421
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
THURSDAY, February 23, 1865.
MR. A. MACKENZIE resumed the adjourned debate. He said — Before proceeding, Mr. SPEAKER, to discuss
the measure of
Confederation itself, I think it desirable to
revert for a moment to the position which
we have occupied, in discussing those constitutional questions that have so long separated
parties, and involved the two sections
of the province in serious dissensions. I do
this to meet the charges of inconsistency
brought against myself and others, because
we support the present Coalition Government
with a view to obtain the solution of the
difficulties with which we have had to
contend—in a way not perhaps hitherto
advocated very extensively, especially in that
part of the province to which I myself
belong. Since I had the honor of having a
seat in this House, I have never advocated
representation by population as the sole
measure I would accept as a settlement of
those difficulties. In the first speech I ever
made in this House, I used the following
language :—
I am not myself bound down to representation
by population as the only possible measure. If
the opponents of that measure can suggest any
other remedy, I am quite willing to give it a candid consideration ; and I am quite
sure that the
large constituency I represent will support me in
considering any measure which will place it out of
the power of the Government of the day to perpetrate sectional injustice ; but until
such a
remedy is suggested, I feel bound to advocate
422
reform of the representation on the basis
of population as one remedy I believe to be an effective
one.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION) asserted that we
had advocated this measure merely as a
means of remedying the financial injustice
of which we complained. That was not the
case. It is quite true that we urged very
strongly—and I am not prepared at this
moment to withdraw a single statement I
have made with reference to that—we urged
very strongly the injustice of the position
in which we were placed, in contributing
largely to the public revenue, and finding
that that revenue was expended without due
consideration being given to that part of the
country which contributed most heavily
towards it. But, at the same time, we felt
that we were treated unjustly in another
respect. We felt that it was not fair—that
it could not be just—that four men in Lower
Canada should be equal, politically, to five
men in Upper Canada. We complained
that our laws were framed by an eastern
majority, in spite of our protestations. It
was this which aggrieved us much more
deeply than the mere loss of a certain sum
of money. (Hear, hear.) Up to the
beginning of 1862 the agitation for a redress
of this grievance had been carried on
throughout the whole of Western Canada ;
and I am convinced that at that time there
was not an individual who could appear in
public in Canada West, and take any share
in the public discussions of the day, with
any chance of getting a favorable hearing,
unless he asserted that he was in favor ot
representation by population.
MR. A. MACKENZIE—The hon. member
for Cornwall cries "Oh !" Well, I will
except him.
MR. A. MACKENZIE—It is true, perhaps, that even that hon. member cannot be
excepted ; for no one spoke more strongly
than he did of the injustice perpetrated on
Upper Canada.
MR. A. MACKENZIE—He went even
further in his assertion of the rights of
Upper Canada, and of the justice due to it,
than I would be disposed to do. He asserted
on the floor of this House that he would not
submit to any legislation, good, bad or indifferent, that came from the Administration
of
the day, simply because they would not
accord justice to Upper Canada.
MR. A. MACKENZIE—The hon. gentleman could not have taken stronger ground
than that. I shall come to speak presently of
his own Administration. The hon. member
for Hochelaga seemed to think that, because
the people of Canada West conducted their
agitation with a good deal of system and
order, there was nothing very alarming or
dangerous about it. But the hon. gentleman
should have remembered that it is a characteristic of the British people, that they
on all
occasions conduct a political agitation with
due decorum and due respect to the laws,
and that it is not the less serious on that
account. When they have a deep-seated
feeling that injustice is being perpetrated
upon them, they will not sit still under it,
although they will at the same time, while
conducting the agitation against it, respect
the rights of other parties. (Hear, hear.)
I am free to confess that, when I first came
into this House, I labored under some slight
misapprehension of the position which the
Lower Canadians occupied towards us of
Western Canada. There is, or there was
then, a popular opinion that the Lower Canadians were only afraid of representation
by
population, because they dreaded that the
people of Canada West would use the larger
power they would thereby obtain for the injury, if not the destruction, of their religious
institutions. That is entirely an error. I am
convinced that the people of Lower Canada
have no such opinion and no such fear. In
speaking the other day on that subject, the
honorable member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr.
DORIAN) quoted from a speech of mine delivered in Toronto a few days before this session
commenced ; and I do not think the hon.
gentleman shewed his usual candor or fairness in making the representation he did.
He represented me as having stated at that
meeting, that I had abandoned representation by population, as a thing that was not
advisable, or possible, or something of that
sort. Now what I did say was this :—
Having taken some part in public affairs,
he
(Mr. MACKENZIE) had long felt it would be
almost impossible, by representation by population, to obtain to the full extent the
justice that
Upper Canada should receive with a legislative
union as the basis of our power.
423
He had looked at it in this way. The time
had been when the people of Upper Canada
imagined that the Lower Canadians were afraid
to grant representation by
population lest western
reformers should interfere with their religious
institutions. He was fully satisfied that that idea
was entirely erroneous—that the French people
never had the slightest fear of the kind, because
they knew it would be political
suicide, it would
be absolute ruin to any political party having the
administration of affairs in their hands, to perpetrate injustice on any section of
the people, to
whatever church they belonged. (Cheers.)
There was one element, however, which always
entered largely into the discussion of all our national questions, and that was that
the French
people were a people entirely different from ourselves in origin, and largely in feeling.
We all
had a certain pride in our native country, and
gloried in the deeds of our ancestors. The French
people had that feeling quite as strongly as any
of us ; this reason, and also because
they were a
conquered people, they felt it necessary to maintain a strong national spirit, and
to resist all attempts to procure justice by the people of the
wes,. lest that national existence
should be broken
down. He (Mr. MACKENZIE) felt
for one that
mere representation by population, under such
circumstances would perhaps
scarcely meet the
expectations formed of it,
because although Upper Canada would have seventeen more members
than Lower Canada, it would be an easy thing
for the fifty or fifty-five members representing
French constituencies to unite with a minority
from Upper Canada, and thus secure an Administration subservient to their views.
These were the sentiments that I uttered
at that meeting, and the sentiments to
which I am prepared now to give utterrance again. (Hear, hear.) I believe that that
feeling of nationality has been our sole difficulty, in working our present political
system.
But I do not believe for one moment that it
would be possible or perhaps
desirable to
extinguish that strong feeling of nationality.
Break down that feeling and all patriotism
will be broken down with it. (Hear, hear.)
I do not think it would be fair, or kind, or
honorable, to attempt to do so. When
Britain conquered the country, she accepted
the responsibility of governing a foreign
people in accordance with their feelings, so
far as consistent with British policy. That
feeling of nationality obtains so
strongly in
all countries, that, where attempts have been
made, as in Austria, to break it down, they
have signally failed. When such
an attempt
failed, though made by a despotic
government,
with a powerful army at its command, how
could we expect it to succeed in a free coun
try. In Austria, at this moment, eighteen
different nationalities are represented in
the national councils ; and, notwithstanding
all its military power and prestige, Austria
has been compelled to accord local parliaments or assemblies to every one of those
eighteen nationalities. (Hear, hear.) I
have felt, therefore, that it would be utterly
impracticable to obtain representation by
population so long as the French people believed, as I came to find they did
believe,
that this concession to us would involve
destruction to them as a separate people.
HON. MR. HOLTON— That is what they
fear will be the result of the scheme now
proposed.
MR. A. MACKENZIE —No ; I have yet to
learn that they have any such fear. The
Attoney General East (Hon. Mr. CARTIER),
in his speech, a few evenings ago, adverted
to the position taken by the French inhabitants of Lower Canada at the time of the
French revolution, and claimed credit for
them, because they remained loyal to the
British Crown, when all the other North
American Colonies threw off the
British
sway. The honorable gentleman's claim
was perfectly just. But I believe that they
were actuated by another feeling beyond the
feeling of loyalty—that they felt their only
safeguard as a distinct peeple— the only
way to preserve their nationality, was to
remain attached to Great Britain. Their
existence for twenty years as a French colony
under British rule, was not perhaps sufficient
to give that attachment which they have
now to the British Government. But it
was perfectly clear to them that, if they
entered the American Union, they would be
absorbed and lost, just as the French colony
of Louisiana has since been. (Hear, hear.)
I have been charged, and others with me,
who have held the same political views, with
deserting our party, because we have ceased
to act with the gentlemen from Lower Canada with whom we formerly acted. I think
there is no fair ground for such a charge.
For what, after all, is party ? It is but an
association of individuals holding opinions
in common on some grounds of public policy,
or some measures which they may believe
to be necessary for the conduct of the
government of the country to which they
belong. Looking at the matter in that light,
there is no part of our party politics in the
west, that we have insisted upon so strongly
as that which concerns the representation of
the people in Parliament.
424
MR. A. MACKENZIE—And, as soon as
our former political friends in Lower Canada
ceased to take advanced ground on
that question, while the other party, hitherto opposed
to us, became willing to take that advanced
ground, it became clearly our duty to unite
with that party who held opinions in common with us on matters that
concerned us
above all others. (Hear, hear.) At the
time of the formation of the MACDONALD-
SICOTTE Government, I was, with many
others, strongly blamed, because we allowed
that Government to come into existence at
all. It is quite possible we
were wrong ; but
I think after all it was fortunate that the
hon. member for Cornwall (Hon. J. S.
MACDONALD) had a fair opportunity
to try
his favorite remedy for our constitutional
difficulties—the " double majority
principle."
That principle had been pressed on the
attention of the country for ten years as one
amply sufficient as a remedial measure,
under which the existing
political system
could be harmoniously worked. In the
MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government it had a
fair trial and a speedy death. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) The existence of that
Government, if it served no
other purpose,
showed the utter impracticability
of the
one means, by which my hon. friend
hoped to accomplish what he, in common with ourselves, had long aimed
at.
(Hear, hear. Now, supposing the Liberal party of the west had refused
the terms offered by the present Administration—if we had declined to support a government
which was really
giving us nearly all we demanded—I do
think we would have been fairly chargeable
with creating if not advocating a state of
anarchy. I think it would have been a most
suicidal thing, if, having obtained—if not to
the full extent, yet to a very great extent—
the concession of the principle we had contended for so long, we had refused to accept
the settlement offered, merely because a certain number of gentlemen, to whom we had
been strongly opposed before, were among the
leaders of the new movement. I for one felt
it would be quite impossible for me to maintain my ground in Canada West, if I took
the responsibility of acting in that way.
Some honorable gentlemen have asserted,
and truly asserted, that this measure is not
as perfect as it might have been—and
that it
is not as complete as some of us
might have
desired it to be. It is not perhaps, consider
ing everything, in the exact form in
which
we demanded it. But, where there are two
great parties in a nation—as there have been
with us—it is quite clear that,
when they
agree to effect a settlement of the
constitutional difficulties which have separated them,
this can only be accomplished by
mutual
compromise to a greater or less
extent. And
the true question to be determined in this
discussion, and by the vote at the close of
this debate, is this—whether this a fair compromise or not. I am prepared to
say it is
perhaps as fair as could reasonably be expected, and I have therefore no
hesitation in
giving it all the support in my power. (Hear,
hear.) In its main features it is the very
scheme which was proposed by the Toronto
Convention—only carried to a greater extent
than the convention thought advisable or
possible at the time. The speeches which
were delivered at that convention, as well
as the resolutions which were passed, shewed
clearly that it was the opinion of the delegates there present, that a Confederation
of
the whole provinces would be desirable, if
it were possible to attain it as speedily, as
they expected they could obtain a Federation of the two Provinces of Canada.
That, I believe, was the sole reason
why resolutions were not moved and adopted in favor of the larger instead of the
smaller scheme. But we have been told by
the two hon gentlemen beside me—the hon.
member for Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON)
and the honorable member for Hochelaga
(Hon. Mr. DORION)—that the scheme of the
Toronto Convention took no hold upon the
public mind. As to this I have to say that
having had as fair an opportunity
perhaps as
most men to ascertain the feelings
of the
people in Western Canada, I can assert,
without any fear of contradiction by hon.
gentlemen from that part of the country,
that no scheme ever took a greater or more
complete hold upon the public mind in
Upper Canada than the scheme of the
Toronto Convention. (Hear, hear.) And
for the very reason that the present scheme
is merely an expansion of that one, it has
received almost universal approval in Canada
West. (Hear, hear.) It is true that after
the Toronto Convention was held, there was
not any very strong agitation in its favor.
But I have observed this, that at all the elections which have been held subsequent
to the
convention, gentlemen who have taken the
same side of politics as myself have been
accustomed to say that as soon as the Lower
425
Canadians
who were opposed to representation by population would agree to the scheme
of the Toronto Convention, they were ready
to meet them on that ground. Personally, I
have always been in favor of a legislative
union, where it can be advantageously worked. If it could be adapted to our circumstances
in these colonies, I would at this
moment be in favor of a legislative union
as the best system of government. I believe that is the general opinion of the people
in the west. But it is the duty of every
public man to shape his course with reference to theoretical principles of government,
according to the circumstances which may
prevail locally. And it is quite clear that,
if the legislative union could not be worked
well with Upper and Lower Canada, it would
work still worse with the other
provinces
brought in. There remained, therefore, in
my opinion, no other alternative
than to
adopt the Federal principle, or to dissolve
entirely the connection which exists between
Upper and Lower Canada at the present
moment ; and that I would look upon as one
of the greatest calamities which could befall
these provinces. Even if this scheme were
more objectionable than it is, had I the
alternative put before me to accept dissolution of the union or to accept this, I
would
without hesitation accept Confederation
rather than dissolution. (Hear. hear.) In
the scheme as propounded, we have all that
we could possibly demand in the way of
representation in the Lower House. And,
besides that, we have provision made for extending the representation east or west,
as
occasion may require, according to the increase of our population shown at
the
decennial periods for taking the census.
Any thing fairer than that could not possibly
be demanded. And if Lower Canada
increases more rapidly in population
than Canada West, she will obtain
representation accordingly. For, although
the number of her members can not be
changed from sixty-five, the
proportion of
that number to the whole will be changed
relatively to the progress of the
various colonies. On the other hand if we extend, as I
have no doubt we will do, westward, towards
the centre of the continent, we will obtain a
large population for our Confederation in the
west. In that quarter we must look
for
the largest increase of our
population in
British America, and before many years elapse
the centre of population and power will tend
westward much farther than most people
now think. The increase in the representation is therefore almost certain to be chiefly
in the west, and every year will add to the
influence and power of Western Canada, as
well as to her trade and commerce. The
most important question that arises relates
to the constitution of the Upper House. It
is said that in this particular the scheme is
singularly defective—that there has been a
retrograde movement in going back from
the elective to the nominative system. I
admit that this statement is a fair one from
those who contended long for the application of the elective principle to the Upper
House ; but it can have no weight with
another large class, who, like myself, never
believed in the wisdom of electing the
members of two Houses of Parliament with
coordinate powers. I have always
believed
that a change from the present
system was
inevitable, even with our present political
organization. (Hear, hear.) The constitution of an Upper House or Senate seems to
have originated in the state of society which
prevailed in feudal times ; and
from being
the sole legislative body—or at least the most
powerful—in the State, it has imperceptibly
become less powerful, or secondary in importance to the lower chamber, as the mass
of
the people became more intelligent, and
popular rights became more fully
understood.
Where there is an Upper House it manifestly
implies on the part of its members peculiar
duties or peculiar rights. In Great Britain,
for instance, there is a large class of landed
proprietors, who have long held almost all
the landed property of the country in their
hands, and who have to pay an immense
amount of taxes. The fiscal legislation of
Britain for many years has tended to the
reduction of impost and excise duties on
articles of prime necessity, and to the imposition of heavy taxes on landed property
and
incomes. Under such a financial system,
there are immense interests at stake, and the
House of Lords being the highest judicial
tribunal in the kingdom, there is a combination of peculiar rights and peculiar duties
appertaining to the class represented which
amply justify its maintenance. We have no
such interests, and we impose no
such duties,
and hence the Upper House becomes a mere
court of revision, or one of coordinate jurisdiction ; as the latter it is not required
; to
become the former, it should be constituted
differently from the House of Assembly.
The United States present the example of
a community socially similar to ourselves,
426
establishing an Upper House. They have—
reasoning doubtless from the same premises
—not only given the legislatures of the
respective states the power of nominating
the members of the Senate, but have also
given that body powers entirely different
from those possessed by the elective branch.
It is a remarkable fact that there is only one
other government in Europe which has a
system similar to Great Britain, and that is
Sweden. There is another class, represented
by a number of the German nations. There
are Wurtemburg, Hesse Darmstadt, Prussia,
Saxony, Hanover, Baden and Bavaria, with
an aggregate population of about 30,000,000,
whose Upper Chambers are partly hereditary,
partly nominative, and partly
ex-officio. The
purely hereditary principle, as found in
Great Britain and Sweden, obtains among a
population of some 32,000,000. Then there
is another class nominated by the Crown for
life from a list chosen by intermediate
bodies. The councils choose three lists and
the Sovereign nominates therefrom. In this
way, Spain, Brazil and the new nation of
Roumania, composed of the Turkish principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, appoint
their Upper Houses—Spain, with a population of 16,301,850 ; Brazil, 7,677,800 ; Roumania,
3,578,000 ; altogether
27,556,650.
There is another class where the members of
the Senate are nominated for life, where the
number is limited, and where some few
members of the royal family have the privilege of sitting as members. Italy, with
a
population of 21,777,334 ; Portugal, 3,584,
677 ; Servia, 1,098,281 ; Austria, 34,000,000.
This class represents altogether a population
of 61,460,292. Then there is another class
where the members are elected for a term of
years, and it is a remarkable fact in this connection that the countries I refer to
are, with
the exception of three British colonies and one
monarchy, entirely republican. The one monarchy in the list that elects its Upper
Chamber in this way, is Belgium ; but Belgium,
although a monarchy, is well known to be
one of the most democratic countries in Europe. This list includes Switzerland, whose
people number 2,534,242 La Plata, 1,171,800 ; Chili, 1,558,319 ; Peru, 2,865,000 ;
United States, 30,000,000 ; Liberia, 500,000 ;
Belgium, 4,529,000 ; South Australia, 126,830 ; Tasmania, 89,977 ; Victoria, 540,322
—having a total population of 43,915,490.
In Nassau we find the Upper Chamber partly
nominative and partly
ex-officio, the
population being 457,571. Then there's
Denmark,
with a partly nominative and partly elective system, the elections being held by the
Provincial Councils, the population being
1,600,000 ; while in the Netherlands, with a
population of 3,372,652, the members are
elected entirely by the Provincial Councils.
In one of the British colonies, New South
Wales, the members are nominated for a
term
of years ; whilst in two of the youngest
and
most enterprising of the British
colonies,
New Zealand and Queensland, they have the
system which we propose to adopt, of
nominating a limited number of members for
life.
There is evidently room here for great
latitude of opinion as to the
constitution of
the Upper Chamber, and I do not think we
can be fairly charged with retrogression
because we choose to make the members of
our Upper House nominative
instead of elective. Our people comprise but one class,
and
if the members of the two chambers are to be
chosen by the same electors, it is very clear
that it will be extremely difficult for both to
maintain their individuality, possessing
similar powers and privileges, and avoid collisions.
It is evident that two chambers which have
originated in precisely the same way, will
claim to exercise the same rights and privileges, and to discharge the same functions
;
but were the Upper Chamber nominative,
instead of elective, the jurisdiction of that
chamber would be, of course, correspondingly
changed, and the chances of collision made
more remote. There are quite a number of
states (some of them very considerable in
size and population, and of recent origin)
which have dispensed with an Upper Chamber altogether. I confess my arguments would
lead to the adoption of this system, as the one
most suited to our circumstances. (Hear,
hear.) The nations which have adopted this
system are Hesse Cassel, with a population of
726,000 ; Luxemburg, 413,000 ; Saxe Cobourg,
mar, 273,000; Saxe Meiningen, 172,000;
Saxe Altenburg, 137,000; Saxe Cobourg,
159,000 ; Brunswick, 273,000 ; Mecklenburg
Schwerin, 548,000 ; Norway, 1,328,471 ;
Mecklenburg Streilitz, 99,060 ;
Oldenburg,
295,245 ; Anhalt, 181,824 ; Lippe-Detmold,
108,513 ; Waldeck, 58,000 ; Schwarzburg,
71,913 ; and in the kingdom of Greece, with
a population of 1,096,810, where a new constitution has been recently adopted, the
statesmen of that country have, after some experience of the duplicate system,
resolved to
legislate with a single chamber. But while
it is my opinion that we would be better without
an Upper House, I know that the question is
427
not, at the present moment, what is the
best
possible form of government,
according to our
particular opinions, but what is the best that
can be framed for a community holding different views on the subject.
HON. MR. BROWN—Hear, hear. That
is the point, and therefore I accept, as a fair
compromise, a second chamber nominated by
the Confederate Cabinet.
MR. A. MACKENZIE—One honorable
member—I think the honorable member for
Lotbiniere (Mr. JOLY)—used the
argument
that the Federal system was a weak one. I
do not think the Federal system is necessarily
a weak one ; but it is a system which requires
a large degree of intelligence
and political
knowledge on the part of the
people, and I
think it was entirely unfair on the part of the
honorable member to compare our probable
prospects in the future, under
Confederation,
with the past history of the Spanish republics
in South America. We have in this country
a population habituated to
self-government,
and this entirely destroys the parallel sought
to be instituted. For my part, I hold it would
be altogether impossible for the
honorable
member for South Oxford, for instance, or
some other honorable members we
know of, to
carry on the same agitation in any of
the
South American republics—(laughter)—that
we have seen them doing in Upper
Canada,
without producing a complete
revolution, and
instead of my honorable friend (Hon. Mr.
BROWN) finding himself at the head of a
newspaper, controlling his
columns, he would
find himself at the head of an
army marshalling its columns. (Laughter.)
Hon. MR. GALT—He would, perhaps, be
found issuing a
pronunciamento. (Laughter.)
MR. A. MACKENZIE—Yes, a
pronunciamento would undoubtedly be the
legitimate
result in such a state of
society. The fact is,
we cannot compare such a population with
those who are educated to our own
form of
government. I have time and again
attended
political meetings with my
honorable friends
opposite, and after seven or
eight hours indulging in strong language, and
sometimes
bitter enough speeches, the
people have separated quietly without any personal
feeling
being entertained the one against
the other.
fore, then, asserting that the people of
this
country are incapable of
governing themselves,
or that the Federal principle is
a weak one, it
is necessary to prove that we are
not more
civilised than were the people of
South
America thirty years ago. (Hear,
hear.) I
assume,
therefore, that it is necessary to
prove that our people are less civilised
than
the populations of the South American republics were thirty years ago, or that they
have already shown an incapacity for governing themselves before we can receive the
assertion that the Federal principle as proposed
to be applied in our case is a weak one. If
the honorable member based his argument
against the Confederation on the question of
weakness or strength as exemplified in existing governments, he would be bound to
accept Russia as the model for his government,
there being no stronger government on the
face of the earth. But a despotism is only
possible where the people are ignorant, and
an attempt to establish a republic among such
a people would be out of the question,—it
would only produce weakness. Were a republic to be established at this moment in
Russia, it would occasion a state
of anarchy,
because the people are too ignorant to exercise
intelligently the franchise bestowed upon
them. It is for this reason
unfair to institute
comparisons between these unfortunate republics and the proposed government for the
people of British North America. I am
certain that, if there were a Federal union between all the colonies of British North
America, extending even across the continent to our
western confines, although great inconvenience
might be experienced by such an extension,
we would find a law-abiding people capable of
self-government, in all parts of the Confederacy. (Hear, hear.) The example of the
United States has been appealed to, and it is
true that when the war commenced, when
they found themselves unable to enforce their
laws in some portion of the states, that it
did seem to prove to the minds
of those who
did not understand the people, and to the
writers of certain newspapers in England, that
there was an inherent weakness in the system.
There is no doubt that there were some indications of such weakness, and the conflict
of
sovereignty between states and the Federal
Government did produce weakness. But I
think the attitude of the people of the Northern States fully shows that even with
the
imperfections of their system, which will be
admitted, and which imperfections are avoided
in the scheme now before the House—even
with these imperfections, a strength, a power,
and a vigor have been displayed, which have
silenced even the attacks of hostile criticism.
(Hear, hear.) The Federal system, then, cannot be said to be a failure with our race,
neither can it be said to be a failure in Switzerland. This was admitted in a measure
by
428
the honorable member for Lotbinière, but
that honorable gentleman gave as a reason for
its apparent success, that Switzerland was
surrounded by a number of powerful nations.
I think, on the other hand, that the reason
assigned would be the very cause of a failure
of the system in Switzerland. The government of that country would have broken down
long ago if there was any inherent weakness
in the form of the constitution, in consequence
of the hostile systems which surrounded it.
The fact of the Swiss maintaining their independence so long and conducting the administration
of their affairs so well
and cheaply, is
an evidence to my mind that the Federal system of government is not weak where the
people are trained and educated to understand and appreciate the benefits of self-government.
(Hear, hear.) Then, sir, we are
assured that all sorts of calamities will overtake us if we change our Constitution,
and
many of the honorable gentlemen who prophecy these evil results will no doubt, like
many other prophets, do all they can to bring
their predictions to pass. (Hear, hear.) This
is not the first time in the history of the
world that prophecies of this kind have been
indulged in. I was a good deal amused the
other night in reading the discussions which
took place in the Scottish Parliament on the
occasion of the proposed union with England
in 1707 ; and in perusing one of the speeches
in particular, I could not help remarking the
coincidence betwen the tone therein assumed
and that adopted by Her Majesty's loyal Canadian Opposition. The speaker, Lord BELHAVEN,
used this language in depicting the
dire calamities which he imagined would befall Scotland by joining her
fortunes to England :—
MY LORD CHANCELLOR,—I think I see our
learned judges laying aside their practiques and decisions, studying the common law
of England, gravelled with certioraries, nisi priuses, writs of
error, verdicts in dovar, ejectione firmæ, injunctions, demure, &c., and freighted with appeals and
avocations, because of the new regulations and
rectifications they may meet with. I think I see
the valiant and gallant soldiery either sent to
learn the plantation trade abroad, or at home petitioning for a small subsistence
as the reward of
their honourable exploits, while their old corps
are broken, the common soldiers left to beg, and
the youngest English corps kept standing. I
think I see the honest, industrious tradesman
loaded with new taxes and
impositions, disappointed of the equivalents, drinking
water in
place of ale—(laughter)—eating his saltless pottage—(renewed laughter)—petitioning
for encouragement to his manufactories, and answered
by counter petitions. In short, I think I see the
laborious ploughman, with his corn spoiling upon
his hands for want of sale, cursing the day of his
birth, dreading the expense of his burial—(laughter)—and uncertain whether to
marry or do worse.
(Much laughter.) I think I see the incurable difficulties of landed men, fettered
under the golden
chain of equivalents, their pretty daughters petitioning for want of husbands—(laughter)—and
their sons for want of employment. I think I see
our mariners delivering up their ships to their
Dutch partners, and what through presses and
necessity, earning their bread as underlings in
the royal English navy.
And here, Mr. SPEAKER, comes the climax,
and if I were asked to point to one of
the dramatis personæ in our Canadian House
of Assembly fitted to take part in a similar
scene as is here depicted, I should unhesitatingly turn to the honorable member for
Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON), who could
more suitably than any one else I know personate Lord BELHAVEN when he exclaims :
"But above all, my Lord, I think I see our
ancient mother Caledonia, like CAESAR,
sitting in the midst of our Senate,
ruefully
looking round about her, covering herself
with her royal garment, attending to the fatal
blow and breathing out her last with et tu
quoque mi fili." (Laughter.) It must have
seemed very strange for the statesmen of
Scotland, who saw in the union of the two
kingdoms all the evidences of coming power
and grandeur, to have heard expressed such
desponding sentiments as these. (Hear,
hear.) No doubt the majority saw in the
union which they were then about to consummate, the strength which subsequently grew
out of that union, and the influence and
greatness by which it would be attended.
At the time of the union Scotland had only a
revenue of ÂŁ150,000 per annum, and last
year she contributed to the British cxchequer
nearly ÂŁ7,000,000. (Hear, hear.) This,
however, is but one instance of the benefit of
the union, which has worked to the fullest
extent as well as could possibly be desired.
If necessary I could bring forward many arguments to prove that, in the same manner,
union between different peoples who are geographically situated so as to favor it,
adds to
their strength, and makes them greater and
more powerful than they could possibly hope
to become in their several states of separation
and isolation. (Hear, hear.) I
am quite
aware, sir, that in a matter of this kind it is
exceedingly easy to make objections. There
can be nothing easier than to carp at a set of
resolutions like these. It would not be diffi
429
cult to spend hours in captious criticism
as to
the details of such a scheme as is proposed.
But I think we may fairly call on those gentlemen who criticise in a hostile spirit
a
measure of this character, to say what else
they propose to do ; for, if we cannot carry
this into practical operation now, it is quite
evident something else must be devised. I recollect that last year, when the
present administration came down to the House proposing such a plan for settling our
difficulties,
and received, as I for one imagined, the sanction of this House, I remarked that the
course of the House was a revolutionary one,
the revolution to be a peaceable one certainly,
but still a revolution. It implied the opinion
on the part of our public men, that our
present system could not be gone on with ;
and if our present system cannot be continued,
we ought not to attempt to throw out this
measure merely because it does not entirely
meet the views of every member of this
House. (Hear.) I think it would
have been
desirable that all the members from Lower
Canada should have united with us and
studied out a new system, and gone to
work earnestly to give it effect by the necessary legislation. (Hear.) I did hope
that when the measure came down and we
met this session to discuss it, it would not
have been thought necessary by any one to
organize a regular opposition. Certainly I
did not expect that honorable gentlemen like
the honorable members for Hochelaga and
Chateauguay, who have hitherto appeared to
recognise the gravity of our constitutional difficulties, or have at least
asserted that they
did, would have found it necessary to go into
unqualified opposition. I rather thought they
would have endeavored to give
effect to the
measure as the only remedial one within our
reach. (Hear, hear.) It is not because I
think the measure entirely faultless that I
propose to give it my utmost support, but because I believe every other measure to
be impossible now, and because, under the proposed
government, the country has a great future
before it. Looking at the matter
commercially, as a question of comparative cheapness,
we shall not be, to say the least, any worse off
than at the present moment. I believe we
shall be able to govern as
cheaply united as
we now do separately. I apprehend there will
be no necessity in the Local Legislature for
more than one chamber, and although this
branch of the subject has not
been discussed
in the House, and we do not know what the
propositions of the Government are to be, I
may take occasion to say that I hope they
will not think of adopting the
double system
in our local legislatures, for it will cause a
serious increase of expenditure, not attended
with a corresponding benefit. (Hear, hear.)
The honorable member for Montreal Centre
devoted a large portion of his speech last
night to the military side of the question, and
argued very strongly, from the position
of the
neighboring republic, that it
was absolutely
indispensable for us to become a military
power. Now, while I am not at all
disposed
to take the view that gentleman does of the
position of the United States relatively
towards ourselves ; while I do not think that
any large proportion of the people of the
United States have hostile inclinations
towards ourselves—though they are apt to indulge in language that is undoubtedly unbecoming
and certainly threatening; while I do
not at all anticipate they will adopt,
in so unjustifiable a manner as he seemed to expect,
any hostile measures towards us, it is not to be
denied that with a population of three millions
and a half, it will be absolutely necessary for
us to take some steps that will place us in a
more independent position. It is not honorable, it is not manly for so powerful a
colony
as this is to depend entirely on
the Mother
Country for protection. (Hear, hear.) I took
occasion to express these views last year, when
discussing the estimates, and said I hoped
the Government would bring down a measure
to pay a large portion of the expenditure attendant on the maintenance, by the Imperial
Government, of British troops among us.
(Hear, hear.) Portugal, with a population as
nearly as can be equal to our own, has a
standing army of 17,000 men. Holland, with
about the same population as ourselves at
home, but with extensive colonies abroad, has
a standing army of 57,600 men. Denmark,
with a population not quite equal to one half
what the Confederacy will possess, has an
army of 22,900 men. Now I do not think it
will be at all necessary for us to maintain a
standing army like these nations. I do not
think we are in the same position as these
countries, because our wealth is, to a great
extent, not realized. It would be hardly fair
to assess some of our new counties, where
people own nothing but their land, at the
nominal value of that land, for the purpose of
paying a large standing army; and besides we
have no colonies, no outside sources of wealth.
I think, however, we are nearly as well able,
man for man, to maintain a force necessary
for our defence as the people of
Great Bri
430
tain, and whatever measure the
Confederate
Government may propose of a moderate, reasonable nature, will, I am convinced, receive
the support of the majority of the people of
this country. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I apprehend it is not looking at all too far
forward
to think of the day when another colony to
the westward of Canada West will
come into
the union. I am of course unaware what
papers may be brought down by the Government in reference to the North-West and the
Hudson's Bay Territory, but I hope when
they do come down they will show some
progress in that direction, in raising that
magnificent country from the state in which
it now is. I hope some system will be put into
operation for extending roads and telegraphs
to that country, so as to open it up for settlement by our own young men and immigrants
coming from Europe. The question of the
North-West is most intimately connected with
our prosperity as a people, and some exception
has justly been taken to the 68th and 69th
paragraphs in the resolutions, which say :—
68. 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.
69. The communications with the North-Western Territory and the improvements required
for
the development of the trade of the Great West
with the sea-board, 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 admit.
MR. A. MACKENZIE—Yes, that is the
point my hon. friend is very much exercised
over, but he is quite as much in favor of Confederation as I am. In this paragraph,
while
it is pronounced indispensable to have the Intercolonial Railway built at once, it
is only
promised that as soon as the state of the
finances will permit, the North-West is to be
taken in hand. I think it is absolutely necessary for the prosperity of this colony
that our
canal connection with the upper lakes should
be perfected as early as possible. Our canal
system must be improved so as to accommodate the large trade that is coming from the
North-West. On the northern shores of Lake
Superior we have sources of wealth that are
perfectly inexhaustible. We read only the
other day that a mountain of iron had been
discovered close to the coast, quite sufficient
to supply the demands of the world for 500
years. We have in that locality an
abundant
supply of minerals of all kinds, and unless our
canals are made capable of carrying that
traffic, it will necessarily find channels in
another direction. (Hear.) There
is an
agitation among a portion of the community
for making a new canal from Toronto to the
Georgian Bay, and I admit it is very desirable it should be constructed, though I
do
not think it ever can be ; and even if
it could be,
it is entirely beyond our resources at the
present time. I am convinced that the true
route for a canal (if a new one should be undertaken) to the Georgian Bay is up the
Ottawa, because that would be giving a great
backbone to the country. If we had a fine
canal, capable of carrying vessels of war in
that direction, it would be a splendid means
of defence, as well as a great highway for the
commercial products of the west. Of course
I know this to be impossible at the present
time, but I think it exceedingly desirable that
we should press on the attention of the Government, with all the influence that can
be
brought to bear, the necessity for having this
69th article attended to, though I am not
inclined to go farther than that now. (Hear.)
The importance of perfecting the present and
other highways to the centre of the continent
must be so apparent to all parts of our common country, that I see no reason to fear
that
the subject will not receive due attention from
the Confederate Government at the earliest
moment. As regards the Intercolonial Railway, I have taken some little
interest in that,
as knew that I would be compelled to discuss it on approaching this subject, and,
in
examining the maps and reports of Major
ROBINSON, I find that there is no difficulty
whatever in arriving at a conclusion as to the
comparative cost. The route that is most
feasible—that alluded to by the honorable
member for Richelieu—the northern or eastern
route by the Bay of Chaleurs, is about 655
miles from Halifax to Quebec. It is already
constructed to Truro, some 55 miles from
Halifax, and from Quebec 140 miles to
Rivière du Loup. This will leave nearly 400
miles to be built. Major ROBINSON estimates
the cost of the road at about ÂŁ7,000 per mile,
or about ÂŁ2,800,000 altogether. I do not
think, judging from the statement he gives of
the grades in the road, the bridges to be built,
and the material to be found along the line,
that it is a fair inference that the cost would
equal the amount he sets down. The character of the ground over which the road will
pass is very similar to the railways of Canada.
431
It is represented to be very much of the
nature of the country through which the
Great Western runs westward of Hamilton
over a great portion of the line. The best
portion of the line is equal to the worst portions of the Great Western. Even at the
cost
of ÂŁ7,000 per mile the expense of constructing
the entire road would be a little over fifteen
millions of dollars. The proportion of that
payable by Canada would be about nine millions. I think it is extremely probable that
when we obtain the report of the engineers
sent out by our Government, it will be found
that a very large portion can be constructed
for much less than ÂŁ7,000 per mile. But,
whatever the sum may amount to, it is perfectly clear that without the road there
can
be no union of the provinces. (Hear, hear.)
It is equally clear that on that road there is a
very large proportion of the country that is
exceedingly desirable for settlement, and that
only awaits the opening up of some means of
communication with the markets. Major
ROBINSON reports that on one portion of it—
and I confess that I was not aware of the fact
until I examined the report more closely today—that there is a tract of country along
the New Brunswick portion of the line not
excelled for timber or land in any part of the
world that he ever saw. (Hear, hear.) I do
not propose taking up the time of the House
by reading from this valuable report, but
estimates are given showing the
amount of
population that these districts will support
when properly settled. He shows that the
country, if the road is once carried through,
will be settled very rapidly. I do not, however, expect that that road can
possibly pay
as a commercial enterprise for a long time to
come, and I do not desire to deceive myself
or deceive any other person on that point.
That it will be of importance more as a military work than for any other
purpose, nobody
can deny. In 1862, when I opposed the proposition to construct the road, I then felt
that
this was an argument that could fairly be used
in its favor. Military authorities are still
unanimously of opinion that its construction
would be of great importance as a means of
protection in case of
hostilities. The most
important reason, however, why it should be
constructed, in addition to the military reason,
is, that without its construction there can be
no union of the provinces, and without a
Federal union of the provinces we cannot hope
to obtain a settlement of our
sectional difficulties. The one is dependent upon the other,
and I believe the people of Canada are willing
to accept
the conclusion that this argument necessarily leads us to engage in the construction
of that road. (Hear, hear.) I do not propose
to-night to indulge much in figures relative to
what our condition will be, financially, after
this measure is carried out ; but the honorable
member for Hochelaga made some statements
that I can scarcely allow to pass. He was
understood to say that Lower Canada came
into the union without any debt, and was to
go out with thirty millions of dollars of debt,
while only some twelve millions of dollars were
expended in that section of the province.
Now, sir, there has been spent altogether on
the canals of Canada $20,813,304.03 ; on
roads and bridges in Canada West, $562,866,
and on roads and bridges in Canada East,
$1,163,829.34 ; on the government buildings
at Ottawa there have already been paid over
$1,513,412.56 ; and on railroads there have
been spent altogether $29,910,825.16, or
altogether about $53,964,236.79.
Now, I
think that one-half of this enormous amount
is fairly chargeable to Lower Canada. One-
half or a little more than that of the works
on which the money was spent are situated in
Lower Canada, and, if we include the Victoria
Bridge, it is considerably more than one-half.
Besides these, however, there are quite a number of other items which I do not take
into
account. There is the Quebec Fire Loan,
and a deficiency in a number of special funds
that I will not take any notice of at this
time. Then take it from another point of
view. From a return made to Parliament, we
find that the entire cost of improving the
navigation in Upper Canada, including the
cost of light-houses, canals, &c.,
altogether
amounted to $7,022,665.61 ; that
the revenue
derived from Upper Canada harbors and
canals has been $4,887,291.73 ;
leaving a
balance against Upper Canada of $2,145,373.88. In Lower Canada, during
the same
period, the expenditure has been $4,484,566.52, while there was a revenue of
$708,086.80, leaving a balance against Lower
Canada of $4,176,479.72. I give these
figures simply to prove that the position taken
by the honorable member for Hochelaga was
entirely incorrect ; but it would be superfluous
to do that if I were to allude to one item
which he gave when he was comparing the
amount of debt that we would have to pay
per head of our population, compared with
that of Great Britain. The amount per head
with us is about $25, and he gravely told the
House that the amount per head in Great
Britain was only $37. when every person
482
knows or ought to know that it is about
$140. Nevertheless he drew a comparison
showing that while the comparatively poor
people of Canada would have to pay $25
per head, the rich people of Great Britain had only $37 to pay. It is very remarkable,
however, that the whole of this
portion of the honorable gentleman's speech
was omitted from the report given in the
papers next morning. I do not propose to go
into these figures, but merely to refer to a few
facts to place the assertions made by that
honorable gentleman in their true light before
the House. Our debt is indeed very large,
and we could all wish that it was very much
less than it is, but we have got to bear it and
to pay it, and must do the best we can under
the circumstances. The measure of Confederation, in my opinion, will not add to nor
yet lessen it, except what may be incurred for
the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. lt is quite possible, of course, that
we
may undertake enormous expenditures for
public works calculated to open up and develop the resources of the country, and thus
soon render our debt much heavier than at present, and it will be a question for the
Govenment
that may be established after Confederation,
to decide how far it will be wise or prudent to
undertake works of great cost until we shall
have a good surplus in hand. (Hear, hear.)
One of the objections urged by the opponents
of the measure is, that it is being hurried
through too fast—that in a matter of so much
much importance to present and future generations, more time for consideration should
be
given. We have been discussing
this question
for many years in Canada West. Since the
Toronto Convention of 1859, the question has
been continuously before the people. It is now
nearly a year since it was proposed in something like its present shape in this House,
and
since that time the whole of our
newspapers
have been writing upon it continually. We
have nearly 300 newspapers in the country—
and they have been carrying on a constant
argument for or against the scheme, until
I
do not think it is possible to say or write much
more upon the subject with any advantage.
If the question is not now fully understood,
I fear it will not be much better understood
by any delay that can be now accorded.
(Hear, hear.) Another objection
raised is,
that a measure of such vast importance ought
not to be carried through without its first
being submitted to the people. I have mixed
with the people a good deal, and I have found
the opinion all but universal amongst them,
that it was expedient to put the measure
into
practical operation as soon as possible. The
peeple consider it utterly impossible to carry
on the former violent political agitation with
any benefit to the country, and the desire is
general that we should get rid of the present
constitutional difficulties and get settled down
to some quiet and permanent way of managing our governmental business and political
discussions. (Hear, hear.) The charges that
are made against members of this House about
inconsistency in advocating this measure, are
very easily met. In a country like ours, so
full of change, with a constant agitation going
on for constitutional changes and for new
laws, both local and general, it is utterly impossible that a man can remain long
in public
life without being open to charges of inconsistency ; but if these are caused by a
strong
effort to settle the difficulties under which
the country has been laboring, like the present
one, I feel certain that the success of the
measure in hand will render the charges of
only evanescent existence. I think it exceedingly desirable, even for the sake of
those
people who might reasonably feel the strongest
objections to it—I mean the English minority
of Lower Canada, and the Catholic minority
of Upper Canada—that it should be settled
at once. So long as the question remains in
its present state, there will be a constant agitation going on, and much injury may
be
done by the misrepresentations that will be
indulged in, and the misapprehensions which
will exist ; but if these people can be assured
that the scheme provides a perfect remedy
for any injustice that they might apprehend,
they will immediately concur in it. As regards
the people of Lower Canada of French origin, and who are Roman Catholics, I have
always heard it said in their favor, that a
large degree of liberalism characterizes their
conduct toward their Protestant neighbors.
(Hear, hear.) Lower Canada, I believe, was
the first portion of British territory to give
political freedom to the Jew. I believe that a
person of this persuasion sat in the Lower
Canada Legislature thirty years before the same
privileges were accorded in Great Britain.
People who charged the French Canadians
with intolerance should remember this with
some degree of favor. With regard to the
people of British origin, over the whole
Confederacy, I do not think it is at all
necessary to defend them from any
charges
of this kind. I do not think they will be inclined to persecute the people of Lower
Canada if they had it in their power ; but I ad
433
mit that it is reasonable and just to
insert a
provision in the scheme that will put it out of
the power of any party to act unjustly. If
the power that the central authority is to
have—of vetoing the doings of the Local Legislature—is used, it will be ample, I think,
to
prevent anything of that kind. But the veto
itself is objected to. It is objected
that the
elected Legislature will be rendered powerless
by the influence of the appointed Upper
House exercised over them. Well, sir, under
the British Constitution, in all British colonies, and in Great Britain itself,
there is a
certain elasticity to be presumed. Everything is not provided for, because a great
deal
is trusted to the common sense of the people.
I think it is quite fair and safe to assert that
there is not the slightest danger that the
Federal Parliament will perpetrate any injustice upon the local legislatures, because
it
would cause such a reaction as to compass
the destruction of the power thus unjustly
exercised. The veto power is necessary in
order that the General Government may have
a control over the proceedings of the local
legislatures to a certain extent.
The want of
this power was the great source of weakness
in the United States, and it is a want that
will be remedied by an amendment in their
Constitution very soon. So long as each
state considered itself sovereign, whose acts
and laws could not be called in question, it
was quite clear that the central
authority was
destitute of power to compel obedience to
general laws. If each province were able to
enact such laws as it pleased, everybody
would be at the mercy of the local legislatures, and the General Legislature would
become of little importance. It is contended
that the power of the General
Legislature
should be held in check by a veto power with
reference to its own territory, resident in the
local legislatures, respecting the application
of general laws to their jurisdiction. All
power, they say, comes from the people and
ascends through them to their
representatives, and through the
representatives to the
Crown. But it would never do to set the
Local above the General
Government. The
Central Parliament and Government must, of
necessity, exercise the supreme
power, and
the local governments will have the exercise
of power corresponding to the duties they have
to perform. The system is a new
and untried
one, and may not work so harmoniously as we
now anticipate, but there will always be power
in the British Parliament and our own to remedy any defects that may be
discovered after
the system is in operation. Altogether, I
regard the scheme as a magnificent
one, and
I look forward to the future with anticipations of seeing a country and a government
possessing great power and respectability, and
of being, before I die, a citizen of an immense empire built up on our part of the
North American continent, where the folds
of the British flag will float in triumph over
a people possessing freedom, happiness and
prosperity equal to the people of any other nation on the earth. If there is anything
that
I have always felt anxious about in this country, it is to have the British possessions
put
in such a position that we could safely
repose,
without fear of danger from any quarter,
under the banner which we believe after all
covers the greatest amount of personal freedom and the greatest amount of personal
happiness that is to be found in the world.
(Hear, hear.) And when we look to the
vast territory we have in the North-West ;
when we know that the great rivers which flow
through that territory, flow through immense
beds of coal, and that the whole country is
rich in mineral deposits of all kinds—petroleum, copper, gold and iron ; that the
land is
teeming with resources of wealth calculated to
build up an extensive and valuable commerce,
and support a powerful nation ; that all this
we can touch and seize upon the moment we
are prepared to open up a way to
reach them
and allow the settler to enter ; when we remember this, I say, I think we can look
forward with hope to a prodigious increase in
our population and an immense development
of strength and power. (Hear,
hear.) So
far our people have had to contend with the
usual difficulties common to the people of all
new countries like ours ; but now Canada is
beginning to assume a position of commercial importance, and in proportion as that
importance increases we will be able to devote
ourselves to the opening up and settlement
of the interior, and to the development of a
new nationality—to use the term that has
been so sharply criticised—in that vast western
country where there is hardly a white man
living to-day. (Hear, hear.) I do not
propose, sir, to follow the example that has
been set of speaking four or five hours upon
this subject. I proposed at the beginning
briefly to give my own views in reference to
the Confederation of these provinces, and then
to leave the ground to other honorable gentlemen. I am exceedingly desirous of seeing
the debate proceed as rapidly as
possible ;
and believing it will be necessary for us to
434
speak briefly upon the question rather
than
indulge in long set speeches, I determined to
give an example in this respect and bring my
remarks within reasonable bounds. (Hear,
hear.) I believe then, sir, in the first place,
that Confederation is desirable ; in the second,
that it is attainable ; and, in the third place,
that it is the best thing we can get, and this
last is perhaps the strongest reason of all for
accepting it. It is quite clear that we must
have a settlement of our difficulties
in some
way, and I think the scheme proposed is a
very favorable settlement of them. I think
it is more than perhaps some of us expected
at the time when the present Government was
formed to bring about a settlement ; and I do
think, sir, that it would be the greatest act
of madness that western members of this
House could perpetrate to vote against it.
(Hear, hear.) I am not, however,
afraid that
it will be voted against by them. I believe
that under it we have obtained representation
by population, that we have obtained what we
have long contended was justly due to us, that
we have obtained our legitimate influence in
framing the financial policy of the country,
and that beyond this we have obtained the
prospect of building up a great
British Union
on this continent. We should, therefore, I
think, in view of these great advantages, overlook those objections which may be regarded
as antecedent to the scheme, and endeavor
heartily to carry out the work successfully. I
shall willingly yield my support to the scheme,
and I believe it will be acceptable to the people
I represent—not only to the people of the
locality, but to those who surround me in
Upper Canada. (Cheers.)
MR. MORRIS said—Mr. SPEAKER, the
member for Lambton has, I think, set a good
example, and I shall endeavor if it be possible
to follow it. I desire to state at the outset
that this, as has been well observed by many
who have spoken upon the subject, is no new
question ; but that in one phase or another,
as was very properly stated in the narrative
given to the House by the honorable member
for Montreal West, it has been before the
people of this country from time
to time for
many years past. It is not my intention to
follow that honorable gentleman in his interesting narrative of the history of this
question,
but desire to ask the attention of the House
to the fact that this is the third time that this
question has been formally
brought before
Parliament by the Government of this country. The first occasion was, I believe, in
1858, when the then Governor
General, in
closing the session of Parliament for that
year, used in the Speech from the Throne the
following words :—" I propose, in the course
of the recess, to communicate with Her Majesty's Government and with the government
of the sister colonies, on another matter of
very great importance. I am desirous of inviting them to discuss with us the principles
on which a bond of a federal character uniting
the provinces of British North America may,
perhaps, hereafter be practicable." That
formal statement was followed by the despatch
which has been referred to frequently in this
House and during this debate, and which
was made the basis of the motion laid before
the House last session by the honorable member for South Oxford—which motion has had
the effect of causing present and, as I believe,
future great results. (Hear, hear.) I believe the appointment of the committee moved
for by that honorable gentleman will be looked back to as an era in the history of
this
country. (Hear, hear.) Now, as to the
second occasion on which this question was
formally brought before the attention of the
House and country, we have heard from those
who object to this scheme, that the people of
the country have been taken by surprise, that
they do not understand it, and that
are not prepared to discuss it. I would ask,
sir, in reference to that, if this present Government was not formed on the very basis
and
understanding that it would bring about a
settlement of this question, and if the people
of the country did not know this to be the
fact ? I hold in my hand the basis upon
which the Government was formed, in which
the following is stated as the result of a long
negotiation between the leading members of
it :—
The Government are prepared to pledge
themselves to bring in a measure next session, for the
purpose of removing existing difficulties by introducing the Federal principle into
Canada, coupled
with such provision as will permit the Maritime
Provinces and the North-West territory to be
incorporated into the same system of Government.
MR. MORRIS—I trust the honorable
gentleman will say "Hear, hear," with the
same emphasis when I read the next paragraph :—
And the Government will seek, by sending
representatives to the Lower Provinces, and
to
England, to secure the assent of those interests
which are beyond the control of our own legislation to such a measure may enable all
British
435
North America to be united under a
general
legislature based upon the Federal principle.
This, sir, was the pledge given to this
House
and country by the present Government on
its formation. It was pledged to
introduce the
Federative system into the Government of
Canada, with special provisions for the incorporation into this Federation of the
Maritime
Provinces, and it was also pledged to send
delegates to those provinces and invite them
to join us in this Federation.
(Hear, hear.)
And yet we are told forsooth that these delegates, who were thus appointed in conformity
with the pledge of the Government, were
" a self-constituted junta,"—we were told that
they had no authority for their action in the
face of the distinct obligation resting upon the
Government to send delegates to those provinces and to England with a view of bringing
about this Confederation. No self-constituted junta were those delegates who framed
these resolutions ; but they met in accordance
with a pledge given by this Government, and
must be held to have been called together with
the sanction of the Parliament of Canada,
because Parliament gave the Government,
formed to effect the Federation,
its confidence. They met also with the sanction of
the Imperial Government, as now appears
from statements and despatches in possession
of this House. (Hear, hear.) But coming
now to the present aspect of the matter, I feel
that this country has reason to be satisfied
with a scheme of so practical a nature as that
now under the consideration of the House.
I believe that the plan of union proposed will
be found to meet the exigencies of our local
position, give latitude to local
development,
and due protection to local interests, and yet
secure that general control which is essentially
necessary for the proper
government of a
country placed under the dominion of the
British Crown. (Hear, hear.) And while I
thus look upon the plan, I desire to state emphatically and clearly that it is no
new principle that the people of this country and the
members of this House are asked to give their
sanction to. The question of colonial union,
in one shape or another, is one that has engaged the attention of high intellects
and able
statesmen in England; and I think I will be
able to show to the House that the very principle we are now endeavoring to introduce
as
a principle of government in these British
North American Provinces, is one that has
received the sanction of eminent men in
England, and more than that, the sanction of
a solemn act of the Imperial Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) I will go back a few years,
when the condition of the Australian colonies
rendered it necessary for the statesmen of
Great Britain to endeavor to find a practical
solution of the difficulty of governing those
great and growing dependencies of the British
Crown. What was the practical mode adopted
when events made it necessary that they
should form a new Constitution for the
more perfect government of those colonies?
Why, the Imperial Government revived an
old committee of the Privy Council, called
the " Committee on Trade and Foreign Plantations," and referred the question to it,
calling in to its aid, as new members of the committee, Lord CAMPBELL, then Chancellor
of
the Duchy of Lancaster, Sir JAMES STEPHEN
and Sir EDWARD RYAN. The result of the
deliberations of that committee was a report
in which the eminent men who composed it
recommended the formation of a general assembly, to which the control of the general
affairs of the Australian colonies should be
entrusted, with local governments having local
jurisdiction and certain defined powers granted to them. I hold in my hands a series
of
letters on the colonial policy of England, addressed by Earl GREY to Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
which contain the report of the committee of the Privy Council that I have referred
to, and I find that the plan there suggested is analogous to the one
we are now
asked to give practical effect to in this country. (Hear, hear.) The
proposition of the
committee was that there should be a Governor General to administer the
affairs of the
Australian colonies, and that he should convene a body, to be called the General Assembly
of Australia, on receiving a request to
that effect from two or more of the Australian
legislatures ; and it was recommended that
this General Assembly, so convened, should
have the power to make laws respecting the
imposition of duties on imports and exports,
the post office, the formation of roads, canals
and railways, and a variety of other subjects.
The advantages of this plan were so manifest,
as uniting those colonies together and securing for them a better and more satisfactory
form of government than they had before enjoyed, that the report was at once adopted
by
the Privy Council, embodied in a bill and
submitted to Parliament. The bill passed
the House of Commons and reached the
House of Lords ; but while before that body
the two clauses which introduced into the
government of the Australian colonies the
same system that in effect it is proposed to
436
introduce here were dropped, and why ?
Not
because of any change of opinion on the part
of the Government on the question, nor because the House of Lords was opposed to the
principle, but because it was found on examination that they were liable to practical
objections, to obviate which amendments would
have to be introduced which there were no
means of arranging without further communications with the colonies. The Imperial
Government would not make these changes
in the measure without the consent of the
colonies, but Earl GREY by no means changed
his mind in regard to the advantages to be
derived from the plan proposed, as the following extract from one of his despatches,
written in 1850, to the Governor of New South
Wales, will show :—
I am not, however, the less persuaded
that
the want of some such central authority to
regulate matters of common importance to
the Australian colonies will be felt, and
probably at a very early period ; but when this
want is so felt, it will of itself suggest the means
by which it may be met. The several legislatures
will, it is true, be unable at once to give the
necessary authority to a General
Assembly, because the legislative power of each is confined of
necessity within its territorial limits ; but if two
or more of these legislatures should find that
there are objects of common interest for which it
is expedient to create such an authority, they will
have it in their power, if they can settle the terms
of an arrangement for the purpose, to pass acts
for giving effect to it, with clauses suspending
their operation until Parliament shall have supplied
the authority that is wanting. By such acts the
extent and objects of the powers which they are
prepared to delegate to such a body might be
defined and limited with precision, and there can
be little doubt that Parliament, when applied to
in order to give effect to an arrangement so
agreed upon, would readily consent to do so.
Some may say, Mr. SPEAKER, that this is
very true, but that the British Government
dropped the plan and did not proceed with it.
I think I shall be prepared to meet that argument, and show that it only rested in
the plan
to learn the wishes of the people of the colonies ; for you find it following the
very same
principle, reported upon favorably by the Committee on Trade and Foreign Plantations,
in
the Constitution which was subsequently
granted to the New Zealand provinces. In
1852, the plan suggested by that committee,
in regard to Australia, was carried into effect
in New Zealand, and it must be remembered
that at that time the population of New Zealand was very small, so small indeed that
one
cannot help contrasting the position of that
country
with that of British North America
at the present day ; but the statesmen of
Great Britain looked into the future of the
colony, and they decided that it would be
advisable to confer on it powers analogous to
those now sought for by us. The New Zealand Constitutional Act created six provinces,
with superintendents, provincial councils of
nine appointed by the governor, and a general
government of three estates. In the debate
on that bill, Earl GREY said that this was the
only form of government which could be conferred on a colony situated as that one
was.
He remarked :—
It was impracticable and must for many
years
continue to be so, for any general legislature to
meet all the wants of so many separate settlements at a great distance from each other
; hence
it seemed absolutely necessary to constitute provincial legislatures on which a great
portion of
the public business must devolve.
The very difficulty which was met with
there is
the one we have to overcome here. It was found
absolutely necessary to create in every province
a Local Legislature, and in
addition one central power, to whom matters common to all
might be referred. Earl GREY, in the course
of the same debate, speaking of the importance of this arrangement, said : —" There
were some subjects on which extensive inconvenience would arise, if uniformity of
legislation among the several provinces were not insured, which could only be accomplished
by a
General Legislature." And that, sir, is what
this Government now asks us to adopt. They
ask us to invite the Imperial Parliament to
create for us provincial legislatures,
to
whom shall be referred all local matters, and
that we shall have a General Legislature for
the care of those subjects of a general character which could not be so well looked
after by
the provincial legislatures. And I say, sir, that
finding as we do that this is no new question,
we can, therefore, understand why this measure
met with such ready approval from the statesmen of Britain and the high commendation
of
Her Majesty by her advisers. (Hear, hear.)
But, Mr. SPEAKER, I will now pass from the
consideration of the history of this important
movement—and I assure you that I feel the
difficulty of addressing the House on this subject, in consequence of the sense I
entertain
of the gravity of the question itself and the
momentous character of the issues it involves.
The subject, sir, is one of the very highest
importance. The destinies of this great country are bound up in it. (Hear, hear.)
The
437
Upper House has already sanctioned the
scheme, and I would take the opportunity of
remarking that I do not think that the members of that House can be rightly
charged
with not having given it that deliberate
consideration which its importance demands. I
think that they have shown a very proper example in their discussion of the question,
and
one that we may well follow. They debated
with leisure, deliberation, and a thorough appreciation of its gravity, day by day,
during
four weeks, and I therefore think that the
members of the Upper House ought not to
have been charged with " indecent haste."
MR. MORRIS—The honorable member
from Cornwall was one of those who said so.
Mr. MORRIS—I have somewhat of a recording memory, and I think the words he
unfortunately used were " indecent haste."
However, I have no intention of disputing
with my honorable friend as to the particular
words he used. I have only to express my
opinion that the time which has been already
spent on this question here and
elsewhere has
not been lost. I think it is our duty to consider this subject in all its aspects,
and believing as I do that the scheme will be adopted by this House, I feel the importance
of a
full and free discussion, in order that its merits may be put before the country.
(Hear,
hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, I desire now to state
that I support the proposal at present under
our consideration, because in my honest and
deliberate judgment I believe that this union,
if accomplished, is calculated in its practical
effects to bind us more closely
to Britain than
We could be bound by any other system.
(Hear, hear.)
A VOICE—It would put an end to the
connection.
MR. MORRIS—An honorable member
says "it would put an end to the connection."
Well, I would say to that honorable
gentleman and this House, that in my opinion there
are but two destinies before us. We have
either to rise into strength and wealth and
power by means of this union, under the sheltering protection of Britain, or
we must be
absorbed by the great power beside us. (Hear,
hear.) I believe that that is the only conclusion we can arrive at.
A VOICE—But the people are against it.
MR. MORRIS—An honorable gentleman
says the people are not in favor
of a Federal
union. But we know on the contrary, that
the people are in favor of the change.
When
the public mind is excited against any measure, is there not a means open to the people
to make known their opposition, and how is it
that the table of this House is not covered
with petitions against the scheme, if it is so
unpopular as honorable gentlemen would have
us believe ?
MR. MORRIS—An honorable gentleman
says " there are no petitions for it." And why
is it that there are not? Is it not because the
Government was constituted on the basis of
union ? (Hear, hear.) The people, through
a vast majority of their representatives in this
House, are in favor of it. If they are opposed to it they have the remedy
in their own
hands, they have the means of opposing,
but
they do not oppose it because they feel that a
change of some kind is absolutely essential,
and they have confidence in the wisdom of
those entrusted with the destiny of the country
in this crisis of its history. But I say that
the great reason why this scheme has taken
the hold that it has done upon the public men
of the province, is that they see in it an
earnest desire to perpetuate British connection.
MR. MORRIS—I am not a prophet, nor
the son of a prophet, but I am willing to
place my prediction against that of the honorable gentleman who says it will be a
delusion.
(Hear, hear.) A fear has been expressed
that the Confederation will lead to the severance of those links which bind us to
the
Mother Country. But I believe it will be
our own fault if the ties between us are
broken. With entire freedom and the right
of self-government in the fullest sense of the
word, together with the great advantage of an
improved position, and the strength and
power of Great Britian to foster and protect
us, why should we seek to change our connection, what object could we have to induce
us to form other ties? (Hear, hear.) What
have we to envy in the position of the neighboring country, burdened as it is with
the
heavy load of taxation arising from the cruel
war raging there, that we should covet that
flag? Why then should our coming together
for the purpose of union weaken our position
or diminish the tie that links us to Britain ?
It will be for honorable gentlemen who do not
believe that the union of these scattered colonies will give them strength, to prove
that,
438
contrary to all precedent, union is not strength.
(Hear, hear.) But I will state why this
union is calculated to prolong our connection
with Britain. It is well known that there
has been an entire and radical change of late
in the colonial policy of England. That policy
has been to extend to us the utmost liberty in
our relations to the Empire. What is after
all the nature of the bond which links us to
Great Britain, apart from our allegiance and
loyalty ? What is it but a Federative bond ?
That is what links us to Britain , and I feel quite
satisfied, in the words of an English publicist of
some eminence, that " the new colonial policy
is calculated to prolong the connection of the
colonies with the Mother Country." I believe
it will raise these provinces as part of the
British Empire, and so secure to us the permanency of British institutions, and bind
us
more closely to the Crown. (Hear, hear.)
I believe it will, in the words of that far-seeing
statesman, Lord DURHAM, "raise up to the
North American colonist a nationality of his
own by elevating those small and unimportant
communities into a society having some objects
of national importance, and give these inhabitants a country which they will be unwilling
to see absorbed into that of their powerful
neighbors." And, sir, our neighbors so see it.
Shortly after the visit of the Duke of NEWCASTLE to this country, attention was directed
to the question of the union of the colonies,
not only in this country, but in England and
in the United States. The New York
Courier
and Inquirer, in an article published at that
time, came to the conclusion " that the union
would, in fact, be an argument for a continuance of the existing relations between
the two
countries as a matter of policy and gratitude,
and that such a change of government could
be met with no objection of any weight."
(Hear, hear.) I invite the attention of the
honorable member for Chateauguay to that
statement. But, Mr. SPEAKER, it is a singular study, looking back over the history
of
the past, to see how this question has come
up in the experience of the various colonies.
Before the American revolution, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN suggested a plan for a
Federation of the old colonies of Britain on
this continent, which, he afterwards said, would,
according to his deliberate opinion, have prevented the severance of the connection
between
the colonies and the Mother Country. I will
quote a passage written by him after the
revolution, in which he makes allusion to this
project. He said :—
I proposed and drew up a plan for the union of
all the colonies under one government, so far as
might be necessary for defence and other important general purposes. By my plan, the
General
Government was to be administered by a President-General, appointed and supported
by the
Crown, and a General Council, to be chosen by
the representatives of the people of the several
colonies, met in the respective assemblies. The
plan was agreed to in Congress, but the assemblies of the provinces did not adopt
it, as they
thought there was too much prerogative in it,
and in England it was judged to have too much
of the democratic. The different and contrary
reasons of dislike to my plan made me suspect
that it was really the true medium, and I am still
of opinion it would have been happy for both
sides if it had been adopted. The colonies so
united would have been strong enough to have
defended themselves ; there would then have
been no need of troops from England ; of course
the subsequent pretext for taxing America, and
also the bloody contest it occasioned, would have
been avoided.
It is singular that nearly a hundred years
ago, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, looking at the
difficulties then existing between the colonies,
should have suggested a plan of union similar
to that now proposed to us, and it is a strong
proof of the wisdom of the plan now before
this House, that seeing the difficulties under
which the other colonies labored for want
of a central power, just as we now see
them, proposing this Confederation, he should
have declared that if such a plan had been
adopted then it would have prevented the
severance of the British connection.
MR. MORRIS—Is that the opinion of the
honorable member? I think that far different
views prevail in Britain. In 1858, when
British Columbia was erected into a colony,
it was found then that the Commons of Britain
had no intention of surrendering the fair possessions of Britain on this continent,
and Her
Majesty was advised to say :—
Her Majesty hopes that the new colony in the
Pacific may be but one step in the career of
steady progress, by which Her Majesty's dominions
in North America may ultimately be peopled in
an unbroken chain from the Atlantic to the Pacific
by a loyal, industrious population of subjects of
the British Crown.
(Hear, hear.) I say, sir, that there is no
evidence whatever that the statesmen of
Britain look upon this great scheme as involving the severance of our connection with
the Empire ; but these utterances, as read
here the other night by the honorable member
from Montreal Centre, prove directly the contrary. If breaking off from the Mother
439
Country were its tendency, then I, for one,
would not support it, nor would it be supported by any of those honorable gentlemen
who so strongly advocate it. I am not
afraid to say that any government which
dared to bring down such a measure would be
hurled from their places. (Hear, hear.)
But, Mr. SPEAKER, I have been led into the
discussion of this question of connection with
the Mother Country at much greater length
than I had intended, by the suggestions of hon.
members, and I will take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to a passage
from a work I have already referred to, and
in which we find an exposition of the policy
which governed the administration of Lord
JOHN RUSSELL. I find there an elaborate
argument to prove that the colonies are an
advantage to Britain, and that Britain of
course is an advantage to the colonies ; and
on the mere ground of material interest, if
there were no other—if deeper and stronger
ties did not exist as they do—I feel satisfied
that this country would not be prepared to
take the first step towards the severance of
our connection with England, and the loss
of that prestige and power which go with
every British subject to every civilized part
of the globe, enabling him to say, like the
old Roman, " I am a British citizen." EARL
GREY states that :—
The possession of a number of steady and
faithful allies, in various quarters of the globe,
will surely be admitted to add greatly to the
strength of any nation ; while no alliance between independent states can be so close
and
intimate as the connection which unites the
colonies to the United Kingdom as parts of the
Great Britith Empire. Nor ought it to be forgotten, that the power of a nation does
not
depend merely on the amount of physical force it
can command, but rests, in no small degree, upon
opinion and moral influence. In this respect
British power would be diminished by the loss of
our colonies, to a degree which it would be
difficult to estimate.
Passing on a little, we find him saying :—
To the latter [i. e. the colonists] it is no doubt
of far greater importance than to the former,
because, while still forming comparatively small
and weak communities, they enjoy, in return for
their allegiance to the British Crown, all the
security and consideration which belongs to them
as members of one of the most powerful states in
the world. No foreign power ventures to attack
or interfere with the smallest of them, while
every colonist carries with him to the remotest
quarters of the globe which he may visit, in trading or other pursuits, that protection
which the
character of a British subject everywhere confers.
(Hear, hear.) But to view the subject in
another aspect. I believe it will be found
that all the conditions are combined in the
scheme now before us, that are considered
necessary for the formation on a permanent
basis of a Federative union. I hold in my
band a book of some note on Representative Government, by JOHN STUART MILL,
and I find that he lays down three conditions as applicable to the union of independent
states, and which, by parity of
reasoning, are applicable to provinces which
seek to have a closer alliance with each
other, and also, thereby, a closer alliance
with the Mother Country. The conditions
he lays down are first,—
That there should be a sufficient amount of
mutual sympathy among the populations.
And he states that the sympathies which they
should have in common should be—
Those of race, language, religion, and, above
all, of political institutions, as conducing most to
a feeling of identity of political interest.
HON MR. HOLTON—Hear, hear.
MR. MORRIS—We possess that strong
tie of mutual sympathy in a high degree.
We have the same systems of government,
and the some political institutions. We are
part of the same great Empire, and that is
the real tie which will bind us together in
future time. The second condition laid
down is :—
That the separate states be not so powerful as
to be able to iely for protection against foreign
encroachment on their individual strength.
That is a condition which applies most forcibly in our case. (Hear, hear.) The third
condition is :— Â
That there be not a very marked inequality of
strength among the several contracting states.
MR. MORRIS—Allow me to proceed with
the extract :—
They cannot, indeed, be exactly equal in
resources ; in all federations there will be a
gradation of power among the members ; some
will be more populous, rich, and civilized than
others. There is a wide difference in wealth
between New York and Rhode Island.
Just as there is between Canada and Prince
Edward Island. I trust I have satisfied my
hon. friend from Hochelaga (Hon. Mr.
DORION), that Mr. MILL'S views are entirely
applicable to our position. (Hear, hear.)
I now proceed to state my belief that we
will find great advantages in the future, in
440
the possession of a strong Central Government and local or municipal parliaments,
such as are proposed for our adoption. I
believe the scheme will be found in fact and
in practice—by its combination of the better
features of the American system with those
of the British Constitution—to have very
great practical advantages. I shall read an
extract from an article in the London
Times, written in 1858, hearing on this
subject, and which brings very clearly into
view the distinction between the system
which has been preposed for our adoption,
and that which has been adopted in the
States. The great weakness of the American
system has lain in the fact that the several
states, on entering the union, claimed independent jurisdiction ; that they demitted
to
the Central Government certain powers, and
that they claimed equal and sovereign
powers with regard to everything not so
delegated and demitted. The weaknesses
and difficulties of that system have been
avoided in the project now before us, and
we have the central power with defined and
sovereign powers, and the local parliaments
with their defined and delegated powers, but
subordinated to the central power. The
article says :—
It is quite clear that the Federal Constitution
of the United States of America forms a precedent
which cannot possibly be followed in its principles
or details by the united colonies, so long as they
remain part of the dominions of the Imperial
Crown. The principle of the American Federation is, that each is a sovereign state,
which
consents to delegate to a central authority a
portion of its sovereign power, leaving the remainder which is not so delegated absolute
and
intact in its own hands. This is not the position
of the colonies, each of which, instead of being
an isolated sovereign state, is an integral part of
the British Empire. They cannot delegate their
sovereign authority to a central government,
because they do not possess the sovereign authority to delegate. The only alternative
as it seems
to us would be to adopt a course exactly the
contrary of that which the United States adopted,
and instead of taking for their motto E Pluribus
Unum, to invert it by saying In Uno Plura.
(Hear, hear.)
HON MR. HOLTON—What are you
reading from ?
MR. MORRIS—From the London
Times,
and I quote the article on account of the
force of the remarks themselves, apart from
the standing of the journal in which they
appear :—
The first steps towards a Federation of the
American Colonies would thus be to form them
all into one state, to give that state a completely
organized government, and then to delegate to
each of the colonies out of which that great
state is formed, such powers of local government
as may be thought necessary, reserving to the
Central Government all such powers as are not
expressly delegated. The Government of New
Zealand forms a precedent well worthy the attention of those who are undertaking this
arduous
negotiation.
And I cannot doubt that the framers, of this
Constitution have studied the precedent as
well of the proposed Constitution of Australia, as that of the Constitution of New
Zealand which has been in use for ten years
past.
MR. MORRIS—I have not been there—
(laughter)—but I know that from a small
population of 26,000 in all the New Zealand
provinces when that Constitution was given
them, they have risen in ten years to a population of 250,000—indicating certainly
growth and progress.
HON. MR. HOLTON—As we have grown
in spite of that terribly bad union you wish
to do away with.
MR. MORRIS—True, we have grown and
progressed under the present union. But
the hon. gentleman knows the heart-burnings we have had in the past. I have not
been in Parliament so long as that honorable
gentleman. But I recollect, when I first
took a seat in this House, the state of excitement which then prevailed, and which
continued, making government practically impossible. For we had governments maintaining
themselves session after session by
majorities of one or two—shewing that it
was impossible for any government to conduct public affairs with that dignity and
success with which a government ought to
conduct them. But, as I have stated, I
think the Conference has been exceedingly
happy in the plan they have submitted for
our adoption. A community of British freemen as we are, deliberately surveying our
past as well as our present position, and looking forward to our future, we in effect
resolve
that we will adhere to the protection of the
British Crown ; that we will tell the
GOLDWIN SMITH school—these who are
crying out for cutting off the colonies—
that we will cling to the old Mother Land
—(hear, hear)—we desire to maintain our
connection ; we have no desire to withdraw
441
ourselves from that protection we have so
long enjoyed ; but we desire, while remaining under that protection, to do all that
lies in our wer for our self-defence, and
for the development of all the great interests
which Providence has committed to our
trust ; and we seek at the hands of the British Parliament such legislation as will
enable
us to accomplish these great ends for the
whole of British America. (Hear, hear.)
Why, what a domain do we possess! We
have over three millions of square miles of
territory—large enough, certainly, for the
expansion of the races which inhabit this
country; and our desire is, in the language
of a late colonial minister—language which,
I believe, well expresses the views and sentiments of the people of all these provinces—
we would approach the British people, the
British Government, and our Sovereign, with
this language : "We desire, by your aid,
with your sanction and permission, to attempt
to add another community of Christian freemen to those by which Great Britain confides
the records of her Empire, not to pyramids
and obelisks, but to states and communities,
whose history will be written in her language." That was the language of the
Colonial Secretary, Sir BULWER LYTTON,
when he proposed and carried out the setting
off of a new colony on the Pacific shore—
language certainly which indicated a firm
and sure reliance in the power and efficacy
of British institutions—that these institutions would be found capable of all the
expansion requisite to meet the circumstances
of a new country, and of any body of British
freeman to whom the care of these institutions maybe entrusted. (Hear, hear.) But
I fear I have been tempted to forget the
excellent example of my honorable friend
from Lambton. (Cries of "No, no," "go
on.") I desire very briefly to notice two or
three immediate advantages which, in my
judgment, would be derived from the
consummation, under one central power
with local municipal parliaments, of a union
of the Canadas with the Maritime Provinces.
Let us glance at what is their position, in
relation to the great military power which
is rising on the other side of the lines. Let
us see what they are thinking of us there.
One of their eminent statesmen suggested
some years ago, that they should cultivate
our acquaintance, while we were still
"incurious of our destiny." But we have
passed that state. We have become curious
of our destiny, and are seeking, as far as we
can, to place it on a sure and certain basis.
(Hear, hear.) Here is the view taken of
our position by an American writer :—
They have now no comprehensive power
that embraces the interests of all—that acts
on the prosperity of the seacoast and interior
—of commerce and agriculture where they are
seemingly rivals—that gives uniformity in tariffs
and taxes, and the encouragement that shall be
entrusted to the fishing, mining and other great
interests.
That is a view of the position of these
provinces to which I commend to the attention
of my hon. friends from Chateauguay and
Hochelaga. I ask, is it not a correct view ?
Is not that the position in which we have
long been ? And I believe the result of this
union will be to do away with that state of
things. (Hear, hear.) I believe that when
these colonies are combined, acting in
concert, and quickened and invigorated by a
feeling of mutual dependence and interest,
the tendency will be to increase their wealth
and manufactures, and general strength.
And, sir, I am satisfied one of the great
advantages of this union will be found in this
that we will be raised above our sectionalisms,
and come to feel and to act as the citizens
of a great country, with destinies committed
to us such as may well evoke the energies of
a great people. But I desire to point out
another practical advantage which, I think,
is of no mean or slight moment; and it
is this :—Bound as we are to England,
by the closest ties, and yet enjoying our own
government, England is still compelled to
act for us in all matters of an international
nature. But, when we have for all these
British provinces one General Government,
able to take an oversight of the whole, and
to attend to all their various interests, we
will be able to represent to Britain on
behalf of the whole, with a force and power
we have never before been able to use, what
these interests are ; we will be able to press
them home on the attention of British
statesmen in such a manner as will lead them
to appreciate, and seek to protect those interests in their negotiations with foreign
powers. I would allude, as an illustration
of what I mean, to the Reciprocity Treaty,
and I cannot refrain from reading a very
striking extract from a report presented to
the United States House of Representatives,
in 1862, from the Committee of Commerce on
the Reciprocity Treaty. I ask the attention
442
of the House to this extract, as shewing how
the United States have been able to take
advantage of our isolated condition—our want
of central power and authority—to gain for
themselves advantages in the negotiation of
that treaty, such as they could not have obtained or even sought, had we been in a
position to present all the advantages, in
negotiations with the United States, which
Canada and the Maritime Provinces as a
whole could present. Instead of the American statesmen having to negotiate with the
separate governments of separate provinces,
they would have to negotiate with the combined interests of British North America.
I read this extract as a very striking one,
and as entitled, on account of the source
from which it comes, to some weight. In
the report I have referred to, the natural
results of the treaty and of its abrogation
are thus spoken of :—
A great and mutually beneficial increase in our
commerce with Canada was the natural and primary result of the treaty. Many causes
of irritation were removed, and a large accession to our
trade was acquired, through the treaty, with the
Maritime Provinces. Arguments founded upon
the results of the treaty as a whole, with the various provinces. have a valid and
incontrovertible
application against the unconditional and complete
abrogation of the treaty, so far as it refers to
provinces against which no complaint is made.
The isolated and disconnected condition of the
various governments of these provinces to each
other, and the absence of their real responsibility
to any common centre, are little understood. No
fault is found with the acts of Newfoundland,
Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. These separate provinces and that
of Canada have each a separate tariff and legislature, and neither of them is accountable
to or
for any other. An abrogation of the treaty, as a
whole, would therefore be a breach of good faith
towards the other provinces, even if it were expedient to adopt such a course towards
Canada,
but no advantages gained by the treaty with the
Maritime Provinces can be admitted as offsets in
favor of Canada. Each province made its own
bargain, and gave and received its separate equivalent.
(Hear, hear.) This is an instance of some
moment, and I believe the same principles
will be found to apply to all those questions on which, in the future history of
this Confederation, it will be found necessary to confer with foreign governments,
through the Mother Country. No longer
detached and isolated from each other, we
will be able to present a combined front,
and to urge the advantages which may
be derived from the exhaustless fisheries of
the Lower Provinces, as well as those
afforded by Canada. (Hear, hear.) The
defence question has been alluded to very
frequently in this debate. I think there
really cannot be a question that it would be
for the advantage, not only of Britain, but of
each one of these provinces, that on such
subjects as the militia, and on all kindred
questions, such as those relating to aliens,
the observance of neutrality and like subjects, there should be a general and uniform
action ; that, seeing the action of any one of
the colonies might involve the parent state
in war, there should not be separate and
distinct action, but one uniform action, on
all that class of national and international
subjects, throughout the whole of the
British Provinces. I cannot help thinking
that in practice an immense advantage would
be derived from the introduction of such a
system. It is not my forte, as that of some
hon. gentlemen, to speak with regard to the
defence question. There are other hon.
members who understand that subject
thoroughly, and will no doubt deal with it in
a satisfactory manner. But I cannot help
thinking that a uniform system of militia
and marine for British North America would
be powerfully felt in the history of this continent.
Mr. MORRIS—The hon. gentleman no
doubt listened with interest to the speech of
the President of the Council, and he might
have learned from that, that we had a navy
of which any country might be proud, devoted to the pursuits of honest industry,
and which causes us to rank even in
our infancy as the third maritime power
in the world. And should the time of need
come—as I trust it never may—I am satisfied that in the Gulf, on the St. Lawrence,
and on the lakes, there would be enough of
bold men and brave hearts to man that navy.
(Hear, hear.) I would further remark, that
under the proposed system, local interests
would be much better cared for. I am
satisfied the local interests of all the separate
provinces would be better cared for, if their
legislatures were divested of those large subjects of general interest which now absorb
—and necessarily so—so much of our time
and attention. (Hear, hear.) I will now
only mention briefly one or two incidental
advantages which I believe will be found to
accrue in the future from our position as
443
united provinces of the British Empire. I
will not at this late hour of the night, as I see
the House is wearied—(cries of " No. no,"
"Go on.")—I will not quote any figures to
shew the extent of intereolonial trade that will
spring up with the Maritime Provinces and
with the West India provinces. Some years
ago there was, as mercantile men well know,
aim-ge trade conducted with the West India
Islands, which, from various circumstances,
has almost entirely ceased. I believe that,
when the provinces are united, not only will
a large trade spring up in those agricultural
and other products which are now su plied
to the Lower Provinces from the nited
States, but a trade will also be established
with the West India Islands. Some time
ago I took the trouble to look into the figures,
and I was surprised to find how large a trade
was conducted twenty-five years ago with
those islands; and l believe that, by carrying out this union, we will have facilities
for establishing such commercial relationsas
will lead to the reopening of that valuable
trade. .
Mr. MORRIS—The hon. gentleman is
very anxious to extend the Confederation.
(Laughter.) I have known him for long
years as a Federalist, and I believe he is only
sorry that we do not go a little faster. I am
satisfied that when Confederation is accomplished, he will be one of its most hearty
supporters. (Hear, hear.) I would now,
Mr. SPEAKER, desire to quote a few words
from a lecture delivered some years ago by
Principal DAWSON, of Montreal, awell-knowu
Nova Scotian, and who is distinguished for
his thorough acquaintance with the Maritime
Provinces. He says :—
Their progress in population and wealth is slow,
in comparison with that of Western America,
though equal to the average of that of the American Union, and more rapid than that
of the older
states. Their agriculture is rapidly improving,
manufacturing and mining enterprises are extending themselves, and railways are being
built to
connect them with the more inland parts of the
continent. Like Great Britain, they possess important minerals in which the neighboring
parts
of the continent are deficient. and enjoy the utmost facilities for commercial pursuits.
Ultimately, therefore, they must have with the United
States, Canada and the fur countries, the same
commercial relations that Britain maintains with
Western, central, and northern Europe. Above
all, they form the great natural oceanic termination of the great valley of the St.
Lawrence; and
although its commerce has hitherto, by the skill
and in ustry of its neighbours, been drawn across
the natural barrier which Providence has placed
between it and the seaports of the United States,
it must ultimately take its natural channel; and
then not only will the cities on the St. Lawrence
be united by the strongest common interests, but
they will be bound to Acadia by ties more close
than any merely political union. The great
thoroughfares to the rich lands and noble scenery
of the west, and thence to the sea-breezes and
saltwater of the Atlantic, and to the great seats
of industry and art in the old world, will pass
along the St. Lawrence, and through the Lower
Provinces. The surplus agricultural produce of
Canada will find its nearest consumers among the
miners, shipwrights, mariners, and fishermen of
Acadia; Â and they will send back the treasures of
their mines and of their sea. This ultimate fusion
of all the populations extending along this great
river, valley and estuary, and the establishment
throughout its course of one of the principal
streams of American commerce, seems in the nature of thin s inevitable; and there
is already a
large field or the profitable employment of laborers and capital in accelerating this
desirable
result.
Such, I believe. Mr. SPEAKER, will be found
to be the results of the steps now being
taken. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, I
would desire to call attention to the advantages we will enjoy in consequence of our
being able to do something to secure the
development of the immense tract of country
lying beyond us—Central British North
America, popularly known as the Great
North West. If Canadians are to stand
still and allow American energy and enterprise to press on as it is doing towards
that
country, the inevitable result must be that
that great section of territory will be taken
possession of by the citizens of the neighboring states. The question is one of great
interest to the people of Canada. Years
ago Canadian industry pushed its way up
the valle of the Ottawa to the Great North
West. In 1798 the North-West Company
had in its employment not less than 12,000
persons ; and there is no reason in the world
why the trade which was then carried on
should not be reëstablished between the
North-West and Canada. No insuperable
obstacles stand in the way. A practicable
route exists which can be used by land and
by water, and there is no reason why the
necessary steps should not be taken to secure
the development of the resources of that
country and making them tributary to
Canada. (Hear, hear.) I think it was a
wise foresight on the part of the gentlemen
444
who prepared the plan now before us, that they aid
this down as one of the principal features of the scheme—that they regarded
the development of the North-West as necessary for the security and the
promotion of the best interests of British North America. (Hear, hear.)
If the House will bear with me, Mr. SPEAKER, I would ask hon. members
to consider for a moment the extent of the territory there possessed. An
American writer, who estimates it at 2,500,000 square miles, puts it in
this way :—
How large is that? It is fifteen and a half times
lar er than the State of California; about thirty-eight times as large as the
State of New York; nearly twice as large as the thirty-one States of
the Union; and, if we omit the territory of Nebraska, as large as all our
states and territories combined.
Between the settled portions of Canada and the Red
River country, there are areas of arable land, ranging from 200,000 acres
downwards, with facilities for opening up communication by land and
water; and I do not wonder that the late Sir GEORGE SIMPSON, while
making his celebrated journey round the world, in passing from Montreal
to Red River, and thence overland to the Pacific, should be struck with the
extraordinary advantages of this country, and that on one occasion,
when surveying the magnificent expanse of inland lake and river
navigation, in the midst of a fertile country, he should exclaim—
Is it too much for the eye of philanthropy to
discern through the vista of futurity this noble BtrĂŞam, connecting, as it
does, the fertile shores of two spacious lakes, with crowded steamboats
on its bosom, and populous towns on its borders ?
(Applause) Sir GEORGE SIMPSON was not a man likely
to be carried away by mere impulse; but viewing the prospect before
him, he could not refrain from .breaking forth in the glowing language I
have quoted. Then glance for a moment at the Saskatchewan, the
Assiniboine and the Red River country, with the Red River settlement of
10,000 people, forming the nucleus for a future province—a nucleus
around which immigration could be drawn so as to build up in that distant
region a powerful section of the Confederation. It is a country which
embraces 360,000 square miles, and the Red River, Lake Winnipeg, and
the Saskatchewan afford a navigable
water line of 1,400 miles. And what is the
character of the country? On this point I would quote Professor HIND, who
describes the valley of the Red River and a large portion of the
country on its afiuent, the Assiniboine, as "a paradise of fertility."
He could speak of it in no other terms " than of astonishment and admiration."
He adds that as an agricultural country the character of the soil could
not be surpassed,
affirming in proof of this assertion :—
That all kinds of farm produce common in Canada
succeed admirably in the District of Assiniboia, and that as an agricultural
country it will one day rank among the most distinguished.
Nor are there any difficulties of climate. If any
hon. member will take the trouble to examine that excellent work in our
library,
Blodgett's Climatology, he will
find it stated as having been demonstrated that the climate of the
North-West coast, and of the interior towards Lake Winnipeg, is quite the
reverse of that experienced in the same latitude on the Atlantic, and
is highly
favorable to occupation and settlement." (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, I
desire now to place before the House the extent of the territory we
possess in the Atlantic and Pacific Provinces. The Atlantic Provinces
comprise Canada East, with an area of 201,989 square miles; Canada West, 148,832;
New Brunswick, 27,700; Nova Scotia, 18,746 ; Prince Edward Island,
2,134; Newfoundland, 35,913—together 435,314 square miles, to which add
the territory of Labrador, 5,000 miles, making a grand total of 440,314 square
miles, embracing a population of something like 4,000,000 of souls. The Pacific
Provinces are British
Columbia, containing 200,000 square miles, and Vancouver's Island,
with 12,000 square miles; and there is the territory of Hudson's Bay
(including Central British North America), with 2,700,000 square miles. (Hear,
hear.) I desire now, sir, to thank the House for the patience with
which hon. members have listened to my remarks. I rose at a late hour
in the evening, and seeing that the House was wearied when I commenced, I
did not wish to prolong the debate. I have thus shortened very much the
remarks I intended to offer, and have treated only hurriedly and
casually on many points which might have engaged further attention under other
circumstances. I desire to express my
confident opinion, before closing, that
445
this great scheme is not one which ought to
be factiously met. For if ever there was a
plan submitted to any legislature which
deserved tobe treated with an avoidance of
party feeling, it is this. (Hear, hear.) It
is evident that in the House there are a
large majority in favor of the plan, and while
it is their duty to concede to the minority—
what is the right of the minority—the
opportunity of stating their objections to it,
it is, on the other hand, an evidence of the
strongest kind that the majority, in supporting this measure, believe they are doing
the
best for their country, and that it is a measure
which meets the popular sanction and approval, when they avow by their own act
their readiness to return to the people
for their approval of the steps they have
thought proper to take. (Hear, hear.) It
is the duty of those who are in favor
of the scheme—and I believe there are
a very large majority who see in it
advantages of the most substantial kind—I
am firmly persuaded that it is a duty they
owe to those who sent them to th's House,
it is a duty they owe to the country, it is a
duty they owe to the great empire of which
we form a part, to bring this scheme to a
speedy consummation. I am glad, sir, in
taking a retrospect of the three eventful
years during which I have had a seat in this
House, to reflect that on the first occasion
I had the honor of addressing the House, in
1861, I declared myself in favor of an analogous scheme to that we are new discussing;
that I then expressed myself in favor of a
general government of the British North
American Provinces, with separate local
legislatures, in the following terms, when
speaking of the question of representation
by population :—
He had confidence that men would be found able
to meet the question fairly and to come down
with a measure satisfactory to the country. It
might be that that measure would be one which
would bring together the different provinces of
British North America into a union, formed on
such a basis as would give to the peeple of each
province the right to manage their own internal
affairs, while at the same time the whole should
provide for the management of matters of common
concern, so as to secure the consolidation of the
Britannic power on this continent.
I have held this opinion ever since I have
had the capacity of thinking of the destiny
of this country, and I would beg to be
allowed further to quote language I used in
1859. Reviewing at that time, as I have
done hurriedly to-night, the extent of our
possessions, and the great advantages we
would be able to obtain by the union now
pro ed to be carried into effect, I spoke
as follows, in a lecture on the Hudson Bay
and Pacific territory, delivered in Montreal:
With two powerful colonies on the Pacific, with
another or more in the region between Canada
and the Rocky Mountains, with a railway and a
telegraph linking the Atlantic with the Pacific,
and our inland and ocean channels of trade
becoming a great thoroughfare of travel and of
commerce, who can doubt of the reality and the
accuracy of the vision which rises distinctly and
clearly defined before us, as the great Britannic
Empire of the North stands out in all its grandeur, and in all the brilliancy of its
magnificent
future! Some hard matter-of-fact thinker, some
keen utilitarian, some plodding man of business,
may point the finger of scorn at us and deem all
this but an empty shadow—but the fleeting fantasy of a dreamer. Be it so. Time is
a worker
of miracles—ay, and of sober realities, too; but
when we look east and west and north; when we
cause the goodly band of the north-men from
Acadia, and Canada, and the North-West, and the
Columbia, and the Britain of the Pacific, to defile
before us, who are the masters of so vast a territory, of a heritage of such surpassing
value; and
when we remember the rapid rise into greatness,
as one of the powers of the earth, of the former
American colonies, and look back over their
progress, who can doubt of the future of these
British Provinces, or of the entire and palpable
reality of that vision which rises so grandly before
us of this Great British Empire of the North—
of that new English-speaking nation which will at
one and no distant day people all this northern
continent—a Russia as has been well said, it may
be, but yet an English Russia, with free institutions, with high Civilization, and
entire freedom
of speech and thought—with its face to the south
and its back to the pole, with its right and left
resting on the Atlantic and the Pacific, and with
the telegraph and the iron road connecting the
two oceans?
(Applause) Such, Mr. SPEAKER, is the
vision which is present to myself and to
many others who, like myself, whether in
Upper or Lower Canada, are " to the manor
born," and whose all and whose destiny is
here. I know and feel, and am assured that
if the people of these British Provinces are
but true to themselves, and if the statesmen
of Britain now set aright their part in this
great crisis of our national history, this vision
will be realized. We will have the pride to
belong to a great country still attached to
the Crown of Great Britain, but in which,
notwithstanding, we shall have entire freedom of action and the blessings of responsible
446
self-government; and I am satisfied we will
see as the results of this union all that we
could possibly imagine as its fruits. (Hear,
hear.) Thanking the House for their kind
attention, I have only to say further, that I
believe the plan under which we seek to ask
the Parliament of Great Britain to legislate
for us is a wise and judicious one, and which
not only deserves, but which I am confident
will receive, the hearty support of the representatives and of the people of this
province,
and to which I, for one, shall feel it my duty
to give my warmest and most cordial sanction.
(Loud cheers.)
This individual participated in:
