, and
the old barriers against encroachment on the privileges of the commons. But
the appointed members of the Council are gradually passing
away, and when the elective element becomes supreme, who will venture to
affirm that the Council would not claim that power over money bills
which this House claims as of right belonging to itself? Could they not
justly say that they represent the people as well as we do, and that
the control of the purse strings ought, therefore, to belong to them as much
as to us. (Hear, hear.) It is said they have not
89 the power. But what is to prevent them from enforcing
it? Suppose we had a conservative majority here, and a reform majority
aboveor a conservative majority above an a reform
majority here—all elected under party obligations,—what is to
prevent a dead-lock between the chambers? It may be called unconstitutional—but
what is to prevent the Councillors (especially if
they feel that in the dispute of the hour they have the country at their
back) from practically exercising all the powers that belong
to us? They might amend our money bills, they might throw out all our
bills if they liked, and bring to a stop the whole machinery of government.
And what could we do to prevent them? But, even supposing this were
not the case, and that the elective Upper House continued to be guided
by that discretion which has heretofore actuated its
proceedings,—still, I think, we must all feel that the election of members
for such enormous districts as form the constituencies of the Upper
House has become a great practical inconvenience. I say this from
personal experience, having long taken an active interest in
the electoral contests in Upper Canada. We have found greater difficulty in
inducing candidates to offer for seats in the Upper House, than in
getting ten times the number for the Lower House. The constituencies are
so vast, that it is difficult to find gentlemen who have the will to
incur the labor of such a contest, who are sufficiently known and
popular enough throughout districts so wide, and who have money
enough—(hear)— to pay the enormous bills, not incurred in any corrupt
way,—do not fancy that I mean that for a moment—but the bills that are sent
in after the contest is over, and which the candidates are
compelled to pay if they ever hope to present themselves for re-election.
(Hear, hear.) But honorable gentlemen say—"This is all very well, but
you are taking an important power out of the hands of the people,
which they now possess." Now this is a mistake. We do not propose to
do anything of the sort. What we propose is, that the Upper House
shall be appointed from the best men of the country by those holding the
confidence of the representatives of the people in this
Chamber. It is proposed that the Government of the day, which only
lives by the approval of this Chamber, shall make the appointments, and be responsible
to the people for the
selections they shall make. (Hear, hear.) Not a single appointment could be
made, with regard to which the Government would not be open to censure, and
which the
representatives of the people, in this House, would not have an
opportunity of condemning. For myself, I have maintained the appointed
principle, as in opposition to the elective, ever since came into public
life, and have never hesitated, when before the people, to state my
opinions in the broadest manner; and yet not in a single instance have I
ever found a constituency in Upper Canada, or a public meeting declaring its disapproval
of appointment by the Crown and
its desire for election by the people at large. When the change was made
in 1855 there was not a single petition from the people asking for
it—it was in a manner forced on the Legislature. The real reason for
the change was, that before Responsible Government was introduced into this
country, while the old oligarchical system existed, the Upper House
continuously and systematically was at war with the popular
branch, and threw out every measure of a liberal tendency.
The result was, that in the famous ninety-two resolutions the introduction
of the elective principle into the Upper House was declared to be
indispensable. So long as Mr. ROBERT BALDWIN remained in public life,
the thing could not be done; but when he left, the deed was consummated. But
it is said, that if the members are to be appointed for life, the
number should be unlimitedthat, in the event of a dead lock
arising between that chamber and this, there should be power
to overcome the difficulty by the appointment of more members.
Well, under the British system, in the case of a legislative union,
that might be a legitimate provision. But honorable gentlemen must see that
the limitation of the numbers in the Upper House lies at the base of
the whole compact on which this scheme rests. (Hear, hear.) It is
perfectly clear, as was contended by those who represented Lower Canada in
the Conference, that if the number of the Legislative Councillors was made capable
of increase, you would
thereby sweep away the whole protection they had from the Upper
Chamber. But it has been said that, though you may not give the power to the
Executive to increase the numbers of the Upper House, in the event of
a dead-lock, you might limit the term for which the members are appointed.
I was myself in favor of that proposition. I thought it would be well
to provide for a more frequent change in the composition of the Upper
House, and lessen the danger of the chamber being largely composed of
gentlemen whose advanced years might forbid the punctual and
vigorous discharge of their public
90 duties. Still, the objection made to this was very
strong. It was said: "Suppose you appoint them for nine years, what will be
the effect? For the last three or four years of' their term they would
be anticipating its expiry, and anxiously looking to the Administration of the day
for reappointment; and the consequence
would be that a third of the members would be under the influence
of the Executive." The desire was to render the Upper House
a thoroughly independent body—one that would be in the best position to
canvass dispassionately the measures of this House, and stand up for
the public interests in opposition to hasty or partisan legislation. It was
contended that there is no fear of a dead-lock. We were
reminded how the system of appointing for life had worked in past
years, since Responsible Government was introduced; we were told that
the complaint was not then, that the Upper Chamber had been too obstructive a body—not
that it had sought to restrain the popular
will, but that it had too faithfully reflected the popular will.
Undoubtedly that was the complaint formerly pressed upon us—(hear,
hear)—and I readily admit that if ever there was a body to whom we could
safely entrust the power which by this measure we propose to
confer on the members of the Upper Chamber, it is the body of
gentlemen who at this moment compose the Legislative Council of Canada. The
forty-eight Councillors for Canada are to be chosen from the present
chamber. There are now thirty-four members from the one section, and
thirty-five from the other. I believe that of the sixty-nine, some will not
desire to make their appearance here again, others, unhappily, from
years and infirmity, may not have strength to do so; and there may be
others who will not desire to qualify under the Statute. It is quite clear
that when twenty-four are selected for Upper Canada and twenty-four
for Lower Canada, very few indeed of the present House will be excluded
from the Federal Chamber; and I confess I am not without hope that
there may be some way yet found of providing for all who desire it, an
honorable position in the Legislature of the country. (Hear, hear.) And,
after all, is it not an imaginary fear—that of a dead-lock? Is it at
all probable that any body of gentlemen who may compose the Upper
House, appointed as they will be for life, acting as they will do on
personal and not party responsibility, possessing as they must, a deep
stake in the welfare of the country, and desirous as they must be of
holding the esteem of their fellow subjectswould take so
unreasonable a course as to imperil the whole political fabric? The
British House of Peers itself does not venture,
á l'outrance, to resist the popular will, and can it be anticipated
that our Upper Chamber would set itself rashly against the popular will?
If any fear is to be entertained in the matter, is it not
rather that the Councillors will be found too thoroughly in harmony with the
popular feeling of the day? An we have this satisfaction at any rate,
that, so far as its first formation is concerned—so far as the present question
is concerned—we shall have a body of gentlemen
in whom every confidence may be placed. (Hear, hear.) But it is objected that in
the constitution of the Upper House, so far as
Lower Canada is concerned, the existing electoral divisions are to be
maintained, while, as regards Upper Canada, they are to
be abolished—that the members from Lower Canada are to sit as representing
the divisions in which they reside or have their property
qualification; while in Upper Canada there is no such arrangement.
Undoubtedly this is the fact; it has been so arranged to
suit the peculiar position of this section of the province. Our Lower Canada
friends felt that they had French Canadian interests and British
interests to be protected, and they conceived that the existing system
of electoral divisions would give protection to these separate interests. We,
in Upper Canada, on the other hand, were quite content that
they should settle that among themselves, and maintain their
existing divisions if they chose. But, so far as we in the west were
concerned, we had no such separate interests to protect—we had no
diversities of origin or language to reconcile—and we felt that the
true interest of Upper Canada was that her very best men should be sent to
the Legislative Council, wherever they might happen to reside or
wherever their property was located. (Hear, hear.) If there is one
evil in the American system which in my mind stands out as preeminently its
greatest defect, except universal suffrage, it is that under that
Constitution the representatives of the people must reside in the
constituencies for which they sit. (Hear, hear.) The result is that a
public man,—no matter what his talent, or what his position—no matter how
necessary it may be for the interest of the country that he should be
in public life, unless he happens to belong to the political party
popular for the time being in the constituency where he resides, cannot
possibly find a seat
91 in Congress. And over and over again have we seen the
very best men of the Republic, the most illustrious names recorded in its
political annals, driven out of the legislature of their country,
simply because the majority in the electoral division in which they lived
was of a different political party from them. I do think the British
system infinitely better than that, securing as it does that public men may
be trained to public life, with the assured conviction that if they
prove themselves worthy of public confidence, and gain a position
in the country, constituencies will always be found to avail
themselves of their services, whatever be the political party to
which they may adhere. You may make politicians by the other, but
assuredly this is the way that statesmen are produced. But it is
further objected that the property qualification of the members of the
Upper House from Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland may be
either real or personal estate, while in the others it is to be real
estate alone. This is correct; but I fancy it matters little to us upon what
species of property our friends in Prince Edward Island or in
Newfoundland base their qualification. Here in Canada real estate is
abundant; every one can obtain it; and admittedly by all it is the
best qualification, if it be advisable to have any property qualification at
all. But in Newfoundland it would be exceedingly inconvenient to enforce such a
rule. The public lands there are
not even surveyed to any considerable extent; the people are almost
entirely engaged in fishing and commercial pursuits, and to require a real
estate qualification would be practically to exclude some of
its best public men from the Legislative Council. Then in Prince Edward
Island a large portion of the island is held in extensive
tracts by absentee proprietors and leased to the settlers. A feud of long
standing has been the result, and there would be some difficulty in
finding landed proprietors who would be acceptable to the people as members of the
Upper House. This also must be remembered, that
it will be every different thing for a member from Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island
to attend the Legislature at
Ottawa from what it is for one of ourselves to there. He must give up
not only his time, but the comfort and convenience of being near
home—and it is desirable to throw no unnecessary obstacle in the way
of our getting the very best men from these provinces. (Hear.) But it is
further objected that these resolutions do not define how
the legislative councillors are to be chosen at
first. I apprehend, however, there is no doubt whatever as regards
that. Clause 14 says: "the first selection of the members to constitute
the Federal Legislative Council shall be made from the members of the
now existing legislative councils, by the Crown, at the recommendation of the General
Executive Government, upon
the nomination of the respective local governments." The clear meaning of
this clause simply is, that the present governments of the
several provinces are to choose out of the existing bodies—so far as
they can find gentlemen willing and qualified to serve—the members who shall
at starting compose the Federal Legislative Council; that they are to
present the names so selected to the Executive Council of British America
when constituted—and on the advice of that. body the Councillors will
be appointed by the Crown. (Hear.) And such has been the spirit shown
from first to last in carrying out the compact of July last by all the
parties to it, that for one have no apprehension whatever
that full justice will not be done to the party which may be a minority in
the Government, but is certainly not in a minority either in
the country or in this House. I speak not only of Upper Canada but of Lower
Canada as well-
HON. MR. BROWN —My honorable friend
laughs, but I assure him, and he will not say I do so for the purpose of
deceiving him, that having been present in Conference and in Council,
having heard all the discussions and well ascertained the feelings of all
associated with me, I have not a shadow of a doubt on my mind that
full justice will be done in the selection of the first Federal Councillors,
not only to those who may have been in the habit of acting with me,
but also to those who have acted with my honorable friend the member
for Hochelaga. (Hear, hear.) Now, Mr. SPEAKER, I believe I have answered
every objection that has come from any quarter against the proposed
constitution o the Federal Legislature. I am persuaded there is
not one well-founded objection that can be urged against it. It is
just to all parties; it remedies the gross injustice of the existing
system; and I am convinced it will not only work easily and safely, but be
entirely satisfactory to the great mass of our people. But I
go further; I say that were all the objections urged against this
scheme sound and cogent, they sink into utter insignificance in view
of all the miseries this scheme will relieve us from,—in view of
all the difficulties
92
that must surround any measure of parliamentary reform for
Canada that could possibly be devised. (Cheers.) Will honorable
gentlemen who spend their energies in hunting out blemishes
in this scheme, remember for a moment the utter injustice of the one
we have at present? Public opinion has made rapid strides in the last six
months on the representation question,—but think what it was
a week before the present coalition was formed! Remember how short a time
has elapsed since the member for Peel (Hon. Mr. J. HILLYARD CAMERON)
proposed to grant one additional member to Upper Canada, and could not carry
even that. Remember that but a few weeks ago the hon. member for
Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION), who now leads the crusade against this
measure, publicly declared that five or six additional members was all Upper
Canada was entitled to, and that with these the Upper Canadians would be content
for many years to come. (Hear, hear.) And when he
has reflected on all this, let the man who is disposed to carp at this
great measure of representative reform, justify his conduct, if he can, to
the thousands of disfranchised freeholders of Upper Canada demanding
justice at our hands. (Cheers.) For myself, sir, I unhesitatingly say, that
the complete justice which this measure secures, to the people of
Upper Canada in the vital matter of parliamentary representation alone,
renders all the blemishes averred against it utterly contemptible in
the balance.(Continued cheers.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, the second
feature of this scheme as a remedial measure is, that it removes, to a large
extent, the injustice of which Upper Canada has complained
in financial matters. We in Upper Canada have complained that though we paid
into the public treasury more than three- fourths of the
whole revenue, we had less control over the system of taxation and
the expenditure of the public moneys than the people of
Lower Canada. Well, sir, the scheme in your hand remedies that. The
absurd line of separation between the provinces is swept away for
general matters; we are to have seventeen additional members in the
house that holds the purse; and the taxpa ers of the country,
wherever they reside, wil have their just share of influence over
revenue and expenditure. (Hear, hear.) We have also complained that immense
sums of public money have been systematically taken from the public
chest for local purposes of Lower Canada, in which the people of Upper
Canada had no interest whatever, though compelled to contribute
three-fourths of the cash.
Well, sir, this scheme remedies that. All local matters are to be banished
from the General Legislature; local governments are to have control
over local affairs, and if our friends in Lower Canada choose to be
extravagant, they will have to bear the burden of it themselves.
(Hear, hear.) No longer shall we have to complain that one section pays the
cash while the other spends it; hereafter, they who pay will spend,
and they who spend more than they ought will have to bear the brunt. (Hear,
hear.) It was a great thing to accomplish this, if we had accomplished
nothing more, —for if we look back on our doings of the last fifteen
years, I think it will be acknowledged that the greatest jobs perpetrated
were of a local character—that our fiercest contests were about local
matters that stirred up sectional jealousies and indignation to its deepest
depth. (Hear, hear.) We have further complained that if a sum was
properly demanded for some legitimate local purpose in one section, an
equivalent sum had to be appropriated to the other as an offset,—thereby
entailing prodigal expenditure, and unnecessarily increasing the
public debt. Well, sir, this scheme puts an end to that. Each province is to
determine for itself its own wants, and to find the money to meet them
from its own resources. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, I am told that though true
it is that local matters are to be separated and the burden of local
expenditure placed upon local shoulders, we have made an exception
from that principle in providing that a subsidy of eighty cents per head
shall be taken from the federal chest and granted to the local
governments for local purposes. Undoubtedly this is the fact—and I do not
hesitate to admit that it would have been better if this had been
otherwise. I trust I commit no breach of discretion in stating that in
Conference I was one of the strongest advocates for defraying the
whole of the local expenditures of the local governments by means of direct
taxation, and that there were liberal men in all sections
of the provinces who would gladly have had it so arranged. But, Mr. SPEAKER,
there was one difficulty in the way—a difficult which has often before
been encountered in this world—and that difficulty was simply this, it
could not be done. (Hear, and laughter.) We could neither have carried it in
Conference nor yet in any one of the existing provincial legislatures.
Our friends in Lower Canada, I am afraid, have a constitutional
disinclination to direct taxation, and it was obvious that if the
Confederation scheme had had attached to it a provision for the imposition
of such a
93 system of taxation, my honorable friends opposite would have had a much better chance
of success in blowing the
bellows of agitation than they now have. (Laughter, and cheers.) The
objection, moreover, was not confined to Lower Canada—all the Lower
Provinces stood in exactly the same position. They have not a
municipal system such as we have, discharging many of the
functions of government; but their General Government performs all the
duties which in Upper Canada devolve upon our municipal councils, as well as
upon Parliament. If then the Lower Provinces had been asked to
maintain their customs duties for federal purposes, and to impose on
themselves by the same act direct taxation for all their local purposes, the
chances of carrying the scheme of union would have been greatly
lessened. (Hear, hear.) But I apprehend that if we did not succeed in
putting this matter on the footing that would have been the best, at
least we did the next best thing. Two courses were open to us—either to
surrender to the local governments some source of
indirect revenue, some tax which the General Government proposed
to retain,—or collect the money by the federal machinery, and
distribute it to the local governments for local purposes. And we
decided in favor of the latter. We asked the representatives of the
different governments to estimate how much they would require after the
inauguration of the federal system to carry on their
local machinery. As at first presented to us, the annual sum required for
all the provinces was something like five millions of dollars—an
amount that could not possibly have been allotted. The great
trouble was that some of the governments are vastly more expensive
than others—extensive countries, with sparse populations, necessarily
requiring more money per head for local government than countries more
densely populated. But as any grant given from the common chest, for local
purposes, to one province, must be extend to all, on the
basis of population, it follows that for every $1,000 given, for example, to
New Brunswick, we must give over $1,300 to Nova Scotia, $4,000 to
Lower Canada, and $6,000 to Upper Canada—thereby drawing from the
federal exchequer much large sums than these provinces needed for local
purposes. The course we adopted then was this: We formed a committee
of Finance Ministers and made each of them go over his list of expenditures, lopping
off unnecessary services and cutting down
every item to the lowest possible figure. By this means we succeeded in
reducing the total annual subsidy required for local
government to the sum of $2,630,000of which Lower Canada will
receive annually $880,000, and Upper Canada $1,120,000. But it is said
that in addition to her eighty cents per head under this arrangement, New
Brunswick is to receive an extra grant from the federal
chest of $63,000 annually for ten years. Well, this is perfectly true. After
cutting down as I have explained the local expenditures to the lowest
mark, it was found that New Brunswick and Newfoundland could not
possibly carry on their local governments with the sum per head that would
suffice for all the rest. New Brunswick imperatively required $63,000
per annum beyond her share, and we had either to find that sum for her
or give up the hope of union. The question then arose, would it not be
better to give New Brunswick a special grant of $63,000 for a limited
number of years, so that her local revenues might have time to be
developed, rather than increase the subsidy to all the local governments,
thereby lacing an additional burden on the federal exchequer of over
eight hundred thousand dollars per annum? We came unanimously to the conclusion
that the extra sum needed by New Brunswick was too
small to be allowed to stand in the way of union—we also determined that it
would be the height of absurdity to impose a permanent burden on the
country of $800,000 a year, simply to escape a payment of $63,000 for
ten years—and so it came about that New Brunswick got this extra grant—an
arrangement which received and receives now my hearty
approval. (Hear, hear.) It is only right to say, however, that New Brunswick
may possibly be in a position to do without this money. The House is
aware that the Federal Government is to assume the debts of the
several provinces, each province being entitled to throw upon it a
debt of $25 per head of its population. Should the debt of any
province exceed $25 per head, it is to pay interest on the excess to the
federal treasury; but should it fall below $25 per head, it is to
receive interest from the federal treasury on the difference
between its actual debt and the debt to which it is entitled. Now, it so happens
that the existing debt of New Brunswick is much
less than it is entitled to throw on the Federal Government.
It is, however, under liability for certain works, which if proceeded with
would bring its debt up to the mark of $25 a head. But if these works
are not proceeded with New Brunswick will be entitled to a large
94 amount of annual interest from the federal chest, and
that money is to be applied to the reduction of the sixty-three thousand
extra grant. (Hear, hear.) And this, moreover, is not to be forgotten
as regards New Brunswick, that she brings into the union extensive railways now in
profitable operation, the revenues from
which are to go into the federal chest. (Hear.) A similar arrangement was
found necessary as regards the Island of Newfoundland—it, too, being a
vast country with a sparse population. It was found absolutely essential that an
additional grant beyond eighty cents per head
should be made to enable her Local Government to be properly carried
on. But, in consideration of this extra allowance, Newfoundland is to cede
to the Federal Government her Crown lands and minerals—and assuredly ,
if the reports of geologists are well founded, this arrangement
will be as advantageous to us as it will be to the inhabitants of
Newfoundland. I am persuaded then, Mr. SPEAKER, that the House
will feel with me that we in Canada have very little to complain of in
regard to the subsidies for local government. But if a doubt yet
remains on the mind of any honorable member, let him examine the Trade
Returns of the several provinces, and he will see that, from the large
quantity of dutiable goods consumed in the Maritime Provinces, they have
received no undue advantage under the arrangement. Let this too ever
be kept in mind that the $2,630,000 to be distributed to the local governments from
the federal chest is to be in full and final
extinguishment of all claims hereafter for local purposes; and that if this
from any cause does not suffice, the local governments must supply all
deficiencies from direct tax on their own localities. (Hear, hear.)
And let honorable members from Upper Canada who carp at this annual subsidy, remember
for a moment what we pay now, and they will
cease their grumbling. Of all the money raised by the General Government for local
purposes in Canada, the tax-payers of Upper
Canada now pay more than three-fourths; but far from getting back in
proportion to what they contribute, or even in proportion to their
population, they do not get one-half of the money spent for local
purposes. But how different will it be under Federation! Nine hundred
thousand people will come into the union, who will contribute to the
revenue quite as much, man for man, as the Upper Canadians, and in the
distribution of the local subsidy we will receive our
share on the basis of population. A very
different arrangement from that we now endure. (Hear, hear.) I confess
to you, sir, that one of the strongest arguments in my mind for
Confederation is the economical ideas of the people of these Maritime
Provinces, and the conviction that the influence of their public
men in our legislative halls will be most salutary in all financial
matters. A more economical people it would be difficult to find; their prime
ministers and their chief justices get but ÂŁ600 a year,
Halifax currency, and the rest of their civil list is in much the same
proportion. (Hear, hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, there is another great
evil in our existing system that this scheme remedies; it secures to the
people of each province full control over the administration
of their own internal affairs. We in Upper Canada have complained that the
minority of our representatives, the party defeated at the
polls of Upper Canada, have been, year after year, kept in office by Lower
Canada votes, and that all the local patronage of our
section has been dispensed by those who did not possess the confidence
of the people. Well, sir, this scheme remedies that. The local patronage
will be under local control, and the wishes of the majority in each
section will be carried out in all local matters. (Hear, hear.) We have
complained that the land system was not according to the views of our
western people; that free lands for actual settlers was the right policy for
us —that the price of a piece of land squeezed out of an immigrant was
no consideration in comparison with the settlement among us of a hardy
and industrious family; and that the colonization road system was far from
satisfactory. Well, sir, this scheme remedies that. Each province is
to have control of its own crown lands, crown timber and crown
minerals,—and will be free to take such steps for developing them as each
deems best.(Hear, hear.) We have complained that local works
of various kinds—roads, bridges and landing piers, court houses, gaols and
other structures—have been erected in an inequitable and improvident
manner. Well, sir, this scheme remedies that; all local works are to
be constructed by the localities and defrayed from local funds. And so on
through the whole extensive details of internal local administration will this reform
extend. The people of Upper Canada will
have the entire control of their local matters, and will no longer have to
betake themselves to Quebec for leave to open a road, to select a
county town, or appoint a coroner. But I am told that to this general
principle of placing all local matters under
95 local control, an exception has been made in to
the common schools. (Hear, hear.) The clause complained of is as
follows:-
6. Education; saving the rights and
privileges
which the Protestant or Catholic minority in
both Canadas may possess as to their Denominational Schools at the time when the Union
goes into operation.
Now, I need hardly remind the House that
I have always opposed and continue to oppose
the system of sectarian education, so far as the
public chest is concerned. I have never had
any hesitation on that point. I have never
been able to see why all the people of the
province, to whatever sect they may belong,
should not send their children to the same
common schools to receive the ordinary
branches of instruction. I regard the parent
and the pastor as the best religious instructors—and so long as the religious faith
of the
children is uninterfered with, and ample optunity afforded to the clergy to
give religious
instruction to the children of their flocks, I
cannot conceive any sound objection to mixed
schools. But while in the Conference and
elsewhere I have always maintained this view,
and always given my vote against sectarian
public schools, I am bound to admit, as I have
always admitted, that the sectarian system,
earned to the limited extent it has yet been in
Upper Canada, and confined as it chiefly is to
cities and towns, has not been a very great
practical injury. The real cause of alarm was
that the admission of the sectarian principle
was there, and that at any moment it might
be extended to such a degree as to split up
our school system altogether. There are but
a hundred separate schools in Upper Canada,
out of some four thousand, and all Roman
Catholic. But if the Roman Catholics are
entitled to separate schools and to go on
extending their operations, so are the members
of the Church of England, the Presbyterians,
the Methodists, and all other sects. No candid Roman Catholic will deny this for a
moment; and there lay the great danger to
our educational fabric, that the separate
system might gradually extend itself until the
whole country was studded with nurseries
of sectarianism, most hurtful to the best
interests of the province, and entailing an
enormous expense to sustain the hosts of
teachers that so prodigal a system of public
instruction must inevitably entail. Now
it is known to every honorable member of
this House that an Act was passed in 1863,
as a final settlement of this sectarian controversy. I was not in Quebec at the time,
but
if I had been here I would have voted
against
that bill, because it extended the facilities for
establishing separate schools. It had, however, this good feature, that it was accepted
by the Roman Catholic authorities, and carried through Parliament as a final compromise
of the question in Upper Canada. When,
therefore, it was proposed that a provision
should be inserted in the Confederation scheme
to bind that compact of 1863 and declare it a
final settlement, so that we should not be compelled, as we have been since 1849,
to stand
constantly to our arms, awaiting fresh attacks
upon our common school system, the proposition seemed to me one that was not rashly
to be rejected. (Hear, hear.) I admit that,
from my point of view, this is a blot on the
scheme before the House, it is, confessedly, one
of the concessions from our side that had to be
made to secure this great measure of reform.
But assuredly, I, for one, have not the slightest
hesitation in accepting it as a necessary condition of the scheme of union, and doubly
acceptable must it be in the eyes of honorable gentlemen opposite, who were the authors
of the bill
of 1863. (Cheers.) But it was
urged that
though this arrangement might perhaps be fair
as regards Upper Canada, it was not so as regards Lower Canada, for there were matters
of
which the British population have long complained, and some amendments to the existing
School Act were required to secure them equal
justice. Well, when this point was raised,
gentlemen of all parties in Lower Canada at
once expressed themselves prepared to treat it
in a frank and conciliatory manner, with a
view to removing any injustice that might be
shown to exist; and on this understanding the
educational clause was adopted by the Conference.
MR. T. C. WALLBRIDGE —That destroys the power of the local legislatures to
legislate upon the subject.
HON. MR. BROWN —I would like to know
how much "power" the honorable gentleman has now to legislate upon it? Let
him introduce a bill to-day to annul the compact of 1863 and repeal
all the sectarian school acts of Upper Canada, and how many votes would he
get for it? Would twenty members vote for it out of the one hundred
and thirty who com this House? If the honorable gentleman had been
struggling for fifteen years, as I have been, to save the school system of
Upper Canada from further extension of the sectarian
element, he would have found precious little diminution of power over it in
this very moderate compromise. And what says the hon
96orable gentleman to leaving the British population of Lower Canada in the unrestricted
were of the Local Legislature?
The Common Schools of Lower Canada are not as in Upper Canada—they are
almost entirely non-sectarian Roman Catholic Schools. Does the honorable
gentleman, then, desire to compel the Protestants of Lower
Canada to avail themselves of Roman Catholic institutions, or leave their
children without instruction? (Hear hear, and cheers.) But, Mr.
SPEAKER, I am further in favor of this scheme because it will bring to an
end the sectional discord between Upper and Lower Canada. It sweeps
away the boundary line between the provinces so far as regards matters
common to the whole people—it places all on an equal level—and the members
of the Federal Legislature will meet at last as citizens of a common
country. The questions that used to excite the most hostile feelings
among us have been taken away from the General Legislature, and placed under
the control of the local bodies. No man need hereafter be debarred
from success in public life because his views, however popular in his
own section, are unpopular in the other,—for he will not have to deal with
sectional questions ; and the temptation to the Government
of the day to make capital out of local prejudices will be greatly
lessened, if not altogether at an end. What has rendered prominent
public men in one section utterly unpopular in the other in past years? Has
it been our views on trade and commerce—immigration —land
settlement—the canal system—the tariff,—or any other of the great questions
of national interest? No, sir, it was from our views as to the
applying of public money to local purposes—the allotment of public
lands to local purposes,—the building of local roads, bridges, and
landing-piers with public funds—the chartering of ecclesiastical institutions—the
granting of public money for sectarian
purposes—the interference with our school system—and similar matters, that
the hot feuds between Upper and Lower Canada have chiefly arisen, and
caused our public men, the more faithful they were to the opinions and
wishes of one section, to be the more unpopular in the other. A most happy
day will it be for Canada when this bill goes into effect, and all
these subjects of discord are swept from the discussion of our Legislature.
(Hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I am further in favor of this scheme as a
remedial measure, because it brings to an end the doubt that has so
long hung over our position, and gives a stability to our future
in the eyes of the world that
could not otherwise have been attended. (Repeated marks of
approval, but ironical cheers from
Hon. Mr.
HOLTON.) The hon. member for Chateauguay cries "hear, hea" in
a very credulous tone; but the hon. member should be one of the very
last to express doubts on this point. Has he not, for many years, admitted the absolute
necessity of constitutional changes, ere
peace and prosperity could be established in our land? Has he not
taken part in the contests to obtain those changes ? Has he not
experienced the harsh and hostile feelings that have pervaded this
House and the whole country? And did he not sign the report
of my committee last session, declaring a Federal union to be the true
solution of our troubles, political and constitutional? And does the
honorable member think these matters were not well known in the United
States, and that the hope of our annexation to the republic was not
kept alive by them from year to year? Does he fancy that our discords
and discontent were not well known in Great Britain, and that the capitalist
and the emigrant were not influenced by our distractions?
Does he fancy that people abroad, as well as at home, did not perfectly
understand that Upper Canada would not much longer submit to the
injustice from which she suffered—and that until the future relations of the
two sections were adjusted, no one could predict safely what
our future position might be? But when the measure before us has been
adopted —when justice has been done to both sectionswhen all
are placed on an equal footing—when the sectional matters that rent us have
been handed over to sectional control—when sectional
expenditure shall be placed on sectional shoulders—will not a sense of
security and stability be inspired, which we never before enjoyed and
never could have enjoyed under existing circumstances? (Cheers.) Viewed
then, Mr. SPEAKER, from a merely Canadian stand-point—viewed solely as
a remedial measure—I fearlessly assert that the scheme in your
hands is a just and satisfactory remedy for the evils and injustice
that have so long distracted the province—(cheers)—and so strongly do I
feel this, that were every word of objection urged against our union
with the Maritime Provinces just and true to the very letter, I would
not hesitate to adopt the union as the price of a measure of constitutional
reform in Canada, so just and so complete as now proposed.
(Cheers.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, so far from the objections urged against union
with the Maritime Provinces being sound, so far from union with them
being a drawback to this
97 measure, I regard it as the crowning advantage of the whole scheme. (Continued cheering.)
Sir, I make no
pretension to having been in past years an advocate of the immediate union of the
British American Colonies. I
always felt and always said that no statesman could doubt that such was the
best and almost the certain future destiny of these colonies; but I
doubted greatly whether the right time for the movement had yet arrived.
I knew little of the Maritime Provinces or the feelings of their
people ; the negotiations for a union were likely to be difficult and long
protracted, and I was unwilling to accept the hope of a measure so
remote and so uncertain in lieu of the practical remedy for practical
evils in Canada which we were earnestly seeking to obtain, and which our own
Legislature had the power immediately to grant. But of late, sir, all
this has been changed. The circumstances are entirely altered. A
revolution has occurred in Great Britain on the subject of colonial
relations to the parent state—the Government of the United States has become
a great warlike power—our commercial relations with the
republic are seriously threatened —and every man in British America has now
placed before him for solution the practical question, what shall be
done in view of the changed relations on which we are about to enter?
Shall we continue to struggle along as isolated communities, or shall we
unite cordially together to extend our commerce, to develope the
resources of our country and to defend our soil? But more than this—many
of us have learned, since we last met here, far more of the Maritime
Provinces than we ever did before. We have visited the Maritime
Provinces—we have seen the country—we have met the people and marked their
intelligence and their industry and their frugalitywe have investigated their public
affairs and found them
satisfactory—we have discussed terms of union with their statesmen and found
that no insuperable obstacle to union exists, and no necessity for
long delay. We come to the consideration of the question to-day in a
totally different position from what we ever did before—and if the House
will grant me its indulgence, I think I can present unanswerable arguments to show
that this union of all British America should
be heartily and promptly accepted by all the provinces. (Cheers) Mr.
SPEAKER, I am m favor of a union of the British American Colonies, first,
because it will raise us from the attitude of a number of
inconsiderable colonies into a great and powerful people. (Cheers.) The
united
population of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and
Prince Edward Island, is at this moment very close on four millions of
souls. Now, there are in Europe forty-eight Sovereign States, and out of
that number there are only eleven having a greater population than
these colonies united—(hear, hear)—while three of the eleven are so little
ahead of us, that before the next census is taken, in 1871, we shall
stand equal in population to the ninth Sovereign State of Europe.
(Hear.) Then, sir, the public revenues of the united provinces for
1864 were $13,260,000, and their expenditures summed up to $12,507,000. And, large
as these sums may appear, it is
satisfactory to know that the taxation of British America—were
there no reduction from present burdens, which I am sure
there will be—will be one-third less per head than the taxation of England
or France. There are only five or six countries in Europe in which the
taxation is less than ours will be—and these, moreover, are either
petty principalities or states which do not enjoy a very high degree of
civilization. (Hear.) Then, sir, as regards the Imports and Exports of
the united provinces, they summed up in 1863, to the following dimensions:-
| Imports |
................ |
$70,600,963 |
| Exports |
................ |
66,846,604 |
| Total trade |
.......... |
$137,447,567 |
Now, sir, I should like honorable
gentlemen
to notice this fact, that in 1793—long after
the United States had achieved their independence and established a settled Government—their
exports and imports did not
amount to one-third what ours do at this
moment. (Cheers) There are few states in
Europe, and those with a vastly greater population than ours, that can boast of anything
like
the extent of foreign commerce
that now passes
through our hands. (Hear.) Then,
sir, as
to our agricultural resources, I find that
45,638,854 acres have passed from the governments of these colonies into private hands,
of which only 13,128,229 are yet tilled, and
32,510,625 acres have still to be brought into
cultivation. The whole of these forty-five millions are picked lands—most of them
selected
by the early settlers in this country; and if
our annual agricultural products are so great
now, what will they be when the thirty-two
millions yet to pass under the plough have
been brought into cultivation?—and what will
they not be when the vast tracts still held by
Government are peopled with hardy settlers?
98
(Hear.)
According to the census of 1861,
the value of the agricultural productions of
the previous year in the united provinces of
British America was $120,000,000; and if
we add to that the garden products, and
the improvements made on new lands by
the agricultural laborers of the provinces,
it will be found that the actual product of
the industry of our farmers in that year
was $150,000,000. (Hear, hear.) The
assessed value of our farms—which is always
greatly less than the real value—was
$550,000,000 in the year 1861. (Hear-.) Then,
sir, in regard to the minerals of the united
provinces—what vast fields of profitable industry will we have in the great coal beds
of
Nova Scotia—in the iron deposits found all
over the provinces—in the exhaustless copper
regions of Lakes Huron and Superior and the
Eastern Townships of Lower Canada—and
in the gold mines of the Chaudière and Nova
Scotia. And if the mind stretches from the
western bounds of civilization through those
great north-western regions, which we hope
ere long will be ours, to the eastern slope of
the Rocky Mountains, what vast sources of
wealth to the fur trader, the miner, the gold
hunter and the agriculturist, lie there ready
to be developed. (Hear, hear.)
Nor can
another source of wealth be altogether forgotten. The President of the United States
is said recently to have declared that the
produce of the petroleum wells of the United
States will in half a dozen years pay off the
whole national debt of the republic. Well,
sir, we too have "struck oil," and every day
brings us intelligence of fresh discoveries(hear, hear, and laughter)—and if the enormous
debt of our neighbors may possibly be
met by the oily stream, may we not hope
that some material addition to our annual
industrial revenue may flow from our petroleum regions? (Hear, hear.) Another vast
branch of British American industry is the timber and lumber trade. In the year 1862,
our
saw-mills turned out not less than 772,000,000 feet of manufactured lumber, and our
whole
timber exports summed up to the value of
fifteen millions of dollars. (Hear, hear.) The
manufacturing interests of the provinces, too,
are fast rising into importance; agricultural
implement works, woollen factories and cotton
mills, tanneries and shoe factories, iron works
and rolling mills, flax works and paper mills,
and many other extensive and profitable mechanical establishments are springing up
among
us, and rapidly extending their operations.
(Hear, hear.) And to add to all, we have
already 2,500 miles of railway, 4,000
miles of
electric telegraph, and the noblest canal system
in the world, but which, I hope, will soon be
infinitely improved. (Cheers) These, Mr.
SPEAKER, are some examples of the industrial
spectacle British America will present after
the union has been accomplished; and I ask
any member of this House to say whether we
will not, when thus united,
occupy a position
in the eyes of the world, and command a degree of respect and influence that we never
can enjoy as separate provinces? (Hear, hear.)
Must it not affect the decision of many an
intending emigrant, when he is told not
of the fishing and mining pursuits of Nova
Scotia, or of the ship-building of New Brunswick, or of the timber trade of Lower
Canada,
or of the agriculture of Upper Canada, but
when he is shown all these in one view, as
the collective industrial pursuits of British
America? (Hear, hear.) I am persuaded
that this union will inspire new confidence in
our stability, and exercise the most beneficial
influence on all our affairs. I believe it will
raise the value of our public securities, that it
will draw capital to our shores, and secure the
prosecution of all legitimate enterprises;
and
what I saw, while in England, a few weeks
ago, would alone have convinced me of this.
Wherever you went you encountered the most
marked evidence of the gratification with which
the Confederation scheme was received by all
classes of the people, and the deep interest
taken in its success. Let me state one fact in
illustration. For some time previous to November last our securities had gone very
low
down in the market, in consequence, as my
honorable friend the Finance Minister explained the other night, of the war raging
on our borders, the uncertainty which hung
over the future of this province, and the
fear that we might be involved in trouble with
our neighbors. Our five per cent. debentures
went down in the market so low as 71, but
they recovered from 71 to 75, I think, upon
the day the resolutions for Confederation,
which we are now discussing, reached London.
Well, sir, the resolutions were published in the
London papers, with eulogistic editorial articles, and the immediate effect of the
scheme
upon the public mind was such that our five
per cents. rose from 75 to 92. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. BROWN —I will presently tell
the honorable gentleman what has put them
down since. But I say that, if anything
could show more clearly than another the
99
effect
this union is to have on our position over
the world, it is a fact like this, that our securities went up 17 per cent. in consequence
of
the publication of the details of our scheme.
(Hear, hear.) The honorable
member for
Chateauguay asks, "What put them down
again?" I will tell him. They remained at
91 or 92 until the news came that a raid had
been made from Canada into the United
States, that the raiders had been arrested and
brought before a Canadian Court, and that
upon technical legal grounds, not only had
they been set free, but the money of which
they had robbed the banks had been handed
over to the robbers. The effect of this news,
coupled with General DIX's order, was to
drive down our securities 11 per
cent. almost
in one day. (Hear, hear.) But, as my honorable friend the Finance Minister suggests,
this is but an additional roof of the accuracy
of the argument I have been
sustaining—for
this would not have happened, at all events to
the same extent, if all the provinces had been
united and prepared, as we are now proposing,
not only for purposes of
commerce but for purposes of defence. (Hear, hear.) But secondly,
Mr. SPEAKER, I go heartily for the union,
because it will throw down the barriers of
trade and give us the control of a market of
four millions of people. (Hear, hear.) What
one thing has contributed so much to the wondrous material progress of the United
States
as the free passage of their products from one
State to another? What has tended so much
to the rapid advance of all branches of their
industry, as the vast extent of their home
market, creating an unlimited demand for all
the commodities of daily use, and stimulating
the energy and ingenuity of producers? Sir,
I confess to you that in my mind this one
view of the union—the addition of nearly a
million of people to our home
consumerssweeps aside all the petty objections that are
averred against the scheme. What, in comparison with this great gain to our farmers
and
manufacturers, are even the fallacious money
objections which the imaginations of honorable
gentlemen opposite have summoned up? All
over the world we find nations eagerly longing
to extend their domains, spending large sums
and waging protracted wars to themselves of more territory, untilled and uninhabited.
(Hear, hear.) Other countries offer
large inducements to foreigners to emigrate to
their shores—free passages, free
lands, and free
food and implements to start them in the
world. We, ourselves, support costly establishments to attract immigrants to our coun
try, and are satisfied when our annual
outlay
brings us fifteen or twenty thousand souls.
But here, sir, is a proposal which is to add, in
one day, near a million of souls to our population—to add valuable territories to
our domain,
and secure to us all the advantages of a large
and profitable commerce, now existing. And
because some of us would have liked certain of
the little details otherwise arranged, we are to
hesitate in accepting this alliance! (Hear, hear.)
Have honorable gentlemen forgotten that the
United States gladly paid twenty millions in
hard cash to have Louisiana incorporated in
the Republic? But what was Louisiana then
to the Americans, in comparison with what
the Maritime Provinces are at this moment to
Canada? I put it to honorable gentlemen
opposite—if the United States were now to
offer us the State of Maine, what possible
sum could be named within the compass of
our ability that we would not be prepared to
pay for that addition to our country? (Hear,
hear.) If we were offered Michigan, Iowa or
Minnesota, I would like to know what sum
within the compass of Canada, we
would
not be prepared to pay? These are portions
of a foreign country, but here is a people
owning the same allegiance as ourselves, loving
the same old sod, enjoying the same laws
and
institutions, actuated by the same
impulses
and social customs,—and yet when it is proposed that they shall unite with us for
purposes of commerce, for the defence of our
common country, and to develope the vast
natural resources of our united domains, we
hesitate to adopt it! If a Canadian goes
now to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, or
if a citizen of these provinces comes here,
it is like going to a foreign country. The
customs officer meets you at the frontier,
arrests your progress, and levies his imposts on your effects. But the proposal
now before us is to throw down all barriers
between the provinces—to make a citizen of
one, citizen of the whole; the proposal is,
that our farmers and manufacturers and
mechanics shall carry their wares unquestioned
into every village of the Maritime Provinces;
and that they shall with equal freedom bring
their fish, and their coal, and their West India
produce to our three millions of inhabitants.
The proposal is, that the law courts, and
the schools, and the professional and industrial walks of life, throughout all the
provinces, shall be thrown equally open to us
all. (Hear, hear). But, thirdly, Mr. SPEAKER,
I am in favor of a union of the provinces
because—and I call the attention
of honorable
100
gentlemen opposite
to it—because it will make
us the third maritime state of the world.
(Hear, hear.) When this union is accomplished, but two countries in the world will
be superior in maritime influence to British
America—and those are Great Britain and
the United States. (Hear, hear.) In 1863,
no fewer than 628 vessels were built in British
America, of which the aggregate tonnage was
not less than 230,312 tons. (Hear, hear.)
There were built-
|
|
Vessels. |
|
Tons. |
| In Canada |
............ |
158 |
with . . . |
67,209 |
| " Nova Scotia |
........ |
207 |
" . . . |
46,862 |
| " New Brunswick |
...... |
137 |
" .. |
85,250 |
| " Prince Edward Island |
|
100 |
" . . . |
24,991 |
| " Newfoundland |
....... |
26 |
" . . . |
6,000 |
| Total |
............. |
628 |
...... |
230,312 |
Now, sir, in 1861—the year preceding the
outbreak of the civil war—all the vessels
built in the United States, with their vast
seaboard and thirty millions of
people, were
in the aggregate but 233,193 tons—only
three thousand tons in excess of the British
American Provinces. (Hear, hear.) And I
hesitate not to affirm that if the
people of
British America unite cordially together in
utilizing the singular facilities we unitedly
possess for the extension of the shipping and
ship-building interests, many years will not
elapse before we greatly surpass our neighbors
in this lucrative branch of industry. (Cheers)
HON. MR. HOLTON —How much of the
shipping built in that year do we own now?
HON. MR. BROWN —How much of what
the Americans built in 1861 do they own
now? Why is my honorable friend so anxious
to decry the industry of his country? If we
have not the ships it is because we sold them,
and the money is in our pockets, and we are
ready to build more. In 1863 we sold ships
built by our mechanics to the large amount
of $9,000,000 in gold. (Cheers) But if my
honorable friend from Chateauguay will permit
me, I am going on to indoctrinate him upon
the point of the ownership of vessels-
HON. MR. BROWN —Ah! my honorable
friend does not require to be instructed; well,
will he tell us how many tons of shipping are
now owned by British America?
HON. MR. HOLTON —I am aware that
most of the vessels my honorable friend speaks
of, and the building of which he cites as a
proof that we will be a great maritime power,
were sold abroad. Building ships is a good
thing, and selling them is a better, but that
does not prove us to be a great maritime power.
HON. MR. BROWN —My honorable friend
cannot eat his cake and have it too. If we
got $9,000,000 for a portion of
the ships we
built in 1863, it is clear we cannot own them
also. It did not require a man of great wisdom to find out that. (Laughter.) But I
was going on to show the amount of shipping
that was owned in these provinces.
hold in my hand a statement of the vessels
owned an registered in British America,
made up to the latest dates, and I find
that the provinces unitedly own not fewer
than 8,530 vessels, with an aggregate tonnage
of not less than 932,246 tons.
HON. MR. BROWN —Why is my honorable friend from Chateauguay so anxious to
depreciate? Is it then so deplorable a thing
to own inland vessels? None knows better
than my honorable friend when to buy and
when to sell—and yet, I greatly mistake if
there was not a time when my honorable
friend thought it not so bad a thing to be the
owner of ships and steamers on our inland
seas. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Am I
wrong in believing that my honorable friend
laid the foundation of his well-merited fortune
in the carrying trade of the lakes?—and is it
for him, from momentary partisanship, to
depreciate such an important branch of
national industry? What matters where
the ship floats, if she is a good and a sound
ship ?—and the inland tonnage includes so
many steamers, that in value it will compare
favorably with that of the seagoing. On the
3lst December,-
|
|
|
Vessels. |
|
Tons. |
| 1864, |
Canada owned |
........ |
2,311 |
.. |
287,187 |
| 1863, |
Nova Scotia |
......... |
3,539 |
.. |
309,554 |
| 1863, |
New Brunswick |
...... |
891 |
.. |
211,680 |
| 1863, |
Prince Edward Island. |
.. |
360 |
.. |
34,222 |
| 1863, |
Newfoundland |
........ |
1,429 |
.. |
89,603 |
|
Total |
............. |
8,530 |
|
932,246 |
Now, sir, it is quite true that the
United
States have a much larger commercial navy
than this, and Great Britain a vastly larger
one—but it is equally true that the country
next to them in importance is France, and
that notwithstanding her thirty-five millions
of people, large foreign trade, and extensive
sea-coast, she owns but 60,000
tons of ship101ping more than British America. (Hear,
hear.) In 1860, the aggregate commercial
navy of France was but 996,124 tons. I
say then, that even as ship-owners, the British
American Confederacy will occupy from the
first, a proud place among the Maritime
States of the world—and that when
all her
ships hoist a distinctive flag alongside the
Cross of Red, there will be few seas in which it
will not be unfurled. And let me here mention
a fact which came under my notice while recently in the Lower Provinces—a fact of
great
importance, and from which, I think, we, who
are more inland, may well profit. I learned
that, as in the British Isles, a
system of joint-
stock ship-building has been spreading over
many parts of the Maritime Provinces. Ships
are built and owned in small shares—say in
sixteenth, thirty-second, or
sixty-fourth parts,
and all classes of the people are taking small
ventures in the trade. Most of
the ships so
built are sold, but a portion, and an increasing
portion, every year, are sailed, and sailed with
profit, by the original joint-stock
builders.
(Hear, hear.) I was delighted to be told
that some of those clipper
vessels which we
often hear of as making wonderful trips from
China and India and Australia to British
ports, are vessels built and
owned in New
Brunswick, under this joint-stock system.
(Hear, hear.) So much for the building and
ownership of ships. Now let me show you
what will be the strength of the united provinces in seafaring men. By the census
of
1861, it appears that the numbers of sailors
and fishermen were then-
| In Canada |
........... . . . . . |
5,958 |
| In Nova Scotia |
.............. |
19,637 |
| In New Brunswick |
........... |
2,765 |
| In Prince Edward Island |
...... |
2,318 |
| In Newfoundland |
............ |
38,578 |
| Total |
............. |
69,256 |
Whether regarded
merely as a lucrative
branch of industry, or as affecting our maritime position before the world, or as
a bulwark
of defence in time of need, this one fact that
British America will have a combined force
of seventy thousand seamen, appears to me an
immense argument in favor of the union.
(Hear, hear.) And let us look at
the products of the labor of a portion of these men
—the fishermen. From the latest returns I
have been able to meet with, I find the joint
products of our sea-coasts and inland lakes
were, in the years named, estimated at the
following values:-
| Upper Canada, 1859 |
........... |
$ 380 000 |
| Lower Canada, 1862 |
........... |
703,895 |
| Nova Scotia, 1861 |
............ |
2,072,081 |
| New Brunswick, 1861 |
.......... |
518,530 |
| Newfoundland, 1861 |
........... |
6,347,730 |
| Total |
.............. |
$10,022,236 |
(Hear, hear.) I was unable to find an
estimate as regards Prince Edward Island,
but fancy the amount there must be about
$200,000. But, be this as it may,
so valuable
a fishing trade as this of the united provinces
does not exist in any part of the world. And
no doubt these estimates are far under the
fact, as a large portion of the delicious food
drawn by our people from the sea and inland
waters could not possibly be included in the
returns of the fishery inspectors. (Hear,
hear.) And let us observe, for a moment, the
important part played by this fishing industry
in the foreign commerce of the provinces.
The exports of products of the sea in the year
1863 were as follows:-
| From Canada |
................. |
$ 789,913 |
| " Nova Scotia |
........... |
2,390,661 |
| " New Brunswick (1862) |
. . . . |
303,477 |
| " Newfoundland |
........... |
4,090,970 |
| " Prince Edward Island |
..... |
121,000 |
| Total exports |
........ |
$7,696,021 |
Add to this, nine millions of dollars received in the same year for new ships,
and we have $16,696,021 as one year's foreign exports of our
ship-building and fishing interests. (Hear, hear.) With such facts before us
as the result of only a partially-developed traffic, may we
not fearlessly look forward to the future in the confident hope of still
more gratifying results, when, by combined and energetic action,
a new impetus has been given to these valuable branches of
industry? But there remains a still more singular comparison to be made.
The Minister of Finance referred to it last night—but he scarcely did
justice to our position, because he excluded altogether the inland
shipping. I refer to the statement of ships annually entering and leaving
our ports. Of course every one comprehends that a large amount of the
tonnage entering and leaving ports on the upper lakes is repeated in the
returns over an over again. This is the case, for
instance, with the ferry boats between the American and Canadian shores,
that carry passengers and a small quantity of goods. It would be
unfair to put down the tonnage of such boats every time they enter or leave
a port, as foreign commerce. Still there is a
102 large amount of valuable shipping engaged in the
inland trade, and a vast amount of freight is carried between the countries;
and the only just plan is to state separately that which is sea-going
shipping and that which is inland. Acting on this plan, I find that in 1863,
the tonnage between Canada and foreign ports was as follows:-
|
Inwards. |
Outwards. |
Total. |
| Canada .................... |
1,041,309 |
1,091,895 |
2,133,204 |
| Nova Scotia ............. |
712,939 |
719,915 |
1,432,854 |
| New Brunswic ......... |
659,258 |
727,727 |
1,386,985 |
| P. E. Island, 1862..... |
69,080 |
81,208 |
150,288 |
| Newfoundland .......... |
156,578 |
148,610 |
305,188 |
|
2,639,164 |
2,769,355 |
5,408,519 |
| Inland Navigation. Canada .................. |
3,538,701 |
3,368,432 |
6,907,133 |
| Total tons ........ |
6,177,865 |
6,137,787 |
12,315,652 |
Now, sir, the United States are in the
same position as we are in respect to this inland traffic,
and they include it in their returns as is done
here. And what, sir, do you think is the
difference between their tonnage and ours?
Why ours is over twelve millions and theirs
is but sixteen millions. There are not four
millions of tons of difference between the
two. (Hear, hear.) And let it be recollected that the United States have had
seventy years start of us. As regards
France, the whole amount of shipping that
entered and left the ports of that great
country in one year was but 8,456,734 tonsfour millions of tons less than that of
the
British American Provinces. May we not
then, when this union is accomplished, fairly
claim to be the third maritime state of the
world; and may we not even entertain the
hope that, at some future day, a still higher
position is not beyond our reach, when the
days of puberty have been passed and the
strength of manhood has been reached? I
ask honorable gentlemen, in looking at these
figures, to consider what the effect
must be
when they are set down thus collectively, side
by side, in official commercial returns, in comparison with the commerce of all the
great
maritime states? Will it not strengthen our
position abroad?—will it not give us a degree
of influence and importance to have it known
that British America wields so large a share
of the world's commerce?—And if honorable
gentlemen will still further consider the deep
importance to Canada, in her inland position,
of exercising her just influence in the control
of so valuable a maritime interest, I think they
will come to the conclusion that all the objections urged against this union are,
in the balance of its advantages, utterly contemptible.
(Cheers.) But, in the fourth place, Mr.
SPEAKER, I go for a union of the provinces,
because it will give a new start to immigration
into our country. It will bring us out anew
prominently before the world—it will turn earnest attention to our resources, and
bring to
our shores a stream of immigration greater,
and of a better class, than we ever had before.
I was in England when the first public announcement of this scheme was made, and
witnessed, with pleasure, the marked impression it produced. You could not go abroad,
you could not enter into any company, in an
class of society, where Canada or the British
American Provinces were mentioned, but you
heard this union movement spoken of almost
with enthusiasm. And I say it is desirable
that this scheme should not be delayed, but
be carried through promptly and vigorously.
I hesitate not to say that it should be accompanied with a vigorous effort to
give a new
impetus to our industrial enterprises, to open
up fresh lands for settlement, and to cheapen
the transport of our produce to the sea-board.
With the consummation of this union, I trust
we will have a new immigration and a new
land settlement policy—that we will ascertain
every lot of land we actually own, so that a
printed list may be placed in the hands of every
immigrant—that the petty price we have been
heretofore exacting will no longer be exacted,
but that to actual settlers, who come among
us to hew out for themselves and their children homes in the forest, no burthen or
condition will be demanded, beyond resident occupation for a certain number of years,
and a fixed
amount of improvement on the land.-
HON. MR. HOLTON —Unfortunately for
your argument, the lands will be in the hands
of the local governments.
HON. MR. BROWN —So much the better.
My honorable friend can manage his public
lands in Lower Canada as he likes, and we
will manage ours. And, speaking for the
western section, I am bound to say there are
very few shrewd men in Upper Canada who
do not feel that far more public benefit is to
be gained from the industry of a hardy actual
settler upon 100 acres of land given to him
free, than the trumpery $150 that
can be
squeezed out of him as its price, the payment
of which keeps him in trouble perhaps for
years, and retards the progress of the country.
On this question of immigration turns, in my
opinion, the whole future success of this great
scheme which we are now discussing. Why,
sir, there is hardly a political or financial or
social problem suggested by this union that
103
does not find its best solution in a large
influx
of immigration. The larger our population,
the greater will be our productions, the more
valuable our exports, and the greater our
ability to develop the resources of our country.
The greater the number of tax-payers, and the
more densely they are settled, the more lightly
will the burden of taxation fall upon us all.
And in this question of
immigration is found
the only true solution of the problem of defence.
Fill up our vacant lands, double
our population, and we will at once he in a position to
meet promptly and effectually any invader
who may put his foot with hostile intent upon
our soil. (Hear, hear.) And this question
of immigration naturally brings me to the
great subject of the North-West territories.
(Hear, hear.) The resolutions before us
recognize the immediate necessity of those
great territories being brought within the
Confederation and opened up for settlement.
But I am told that, while the Intercolonial
Railroad has been made an absolute condition
of the compact, the opening up of the Great
West and the enlargement of our canals have
been left in doubt. Now, sir, nothing can be
more unjust than this. Let me read the resolotions:-
The
General Government shall secure,
without delay, the completion of
the Intercolonial
Railway from Rivière du Loup,
through New
Brunswick, to Truro in Nova Scotia.
The communications
with the North-Western Territory, and the improvements required
for the development of the trade of the Great
West with the seaboard are regarded by this
Conference as subjects of the highest importance
to the Federated Provinces, an shall be prosecuted at the earliest possible period
that the state
of the finances will permit.
The Confederation is, therefore, clearly
committed to the carrying out of both these enterprises. I doubt if there was a
member of
the Conference who did not
consider that the
Opening up of the North-West and
the improvement of our canal system, were not as clearly
for the advantage of the Lower Provinces as
for the interests of Upper Canada. Indeed,
one gentleman held that the Lower
Provinces were more interested—they
wished to
get their products into the west—they wanted
a back country as much as we did—they
wanted to be the carriers for that great
country—and they were, therefore,
to say the
least, as much interested in these questions as
we were. But honorable gentlemen lay stress
upon the point, that, while the
one enterprise is to be undertaken at
once, the other
is not to be commenced until the state of the
finances will permit. No doubt this is corrects,
and the reason for it is simply this—the
money has already been found for the Inter-
colonial Railway. They must be well aware that
the late Government (the MACDONALD-SICOTTE
Administration) agreed to build the Intercolonial Railway, and obtained from the Imperial
Government a guarantee of the debentures for
building it—so that that money is ready at a
very low rate of interest, whenever required.
We know where to find the money for one enterprise at a rate we are able to bear,
and can thus
at once go on with a work which must be gone
on with if this union is to be consummated.
But we don't know this of the other great
work—and we all felt that it would be exceedingly indiscreet—I, myself, as the special
advocate of opening up the Great West and of
the enlargement of our canals,—felt
that I
could not put my name to a document which
declared that at all hazards, while our five
per cent. debentures were quoted at 75 or
80 per cent. in the money market—we
would
commence at once, without an hour's delay,
any great public work whatever. (Hear,
hear.) Honorable gentlemen opposite must not
imagine that they have to do with a set of
tricksters in the thirty-three gentlemen who
composed that Conference. What we have
said in our resolutions was deliberately adopted,
in the honest sense of the words employed, and
not for purposes of deception. Both works
are to go on at the earliest possible moment
our finances will permit, and honorable gentlemen will find the members of the Cabinet
from Lower, as well as from Upper Canada,
actuated by the hearty desire to have this
whole scheme carried out in its fair meaning.
HON. MR. BROWN —When recently in
England, I was charged to negotiate with the
Imperial Government for the Opening up of
the North-West territories. In a few days
the papers will be laid before the House,
and it will then be seen whether or not
this Government is in earnest in that matter.
Sir, the gentlemen who formed the Conference
at Quebec did not enter upon their work with
the miserable idea of getting the advantage of
each other, but with a due sense of the greatness of the work they had on hand, with
an
earnest desire to do justice to all, and keeping
always in mind that what would benefit one
section in such a union must necessarily benefit
the whole. (Cheers) It has always appeared
to me that the opening up of the North-West
ought to be one of the most cherished projects
104
of my
honorable friends from Lower Canada.
During the discussion on the question for some
years back I had occasion to dip
deep in North-
West lore—into those singularly interesting
narratives of life and travels in the North-West
in the olden time, and into the history of the
struggles for commercial domainancy in the
great fur-bearing regions,—and it has always
struck me that the French Canadian people
have cause to look back with pride to the bold
and successful part they played in the adventures of those days. Nothing perhaps has
tended more to create their present national
character than the vigorous habits, the power
of endurance, the aptitude for outdoor
life,
acquired in their prosecution of the North-
West fur-trade. (Hear, hear.) Well may
they look forward with anxiety to the
realization of this part of our scheme, in
confident hope that the great north-western
traffic shall be once more opened up to the
hardy French Canadian traders and
voyageurs.
(Hear, hear.) Last year furs to the value of
ÂŁ280,000 stg. ($1,400,000) were carried from
that territory by the Hudson's Bay Company
—smuggled off through the ice-bound regions
of James' Bay, that the pretence of the barrenness of the country and the difficulty
of
conveying merchandise by the natural route
of the St. Lawrence may be kept up a little
longer. Sir, the carrying of merchandise into
that country, and bringing down the bales of
pelts ought to be ours, and must ere long be
ours, as in the days of yore—(hear, hear)and when the fertile plains of that great
Saskatchewan territory are opened up for settlement and cultivation, I am confident
that it will
not only add immensely to our annual agricultural products, but bring us sources of
mineral
and other wealth on which at present we do
not reckon. (Hear, hear.) While speaking on
this question of immigration, I would remind
the House, and it is impossible to urge it
too strongly, that these provinces are now
presented to the world in a very
disadvantageous aspect, as different communities. When a
party in Europe thinks of emigrating here, he
has to ascertain separately all about New
Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, and
Nova Scotia, and Upper and Lower Canada;
and if by chance he meets a party from some one
of these provinces, he has to listen to a picture
of the merits of that one section in high contrast
to the demerits of all the rest, and the result
is the poor man's ideas about us become a mass
of confusion. On the other hand, if he seeks
to know the inducements for emigration to
New South Wales, or New Zealand, he gets it
in one picture—in an official form—and the
offer is made to pay his passage to these lands
of hope. A large amount of emigration, and
of money which the emigrant takes with him,
are thus carried off to a much more distant land
than this, and one that does not offer equal
inducements to the settler. But how different
will all this be when these provinces stand
united, and present to emigrants a combination
of so many branches of profitable industry ?
In turning over some United States statistics
I recently fell upon a very curious official
calculation made by the United States Government, as to the value of immigration.
By the
census of 1861 the population of the United
States was over thirty millions; and this calculation was to ascertain what the population
would have been had there been no immigration into the country, but had the population
been left to advance solely by its own natural
increase. And what do you think, sir, was
the result ? Why, it is shewn that if the
United States had received all the immigrants
that came to them up to 1820, and then stopped
receiving them—the population, at this moment,
instead of thirty millions, would have been but
14,601,485. (Hear, hear.) It is
shewn that
if immigration had gone on until 1810 and
stopped then, the population now would
have
been only 12,678,562. Had it stepped in
1800, the population now would have been
10,462,944; and had it stopped in 1790,
the population now, instead of thirty millions,
would have been but 8,789,969. (Hear, hear.)
These, sir, are most valuable facts, which
should be impressed on the mind of every
public man in British America. If we wish
our country to progress, we should not leave
a single stone unturned to attract the tide
of emigration in this direction; and I know
no better method of securing that result, than
the gathering into one of these five provinces,
and presenting ourselves to the world in the
advantageous light which, when united, we
would occupy. (Cheers) But,
fifthly, Mr.
SPEAKER, I am in favor of a union of these
provinces, because it will enable us to meet,
without alarm, the abrogation of the American
Reciprocity Treaty, in case the United States
should insist on its abolition. (Hear, hear.)
I do not believe that the American Government
is so insane as to repeal that treaty. But
it is always well to be prepared for contingencies—and I have no hesitation in saying
that if
they do repeal it, should this union of British
America go on, a fresh 'outlet for our commerce will be opened up to us quite as advantageous
as the American trade has ever been.
105
I have never heretofore ventured to make this assertion, for I know well what
a serious task it is to change, in one day, the commercial relations of such a country
as this. When the traffic of a
country has passed for a lengthened period through a particular channel, any
serious change of that channel tends, for a time, to the embarrassment
of business men, and causes serious injury to individuals, if not to
the whole community. Such a change we in Canada had in 1847. But as it was
in 1847, so it will be in 1866, if the Reciprocity Treaty is
abolished. Our agricultural interest had been built up on the protective
legislation of Great Britain, and in 1847 it was suddenly brought to
an end. We suffered severely, in consequence, for some years; but,
by degrees, new channels for our trade opened up—the Reciprocity Treaty was negotiated—and
we have more prosperous since 1847 than
we ever were before. And so, I have not a doubt, will it be in the
event of the Reciprocity Treaty being abolished. Profitable as that treaty
has unquestionably been to us—and it has been more profitable to the
Americans—still, were it brought to an end to-morrow, though we would
suffer a while from the change, I am convinced the ultimate result would be
that other foreign markets would be opened to us, quite as profitable,
and that we would speedily build up our trade on a sounder basis than at
present. A close examination of the working of the Reciprocity Treaty
discloses facts of vital importance to the merits of the question, to
which you never hear the slightest allusion made by American speakers or
writers. Our neighbours, in speaking of the treaty, keep constantly
telling us of the Canadian tradewhat they take from Canada and
what Canada takes from them. Their whole story is about the
buying and selling of commodities in Canada. Not a whisper do you ever hear
from them about their buying and selling with the Maritime
Provinces—not a word about the enormous carrying trade for all the
provinces which the monopolize—not a word of the large sums drawn from us
for our vast traffic over their railways and canals—and not a whisper
as to their immense profits from fishing in our waters, secured to them by
the treaty. (Hear, hear.) No, sir, all we hear of is the exports and
imports of Canada—all is silence as to other parts of the treaty. But
it must not be forgotten that if the treaty is abolished and this union is
accomplished, an abolition of reciprocity with Canada means abolition
of reciprocity with all the British American Provinces—means bringing to an
end the right of the Americans to fish in our waters; their right to
use our canals; their right to the navigation of the St. Lawrence; and
that it also implies the taking out of their hands the vast and lucrative
carrying trade they now have from us. (Hear, hear.) It must be always
kept in mind that though the United States purchase from Canada a large
amount of agricultural products, a great portion of what
they purchase does not go into consumption in the States, but is merely
purchased for transmission to Great Britain and the West
India markets. (Hear, hear.) They merely act as commission agents and
carriers in such transactions, and splendid profits they make out of
the business. But beyond this, another large portion of these produce purchases,
for which they take so much credit to themselves,
they buy in the same manner for export to the Maritime Provinces of British
America, reaping all the benefit of the seagoing as well as
the inland freight—charges and commissions. (Hear, hear.) The commercial returns
of the Lower Provinces show not only that the
Americans send a large quantity of their own farm products to those
provinces, but a considerable amount of what they (the Americans) receive
from us, thereby gaining the double advantage of the carrying trade
through the United States to the seaboard, and then by sea to the
Lower Provinces. (Hear, hear.) I hold in my hand a return of the
articles purchased by the Maritime Provinces from the United States in 1863,
which Canada could have supplied. I will not detain the House by
reading it, but any member who desires can have it or examination. I may state,
however, in brief, that in that year the breadstuffs
alone bought by the Lower Provinces amounted to no less than
$4,447,207—that the import of meats, fresh and cured, amounted to
$659,917- and that the total value of products which the Lower
Provinces might have bought more advantageously from us, summed up to over
seven millions of dollars. (Hear, hear.) The Americans must,
therefore, bear in mind, that if they abolish the Reciprocity Treaty, they
will not only lose that seven millions which they now receive for
their products, but the carrying trade which goes with it. But on the
other hand, when we have this union, these products will, as they naturally
should, go down the St. Lawrence, not only for the advantage
of our farmers—but swelling the volume of our own shipping interests. (Hear,
hear.) The Americans, hitherto, have had a large portion of our
carrying trade; they have
106 brought us our goods—even our European goods—and
taken our produce not only to Europe but even to the Lower Provinces; and
I say one of the best features of this union is, that if in our
commercial relations with the United States we are compelled by them
to meet fire with fire—it will enable us to stop this improvidence and turn
the current of our own trade into our own waters. Far be it from me to
say I am an advocate of a coercive commercial policy—on the
contrary, entire freedom of trade, in my opinion, is what we in this
country should strive for. Without hesitation, I would, to-morrow, throw
open the whole of our trade and the whole of our waters to the United
States, if they did the same to us. But, if they tell us, in the face of all
the advantages they get by Reciprocity, that they are
determined to put a stop to it, and if this is done through a hostile
feeling to us—deeply as I should regret that this should be the first
use made by the Northern States of their newfound liberty—then, I
say, we have a policy, and a good policy of our own, to fall back
upon. And let me say a word as to the effect of the repeal of Reciprocity on
the American fishing interest. The Americans, in 1851, had
engaged in the cod and mackerel fishing, in our waters, shipping to the
extent of 129,014 tons—but under the influence of the
Reciprocity Treaty it rose, in 1861, to 192,662—an increase, in
ten years, of upwards of 63,000 tons, or fifty per cent. (Hear, hear.)
The repeal of Reciprocity will give us back all this increase, and more, for
it will be a very different thing in the future from what it was
formerly, to poach on our fishing grounds, when these provinces are united
and determined to protect the fisheries of the Gulf. This fishing
interest is one which may be cultivated to an extent difficult,
perhaps, for many of us to conceive. But we have only to look at the
amount of fish taken from our waters by the Americans and other nations,
and the advantages we possess, to perceive that, if we apply
ourselves, as a united people, to foster that trade, we can vastly increase
the great traffic we now enjoy. (Hear, hear.) On the whole, then, sir,
I come firmly to the conclusion that, in view of the possible
stoppage of the American Reciprocity Treaty, and our being compelled
to find new channels for our trade, this union presents to us advantages, in comparison
with which any objection that has been
offered, or can be offered to it, is utterly insignificant. (Hear, hear.)
But, sixthly, Mr. SPEAKER, I am in favor of the union of the
provinces, because, in the event
of war, it will enable all the colonies to defend themselves better,
and give more efficient aid to the Empire, than they could do separately.
I am not one of those who ever had the war- fever; I have
not believed in getting up large armaments in this country; I have never
doubted that a military spirit, to a certain extent, did
necessarily form part of the character of a great people ; but I felt that
Canada had not yet reached that stage in her progress when she could
safely assume the duty of defence; and that, so long as peace
continued and the Mother Country threw her shield around us, it was
well for us to cultivate our fields and grow in numbers and material
strength, until we could look our enemies fearlessly in the face. But it
must be admitted—and there is no use of closing our eyes to
the fact—that this question of defence has been placed, within the last two
years, in a totally different position from what it ever occupied before. The time
has come—it matters not what political party may
be in power in England—when Britain will insist on a reconsideration of the military
relations which a great colony, such as
Canada, ought to hold to the Empire. And I am free to admit that it is
a fair and just demand. We may doubt whether some of the demands that have
been made upon us, without regard to our peculiar position at the
moment, and without any attempt to discuss the question with us in
all its breadth, were either just or well-considered. But of this I
think there can be no doubt, that when the time comes in the history of any
colony that it has overcome the burdens and embarrassments of early
settlement, and has entered on a career of permanent progress and
prosperity, it is only fair and right that it should contribute its quota to
the defence of the Empire. What that quota ought to be, I think, is a
matter for grave deliberation and discussion, as well as the measure of
assistance the colony may look for, in time of war, from the parent
state—and, assuredly, it is in this spirit that the present Imperial
Government is desirous of approaching the question. (Hear, hear.) I am
persuaded that nothing more than that which is fairly due at our hands
will be demanded from us, and anything less than this, I am sure, the people
is of Canada do not desire. (Hear, hear.) In the conversations I had, while in England,
with public men of different
politics—while I found many who considered that the connection between
Canada and England involved the Mother Country in some danger of war with
the powerful state upon our borders, and that
107 the colonial system devolved heavy and unreasonable burdens upon the Mother Country
—and while a still larger
number thought we had not acted as cordially and energetically as we
ought in organizing our militia for the defence of the province, still I did
not meet one public man, of any stripe of politics, who did not
readily and heartily declare that, in case of the invasion of Canada, the
honor of Great Britain would be at stake, and the whole strength of
the Empire would be unhesitatingly marshalled in our defence.
(Hear, hear.) But, coupled with this, was the invariable and
most reasonable declaration that a share of the burden of defence, in peace
and in war, we must contribute. And this stipulation applies
not only to Canada, but to every one of the colonies. Already the Indian
Empire has been made to pay the whole expense of her
military establishment. The Australian Colonies have agreed to pay
ÂŁ40 sterling per man for every soldier sent there. This system is
being gradually extended—and union or no union, assuredly every one of these
British American Colonies will be called upon to bear her fair share
towards the defence of the Empire. And who will deny that it is a just
demand, and that great colonies such as these, should be proud to meet it in
a frank and earnest spirit. (Cheers.) Nothing, I am persuaded, could
be more foreign to the ideas of the people of Canada, than that the
people of England should be unfairly taxed for service rendered to this
province. Now, the question presented to us is simply this : will
these contributions which Canada and the other provinces must hereafter make
to the defence of the Empire, be better rendered by a hardy,
energetic, population, acting as one people, than as five or six separate
communities? (Hear, hear.) There is no doubt about it. But not only do
our changed relations towards the Mother Country call on us to assume
the new duty of military defence—our changed relations towards the
neighboring Republic compel us to do so. For myself, I have no belief that
the Americans have the slightest thought of attacking us. I cannot
believe that the first use of their newfound liberty will be the
invasion, totally unprovoked, of a peaceful province. I fancy that
they have had quite enough of war for a good many years to come—and
that such a war as one with England would certainly be, is the last
they are likely to provoke. But, Mr. SPEAKER, there is no better mode of
warding off war when it is threatened, than to be prepared
for it if it comes. The Americans are
now a warlike people. They have large armies, a powerful navy, an
unlimited supply of warlike munitions, and the carnage of war has to
them been stript of its horrors. The American side of our lines already
bristles with works of defence, and unless we are willing to
live at the mercy of our neighbors, we, too, must put our country in a state
of efficient preparation. War or no war—the necessity of
placing these provinces in a thorough state of defence can no longer be
postponed. Our country is coming to be regarded
as undefended and indefensiblethe capitalist is alarmed, and the
immigrant is afraid to come among us. Were it merely as a
measure of commercial advantage, every one of these colonies must
meet the question of military defence promptly and energetically. And
how can we do this so efficiently and economically as by the union now
proposed? (Hear, hear.) I have already shown that union would give us a body
of 70,000 hardy seamen ready and able to defend our sea-coasts and
inland lakes; let us now see what would be the military strength of the
Confederation. By the last census (1861) it appears that the men
capable of bearing arms in British America were as follows:-
| Upper Canada, from 20 to 60 |
..... |
308,955 |
| Lower Canada, from 20 to 60 |
...... |
225,620 |
| Nova Scotia, from 20 to 60 |
....... |
67,367 |
| New Brunswick, from 20 to 60 |
..... |
51,625 |
| Newfoundland from 20 to 60 |
...... |
25,532 |
| Prince Edward Island, 21 to 60 |
..... |
14,819 |
| Total |
.................. |
693,918 |
With the body of efficient soldiers that
might be obtained from this vast array of men,
the erection of defensive works at salient
points, and the force of British troops that
would soon come to our aid—who can doubt
that the invasion of our country would be
successfully resisted? But, seventhly, Mr.
SPEAKER, I am in favor of this union because
it will give us a sea-board at all seasons of the
year. (Hear, hear.) It is not to be denied
that the position of Canada, shut off as she is
from the sea-board during the winter months,
is far from satisfactory—and should the United
States carry out their insane threat of abolishing the bonding system, by which our
merchandise passes free through their territory,
it
would be still more embarrassing. The Maritime Provinces are equally cut off from
com-
munication inland. Now, this embarrassment
will be ended by colonial union. The Inter-
colonial Railway will give us at all times
access to the Atlantic through British terri108tory. (Hear,
hear.) As a commercial enterprise, the Intercolonial Railway has not, I
apprehend, any considerable merit; as a work
of defence it has, however, many advocates;
but, if the union of the provinces is to go on,
it is an absolute necessity; and, as the price
of union, were there no other argument' m its
favor, I heartily go for it. (Hear, hear.)
The advantage it will confer on the Maritime
Provinces can hardly be over-rated. It will
make Halifax and St. John the Atlantic seaports of half a continent—it will insure
to
Halifax, ere long, the establishment of a line
of powerful steamers running in six days from
her wharves to some near point on the west
coast of Ireland—and it will bring
a constant
stream of passengers and immigrants through
those Lower Provinces that never otherwise
would come near them. Mr. SPEAKER, I
could go on for many hours piling up arguments in favor of this scheme, but already
I
have detained the House too long—(cries of
"no, no;" "go on!")—and must draw to a
close. But I think I have given reasons
enough to satisfy every candid man who
desires the advancement of his country, why
this House should go unanimously and enthusiastically for " the union, the whole union,
and nothing but the union!" Before sitting
down, however, there are one or two general
objections urged against the scheme which I
am desirous of meeting, and I will try to do
so as briefly as possible. And first, sir, I am
told that we should have made the union
legislative and not federal. Undoubtedly this
is a point on which different
opinions may be
honestly held by men sincerely seeking the
same ends—but, speaking my own views, I
think we came to a most wise conclusion.
Had we continued the present legislative
union, we must have continued with it
the unjust system of taxation for local purposes that now exists—and the sectional
bickering would have gone on as before. And can
any honorable gentleman really believe that
it would have been possible for a body of men
sitting at Ottawa to administer efficiently
and wisely the parish business of Red River
and Newfoundland, and all the country between? Only think of bringing suitors and
witnesses such distances to promote a bill for
closing. a side-line or
incorporating a club!
And if such a thing were desirable, would it
be possible for any body of men to go through
such a mass of work? Why, sir, the Imperial Parliament with 650 members sits for
eight months in the year, and even our Parliament sits three or four months,—how then
would it be possible for the legislature of all
the Provinces with a thousand or twelve hundred bills before it, to accomplish it
all?
The
whole year would not suffice for it—and who
in these colonies is able to sacrifice his whole
time to the duties of public life? But there
is another reason why the union was not
made legislative—it could not be carried.
(Hear, hear.) We had either to take a federal
union or drop the negotiation. Not only were
our friends from Lower Canada against it, but
so were most of the delegates from the Maritime Provinces. There was but one choice
open to us—federal union or nothing. But
in truth the scheme now before us has all the
advantages of a legislative union and a federal
one as well. We have thrown over on the localities all the questions which experience
has
shown lead directly to local jealousy and discord, and we have retained in the hands
of
the General Government all the powers necessary to secure a strong and efficient administration
of public affairs. (Hear, hear.) By
placing the appointment of the judges in the
hands of the General Government, and the
establishment of a central court of appeal,
we have secured uniformity of justice over
the whole land. (Hear, hear.) By vesting
the appointment of the lieutenant governors
in the General Government, and giving a veto
for all local measures, we have secured that
no injustice shall be done without appeal in
local legislation. (Hear, hear.)
For all dealings with the Imperial Government and foreign countries we have clothed
the General
Government with the most ample powers.And finally, all matters of trade and commerce,
banking and currency, and all questions
common to the whole people, we have vested
fully and unrestrictedly in the General Government. The measure, in fact, shuns the
faults of the federal and legislative systems
and adopts the best parts of both, and I am
well persuaded it will work efficiently and
satisfactorily. (Hear, hear.) But, Mr.
SPEAKER, I am told that the cost of working
this Federation scheme will be enormous.
Now, it would be a very rash thing of me, or
of any other person, to assert that the expense will not be great ; for we
all know that
any system of government may be made either
economical or extravagant, precisely according
to the discretion of those who administer it.
But this I am confident of, that with ordinary
discretion, far from being more costly than
the existing system, a very considerable reduction may be readily effected; and one
thing is quite certain, that no ingenuity
109
could make it a more costly or
extravagant
system than the one we have now. (Loud
cries of hear, hear.) Undoubtedly the mode
in which the local governments shall be constructed will very much affect the cost
of the
whole scheme; but if we adopt (as I earnestly
hope we will) simple and inexpensive machinery
for local purposes, I am quite satisfied that
there will a reduction to the people of Canada on the amount they now contribute.
I
have great confidence in the economical effect
of placing local expenditures on local shoulders, and in the salutary influence in
the same
direction, of the representatives of the Maritime Provinces when they come among us.
HON. MR. HOLTON —The trouble is that
they will spend our money—not theirs.
HON. MR. BROWN —The honorable gentleman is entirely wrong, and I am amazed at
his making such a statement. There is no
portion of the community that will pay more
money, per head, to the revenue than the people of the Maritime Provinces. If the
honorable gentleman had turned up the commercial
returns of those Lower Provinces and calculated the effect of our tariff, if
applied to them
—or even a tariff less than ours, for our
tariff must be reduced, he would have known
that they will bear their full proportion of
the national burdens. (Hear, hear.) But,
Mr. SPEAKER, I am told that the
arrangement as to the debt is unfair—that we have
thrown on the Federal exchequer the whole of
the debts of the Maritime Provinces, but only
a portion of the debt of Canada. There is not
a particle of force in this objection. The
whole debt of Canada is $67,500,000,
but five
millions of this is due to our own people, to
meet which there are certain local funds.
Now, if we had thrown the whole
$67,500,000
on the Federal treasury, we must also have
handed over to it the local revenues, which, so
far as these five millions are concerned, would
have been precisely the same thing. But, as
regards the public debt with which the Federal Government would start, it would not
have
been the same thing. By restricting
the debt
of Canada to $62,500,000, we
restricted the
debt of the Maritime Provinces to the same
proportion, or $25 per head of
their population; but had we thrown our whole debt of
sixty-seven and a half millions on the Confederation, the proportion of debt for the
several
Maritime Provinces must have been increased,
and the whole debt very greatly augmented.
(Hear.) But in throwing these five
millions on
the local governments of Upper and Lower
Canada, do we impose a burden on them they
are unable to bear? Quite the contrary—for
with the debt, we give them the corresponding
sources of revenue from which to meet it. The
local governments of Upper and Lower Canada
will severally not only have funds from the subsidy and other sources, to meet all
expenditure,
but a large surplus besides. But, Mr. SPEAKER,
I am told that this Federation scheme may be all
very right—it may be just and the very
thing the country needs—but this Government
had no authority from Parliament to negotiate
it. The honorable member for Cornwall (Hon.
JOHN S. MACDONALD) particularly pressed
this objection, and I am sorry he is not in his
seat.
HON. MR. BROWN —I am astonished to
hear such a statement repeated. No one knows
better than the honorable member for Chateauguay and the honorable member for Cornwall
that in the Ministerial explanations brought
down to this House, at the time of the formation of this Government, it was distinctly
declared that the Government it
was formed for
the initial purpose of maturing a scheme of
Federal union, and that it would
take means,
during the recess, for opening negotiations
with the Maritime Provinces, to bring about
such a union.
HON. MR. BROWN —What we have done
is entirely subject to the approval of Parliament. The honorable member for Cornwall
is the very last man who should have raised
such an objection, for he
attended a canons of
the liberal members of the Assembly, heard
the whole plans of the Government explained,
precisely as they have been carried out,
and
he was the very person who moved
that I
should go into the Government to give them
effect. (Hear hear.)
MR. DUNKIN —And
I heard something
more said—that nothing should be done which
did not leave the House perfectly free.
HON. MR. BROWN —I can assure my
honorable friend that, as far as that goes, he
never was more free in his life than now.
(Laughter.) We do not pretend to
say that
anything we have done binds this House; any
member may object if he pleases; but I do
say we received the approval of the House for
opening negotiations, and it is a miserable
pretence to say anything to the contrary.
(Hear, hear.) We did no more than has
been done by every Government, under the
110
British system, that ever existed. We
have
but made a compact, subject to the approval
of Parliament. So far as this Government is
concerned, we are firmly committed to the
scheme; but so far as the members of the
Legislature are concerned, they are as free as
air; but I am confident that this House will
almost unanimously accept it, and not with
changes and amendments, but as a whole—as
the very best compromise arrangement that
can be obtained.
HON. MR. BROWN —I remember a Government formed from that side of the House,
and the honorable member for Hochelaga (Hon.
Mr. DORION) will remember it too, which
made a treaty respecting the building of the
Intercolonial Railroad. The honorable member for Cornwall was Premier of that Government,
and it does not lie in his mouth now to
object to what he himself did. But the honorable gentleman is entirely wrong when
he
says we had no power to make this compact
with the Maritime Provinces. We had full
power, express instructions to enter into it.
MR. BROWN —No
; the honorable gentleman ought to know that the treaty-making
power is in the Crown—the Crown authorize
us specially to make this compact, and it has
heartily approved of what we did. (Hear,
hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I am told, that the
people of Canada have not considered this
scheme, and that we ought not to pass it without appealing to the electors for their
approval.
Now, sir, a statement more incorrect than this,
or more injurious to the people of Canada, could
not be made. They not only have considered this scheme—for fifteen years they have
been earnestly considering it—but the perfectly comprehend it. (Hear, hear.) If ever
question was thoroughly debated in any
country, the whole subject of constitutional
change has been in Canada. There is not a
light in which it could be placed that has not
been thoroughly canvassed ; and if the House
will permit me, I will show from our historical
record how totally absurd this objection is.
The question of a Federal union was agitated
thirty years ago, and here is the resolution
adopted by both Houses of the Imperial Parliament so far back as 1837:-
That great inconvenience has been
sustained
by His Majesty's subjects inhabiting the provinces
of Lower Canada and Upper Canada, from the
want of some adequate means for regulating and
adjusting questions respecting the trade
and commerce of the said provinces, and divers other
questions wherein the said provinces have a common interest ; and it is
expedient that the legislatures of the said provinces respectively, be
authorized to make provision for the joint regulation and adjustment of such their
common
interests.
In the instructions given to Lord DURHAM
by the Imperial Government in 1838, this
passage occurs:-
It is clear that some plan must be
devised to
meet the just demands of Upper Canada. It will
be for your Lordship, in conjunction with the
Committee, to consider if this should not be done
by constituting some joint legislative authority,
which should preside over all questions of common interest to the two provinces,
and which
might be appealed to in extraordinary cases. to
arbitrate between contending parties in either;
preserving, however, to each province its
distinct legislature, with authority in all matters of an
exclusively domestic concern. If this should be
your opinion. you will have further time to consider
what should be the nature and limits of such
authority, and all the particulars which ought to
be comprehended in any scheme for its establishment.
In Lord DURHAM'S admirable report of
1839, I find this passage:-
The bill should contain provisions by
which
any or all of the other North American colonies
may, on the application of the legislature, be
with the consent of the two Canadas, or their
united legislature, admitted into the union on
such terms as may be agreed on between them.
As the mere amalgamation of the Houses of
Assembly of the two provinces would not be
advisable, or give at all a due representation to
each, a parliamentary commission should be appointed, for the purpose of forming the
electoral
divisions and determining the number of members
to be returned on the principle of giving representation as near as may be, in proportion
to
population. The same commission should form
a plan of local government by
elective bodies,
subordinate to the general legislature, and exercising a complete control over such
local affairs
as do not come within the province of general
legislation. The plan so framed should be made
an act of the Imperial Parliament, so as to prevent the general legislature from encroaching
on
the powers of the local bodies. A general Executive on an improved principle should
be established, together with a supreme court of appeal for
all the North American Colonies.
And here is the statement of Lord JOHN
RUSSELL, in 1839, while introducing the original bill founded on Lord DURHAM'S report:-
The bill provides for the establishment
of a central district at Montreal and its
neighbourhood, at
which the Government shall be carried on, and
111
where the Assembly shall meet. The other
parts
of Upper and of Lower Canada are each to be
divided into two districts. It is proposcd that
these districts should be formed for the purpose of
becoming municipal districts, for the imposition
of taxes and rates, for all local purposes.
My next quotation shall be from the proceedings of a body of gentlemen who made a
great commotion in their day and generation
—the British American League. I hold in
my hand the proceedings of the League of 3rd
November, 1849, and among other names
mentioned I find those of the Hon. GEORGE
MOFFAT, THOHAS WILSON, the Hon.
GEORGE
CRAWFORD, the Hon. ASA A.
BURNHAM,
JOHN W. GAMBLE, Mr. AIKMAN, of
Barton,
OGLE R. GOWAN, JOHN DUGGAN, the Hon.
Col. FRASER, GEORGE BENJAMIN, the Hon.
P. M. VANKOUGHNET, and last, though not
least, the Hon. JOHN A. MACDONALD—of
whom, however, I find it recorded that he
spoke in a very jocose manner. Here is the
resolution of the League:-
That whether protection or reciprocity
shall be
conceded or withheld, it is essential to the welfare of this colony, and its future
good
government, that a Constitution should be framed in
unison with the wishes of the people, and suited
to the growing importance and intelligence of the
country, and that such Constitution should embrace a union of the British North American
Provinces on mutually advantageous and fairly
arranged terms, with the concession from the
Mother Country of enlarged powers of self-government.
I pass on to 1856 when we had the motion
and speech of my honorable friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. GALT) in favor
of
a union of all the British American Provinces,
but, as the whole House is familiar with it, I
shall not read the document. But in the Votes
and Proceedings of this House, of 25th April,
1856, I find a very remarkable document. It
is a notice of motion to be made in this House
—and its contents are as follow:-
Resolved—1. That the inconveniences arising
from the Legislative Union between Upper a
Lower Canada, render desirable the dissolution of
that union.
2. That a committee be appointed to
enquire
into the means which should be adapted to term
a new political and legislative organization of the
heretofore provinces of Upper and Lower Canada,
either by the establishment of their former territorial divisions, or by a division
of each province
so as to form a confederation having a Federal
Government, and a local legislature for each one
of the new provinces, and to deliberate as to the
course which should be adopted to regulate the
affairs of united Canada in a manner which would
be equitable to the different sections of the province.
that?
HON. MR. BROWN.—This notice of motion was given by my honorable friend the
member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION.)
(Cheers.)
HON. MR. DORION.—It was in amendment of that of the honorable member for
Sherbrooke, which I did not exactly like.
HON. MR. HOLTON —and which that
honorable gentleman did not venture to move,
so that the House did not pronounce upon it.
HON. MR. BROWN —But my honorable
friend (Hon. Mr. DORION) made a speech,
which I perfectly remember. He held this
motion in his hand while he spoke.
HON. MR. DORION —I made a speech on
the motion of the honorable member for Haldimand, Mr. MACKENZIE, not on my own.
HON. MR. BROWN —That does not signify. I seek not to fasten down my honorable
friend to the views he then held. Much light
has been thrown on the whole subject since
1856, and I trust we will all act on our conscientious convictions of what is best
for the
country now—without regard to any opinions
we may at other times have held. (Hear,
hear.) But when my honorable friend and
others allege that there never has been in
Canada an agitation in favor of a Federal
system, and that the people have never considered such a proposition, I think it directly
in point to prove the contrary by my honorable friend's own proceedings. (Hear, hear.)
The next step in the constitutional agitation
of the country was the formation of the BROWN-
DORION Administration. That was in 1858and to show how serious my honorable friend
opposite (Hon. Mr. DORION) and myself and
our ten colleagues viewed the position of the
country from the denial of constitutional
reform, I will read the official statement of
the basis on which the Government was
formed. I read, sir, from the Journals of the
Legislative Council for 1858:-
For some years past, sectional feelings have
risen in this country which, especially during the present session, have
seriously impeded the carrying on of the administrative and legislative
functions of the Government. The late Administration made no
attempt to meet these difficulties or to suggest a remedy for them, and
thereby the evil has it greatly aggravated. His Excellency's
present Advisers have entered the Government with the fixed
determination to propose constitutional measures for the establishment of
that harmony between Upper and Lower Canada
112 which is essential to the prosperity of the province. They respectfully submit that
they have a right to
claim all the support which His Excellency can constitutionally
extend to them in the prosecution of this all-important object.
(Hear, hear.) Here, sir, was a Government
formed seven years ago for the express purpose
of doing that which we are now engaged ina Government distinctly telling the Governor
General that the ace and prosperity of the
country were an angered because constitutional remedies were deferred; and yet my
honorable friends opposite, who with me were
responsible for that document, tell us that we
are not now in a fit position to legislate upon
this question. (Hear, hear.) But I come
next to the famous despatch to the Colonial
Minister, signed in 1858 by my honorable
friend the Minister of Finance, the Attorney
General East, and the Hon. JOHN ROSS. It
stated that "very grave difficulties now presented themselves in conducting the Government
of Canada"—that "the progress of population has been more rapid in the western
section, and claims are now made on behalf of
its inhabitants for giving them representation
in the Legislature in proportion to their numbers"—that " the result is shown by an
agitation fraught with great danger to the peaceful
and harmonious working of our constitutional
system, and, consequently, detrimental to the
progress of the province"—that "this state of
things is yearly becoming worse"—and that
"the Canadian Government were impressed
with the necessity of seeking for such a mode
of dealing with these difficulties as may for
ever remove them." What must have been
the state of public feeling when the Conservative Government of 1858 ventured to use
such
language as this ?—and how can any one pretend that the people do not comprehend this
question, when seven years of agitation have
passed since that document was penned?
(Hear, hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I come to
a still more important document—one that
goes into the details and the merits of just
such a scheme as that before the House. I
refer to the manifesto issued, in 1859, by the
Lower Canada members of the liberal party
in this House. (Hear, hear.) It is very long,
and I will only read from it a few extracts:-
Your committee are impressed with the
conviction that whether we consider the present needs
or the probable future condition of the country,
the true, the statesman-like solution is to be
sought in the substitution of a purely Federative
for the present so-called Legislative Union; the
former, it is believed, would enable us to escape
all the evils, and to retain all the
advantages, appertaining to the existing
union.
* * * * *
The proposition to federalize the
Canadian
union is not new. On the contrary, it has been
frequently mooted in Parliament and in the press
during the last few years. It was, no doubt, suggested by the example of the neighboring
states,
where the admirable adaptation of the Federal
system to the Government of an extensive territory, inhabited by people of diverse
origins, creeds,
laws and customs, has been amply demonstrated ;
but shape and consistency were first imparted to
it in 1856, when it was formally submitted to
Parliament by the Lower Canada Opposition, as
offering, in their judgement, the true corrective of
the abuses generated under the
present system.
* * * * *
By this division of power the General
Government would be relieved from those questions of a
purely local and sectional character, which, under
our present system, have led to much strife and
ill-will.
* * * * *
The committee believe that it is clearly
demonstrable that the direct cost of maintaining both
the federal and local governments need not exceed that of our present system, while
its enormous indirect cost would, in consequence of the
additional checks on expenditure involved in the
new system, and the more direct responsibility of
public servants in the province to the people immediately affected by such expenditure,
be entirely obviated.
* * * * *
The proposed system could in no way
diminish
the importance of the colony, or impair its credit,
while it presents the advantage of being susceptible, without any disturbance of the
Federal economy, of such territorial extension as circumstances
may hereafter render desirable.
Now, sir, who were the signers of the address?—on whose special
responsibility was this manifesto sent forth to the world? Why, it was
signed by my honorable friend opposite, Hon. A. A. DORION—(cheers and
laughter) —Hon. T. D. MCGEE, Hon. L. T. DRUMMOND, and HON. L. A.
DESSAULLES, four of the most able and most popular leaders of the
Lower Canada liberal party—the party now virulently opposing the resolutions
before the Chair. (Hear, hear.) So my honorable friend opposite (Hon.
Mr. DORION) not only agitated the country for constitutional changes,
but insisted that it should take the shape of a Federal union, because of
the cheapness of that system and the facility it afforded for bringing
within the federation the other British American Provinces—(cheers and
laughter)—and yet, six years after the promulgation of this
document, my honorable friend gets up and repudiates a Federal union
113 because of its frightful cost and because it does
bring within the Federation the other British American Provinces !
(Continued cheering.)
HON. MR. BROWN —I cannot exactly say
who did the composition; but will not my
honorable friend from Chateauguay (Hon. Mr.
HOLTON) permit me to ask if his
hand is not
discoverable in it? (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
If so, he well may be proud of it, for it is a
masterly exposition.
HON. MR. HOLTON —Will my honorable
friend accept it as an amendment to his
scheme ?
HON. MR. BROWN —I come now to the
great meeting of the Reformers of Upper
Canada, known as the Toronto Convention of
1859, and at which 570 delegates were present
from all parts of the western province. Here
are the two chief resolutions:-
5. Resolved,—That
in the opinion of this assembly, the best practicable remedy for the evils
now encountered in the Government of Canada is
to be found in the formation of two or more local
governments, to which shall be committed the
control of all matters of a local or sectional
character, and some joint authority charged with
such matters as are necessarily common to both
sections of the province.
6. Resolved,—That
while the details of the
changes proposed in the last resolution are necessarily subject for future arrangement,
yet this
assembly deems it imperative to
declare that no
Government would be satisfactory to the people
of Upper Canada which is not
based on the principle of representation by population.
Here we have the very essence of the measure now before us for adoption—deliberately
approved of by the largest body of representative men ever assembled in Upper Canada
for
a political purpose; and yet we are to be told
that our people do not understand the question, and we must go to them and explain
it,
letter by letter, at an immense cost to the
country, and at the risk of losing the whole
scheme! (Hear, hear.) But let us see what
followed. A general election was ordered in
1861—there was a fierce contest at the polls
—and the main question at every hustings,
was the demand for constitutional changes.
The result of that contest was the overthrow
of the CARTIER-MACDONALD Ministry
and
the formation of the MACDONALD-SICOTTE
Administration in its room. But so bitter had
been the struggle for and against constitutional changes, and so clearly defined were
party-lines upon it, that it was found
impossible to construct that Government without a
distinct pledge that it would resist every
motion made upon the subject-
HON. MR. BROWN —No, indeed, I did
not. I but cite the fact to show how thoroughly the whole question has been agitated,
and how perfectly its bearings have, for
years past, been understood. Well, sir, mark
what followed. One short year had not passed
over the heads of the MACDONALD-SICOTTE
Ministry before they tattered to their falland so repugnant to the House and to the
country was their conduct on the constitutional
question, that they dared not appeal to the
country until they had changed their avowed
policy upon it, and replaced the men
who had forced upon them the narrow
policy of the year before, by gentlemen
understood to be more in favor of constitutional changes. The Government (MACDONALD-DORION),
so reconstructed, went to
the country in 1863, but in the year following it, too, fell in its turn, simply because
it
did not deal boldly with the constitutional
question—
HON. MR. DORION —We had the support
of all who were in favor of the question.
HON. MR. HOLTON —We should have
fallen if we had attempted to deal with it.
HON. MR. BROWN —I entirely deny that;
had you pursued a bold policy upon it you
might have been in office up to this hour.
(Hear, hear.) Well, sir, the MACDONALD- DORION made way for the TACHÉ-MACDONALD Administration—but
it, too, soon fell by
a majority of two, simply because it did not
deal with the constitutional question-
HON. MR. BROWN —My honorable friend
cries "oh, oh," and I am perfectly amazed at his doing so. I am about to
offer my honorable friend the most complete proof of the correctness of my statement—proof
so conclusive that if he does
not accept of it as such, I do not know how he can be convinced of anything.
In one single day the TACHÉ-MACDONALD Administration, by taking up the
constitutional question boldly, turned their minority of
two into a majority of seventy. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) Could anything
prove more unanswerably than this the deep hold this question has on
the public mind, and the assured confidence of the members of this
House that their constituents understand its whole
114 merits, when, in one day, such a startling political revolution was brought about
? Was it, think you, a
doubtful consideration that could have induced the Upper Canada Opposition,
almost as one man, to cast down their party intrenchments and make
common cause with their opponents? Could there have been the slightest
doubt as to the sentiments of our people and the imperative necessity of
immediate action, when such men as now sit on the
treasury benches, were forced, by their supporters, to unite for the
settlement of this question? And could there be a more conclusive proof of the ripeness
of public opinion than the unanimous and
cordial manner in which our so uniting has been sustained by the press
of all parties, and by the electors at the polls? (Hear, hear.)
Never, I venture to assert, was any great measure so thoroughly
understood, and so cordially endorsed by the people of Canada, as
this measure now under consideration. (Hear, hear.)The
British Government approves of it—the Legislative Council approves of it—this
House almost unanimously approves of itthe press of all
parties approves of itand though the scheme has already been directly submitted to
fifty out of the one hundred
constituencies into which Canada is divided, only four candidates
ventured to appear at the hustings in opposition to it—all of them in
Lower Canada—and but two of them were elected. (Cheers) And yet, sir, we are
to be told that we are stealing a march upon the country; that it is
not understood by the people; and that we must dissolve the ease upon
it, at a vast cost to the exchequer, and at the risk of allowing political
partisanship to dash the fruit from our hands at the very moment we
are about to grasp it! (Hear, hear.) Sir, I have no fears whatever of an
appeal to the people. I cannot pretend to speak as to the popular
feeling in Lower Canada, but I think thoroughly understand the
popular mind of the western province, and hesitate not to say that
there are not five gentlemen in this chamber (if so many) who could go
before their constituents in Upper Canada in opposition to this scheme, with
the slightest chance of being returned. (Hear, hear.) It is because I
thoroughly comprehend the feelings of the people upon it, that
I urge the adoption of this measure at the earliest possible moment.
The most gross injustice is to be rectified by it; the tax-payer is to
be clothed with his rightful influence by it; new commercial relations are
to be opened up by it; a new impulse to the industrial
pursuits of the country will be given by itand I for one
would feel myself false to the cause I have so long sustained, and false to
the best interests of my constituents, if I permitted one hour
unnecessarily to pass without bringing it to a final issue.
(Cheers) It was only by the concurrence of most propitious
circumstances that the wonderful progress this movement has made could have
accomplished. Most peuliar were the circumstances that enable such a coalition to
be formed as that now existing for
the settlement of this question—and who shall say at what hour it may
not be rent asunder? And yet, who will venture to affirm that if party
spirit in all its fiereeness were once more to be let loose amongst
us, there would be the slightest hope that this great question could be
approached with that candor and harmony necessary to its satisfactory solution? (Hear,
hear.) Then, sir, at the very
moment we resolved to deal with this question of constitutional change,
the Maritime Provinces were about to assemble in joint
conference to consider whether they ought not to form a union among themselves—and
the way was thus most propitiously opened up for
the consideration of a union of a British America. The civil war too, in
the neighboring republic; the possibility of war between Great Britain
and the United States; the threatened repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty; the threatened
abolition of the American bonding system for
goods in transitu to and from these provinces; the unsettled
position of the Hudson's Bay Company; and the changed feeling of England as
to the relations of great colonies to the parent state;—all combine at
this moment to arrest earnest attention to the gravity of the situation, and unite
us all in one vigorous effort to meet the
emergency like men. (Hear, hear.) The interests to be affected by this
scheme of union are very large and varied—but the pressure
of circumstances upon all the colonies is so serious at this moment, that if
we cannot now banish partisanship and sectionalism and petty
objections, and look at the matter on its broad intrinsic merits, what hope
is there of our ever being able to do so? An appeal to the people of
Canada on this measure simply means postponement of the question for a
year—and who can tell how changed ere then may be the circumstances
surrounding us? Sir, the man who strives for the postponement of this
measure on any ground, is doing what he can to kill it almost as effectually
as if he voted against it. (Hear, hear.) Let there be no mistake as to
the manner in which the
115 Government presents this measure to the House. We do
not present it as free from fault, but we do present it as a measure so
advantageous to the people of Canada, that all the blemishes, real or
imaginary, averred against it, sink into utter insignificance in
presence of its merits. (Hear, hear.) We present it, not in the
precise shape we in Canada would desire it, but as in the best shape the
five colonies to be united could agree upon it. We present it in the
form in which the five governments have severally adopted it—in
the form the Imperial Government has endorsed it —and in the form in
which we believe all the legislatures of the provinces will accept it.
(Hear, hear.) We ask the House to pass it in the exact form in which we have
presented it, for we know not how alterations may affect its safety in
other places, and the process of alteration once commenced in four different
legislatures—who can tell where that would end? Every
member of this House is free as air to criticise it if he so wills, and
amend it if he is able—but we warn him of the danger of amendment, and
throw on him all the responsibility of the consequences. (Hear,
hear.) We feel confident of carrying this scheme as it stands—but we
cannot tell what we can do if it be amended. (Hear, hear.) Let not honorable gentlemen
approach this measure as a sharp critic
deals with an abstract question, striving to point out blemishes and display
his ingenuity; but let us approach it as men having but one
consideration before us—the establishment of the future peace and prosperity of
our country. (Hear, hear.) Let us look at it in the
light of a few months backin the light of the evils and injustice
to which it applies a remedy—in the light of the years of discord and
strife we have spent in seeking for that remedy—in the light with which the
people of Canada would regard this measure were it to be lost, and all
the evils of past years to be brought back upon us again. (Hear,
hear.) Let honorable gentlemen look at the question in this view—and what
one of them will take the responsibility of casting his vote against
the measure? Sir, the future destiny of these great provinces may be
affected by the decision we are about to give to an extent which at this
moment we may be unable to estimate—but assuredly the welfare for many
years of four millions of people hangs on our decision. (Hear, hear.) Shall
we then rise equal to the occasion ?—shall we approach this discussion
without partisanship, and free from every rsonal feeling but the
earnest resolution to discharge conscientiously
the duty which an over-ruling Providence has placed upon us? Sir, it
may be that some among us will live to see the day when, as the result
of this measure, a great and powerful people may have grown up in these
landswhen the boundless forests all around us shall have
given way to smiling fields and thriving towns— and when one united
government, under the British flag, shall extend from shore to
shore:—but who would desire to see that day if he could not recall with
satisfaction the part he took in this discussion? Mr.
SPEAKER I have done. I leave the subject to the conscientious
judgment of the House, in the confident expectation and belief that the decision
it will render will be worthy of the Parliament of
Canada. (The honorable gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and
continued applause.)
On motion of the
Hon. Mr. MCGEE, the
debate was further adjourned till Thursday
evening.
This individual participated in:
