446
FRIDAY, February 24, 1865.
MR. BURWELL, in resuming the debate
upon Confederation, said-—Mr. SPEAKER,
before allowing a measure of this importance
to go through the House, I feel it my duty
to ofler a few words upon it. The question
of Federation is not a new one to my constituents. Ever since the Reform Convention
in Toronto, in 1859, they have been quite
familiar with it. At the general election in
1861, in an address to my constituents, I
stated that in case we should not be able to
get representation by population, I would
be in favor of Federation of the two provinces of Canada, with a Local Government
in
each province and a Central Government to
administer matters common to both, provision to be made to admit the Eastern Provinces
and the North-West territory, should they
see fit to enter the union, of course with the
sanction of Great Britain. And at the last
general election in 1863, I addressed them
in precisely the same language. (Hear,
hear.) The agitation for constitutional
changes had been so general and persistent
for a length of time in Upper Canada, that
it was impossible to all appearance to stave
off much longer some action in reference to
the difficulty. Efforts were made at different
times to secure represention by population as a remedy, but without success.
The nearest approach to a remedy for the
difficulty under which Upper Canada labors,
is, in my opinion, the resolutions of the
Quebec Conference now before the House,
and the question for consideration is whether
they are acceptable to us and our people, or
not. The principle of Federation, in my view
has been a great success on this continent
I think that, if we look to the history of the
United States, it cannot be denied that there
as a principle of free government, it has
been successful; and I doubt whether history records a like example, under ordinary
circumstances, of such great success and
prosperity. The present trouble in that
country—the war now raging there—is not in
my opinion attributable to the federative
form of government adopted there. I attribute it to different causes altogether
which might have existed, had it been.
monarchical or a despotic government that
prevailed. Slavery existed there and was
the cause of the war. It was opposed to the
spirit of the age, and had to be eradicated
(Hear, hear.) There were, no doubt, other
causes which had some inffuence in bringing
it about; such, for instance, as the desire of
the North for a high protective tariff to en
courage its domestic manufactures, and the
opposing interest of the South in favor of
free trade, so that, manufacturing nothing
itself, it might have all the benefit of cheap
importations. These, sir, I conceive were
the two great causes of the difficulty in the
United States. Now, in forming a Federal
Government in these provinces, I think we
should look for an example to a people who
are similar to us in situation, habits and
customs. I find that example in the people
of the United States. (Hear, hear.) My
honorable friend from Lambton cited the
example of a great many other countries
but they were not not perhaps accustomed so much to free government as the
United States; for it was not Federation
that first gave them liberty, the old colonies
of New England enjoying a large share of
liberty long before the adoption of Federal
Government by them. (Hear, hear.) The
plan preposed by the Conference at Quebec
is, in my opinion, too restrictive, as regards
the power of the Local Legislatures. It
gives too much power to the General Government. I am one of those, sir, who believes
that the appointment of the deputy or
lieutenant governors should not be in the
gift of the General Government, but that
they should be elected by the people
(Hear, hear.) I believe, too, that the
members of the Legislative Council should
be elected by the people. (Hear, hear.)
There is no element in this country— no.
class in this country, nor do I think it
possible to create a class—the counterpart of
the class that composes the House of Lords
in England. The British Government is
undoubtedly the best-balanced government
in the world; but we cannot exactly copy
the system here, because of the absence of
the class to which I have referred. The
nearest approach that we can have to the
House of Lords is, in my opinion, an
elective Legislative Council, the members
of which shall hold office for an extended
period. My hon. friend from Lambton, in
the very excellent speech he made to the
House yesterday, said that if both Houses
were made elective their circumstances and
powers would be so similar that neither
would be a check upon the other; but I
contend that if we had an elective
Upper House, with the members representing larger constituencies and elected
for a longer period than the members of the
Lower House, it would be less liable to be
influenced by every change of public opinion,
and conservative enough in its character to
be a wholesome check upon rash and hasty
legislation. (Hear, hear.) But although
the scheme now proposed does not make
these provisions, there are many things in
it that I can approve of. That the General
Government should have control over many
matters committed to it by the scheme is, I
think, quite right. The customs is a branch
of the administration that has ramifications
throughout the whole country, and it and
the appointments connected with it should
be in the hands of the General Government.
So, too, with regard to the post office, which
affects the whole country, and should be
under the same control. The militia and all
matters connected with the defence of the
country should also be placed under the control of the Central Government; and the
scheme would be defective if it were otherwise: I think there is no question more
important now to us than that of defence.
A military spirit seems to have seized the
people all over the continent, and promises
to control their action for a long time. I
think it wise, therefore, that provision should
be made by which the General Government
can put the country into a state of preparation for whatever may occur. It is well
also,
in my opinion, that the judges should be
appointed by that government. I like to
see an independent judiciary, and believe
that this will be secured to us by the mode
proposed in these resolutions. (Hear, hear.)
It is hardly necessary for me to make allusion to the local governments ; there
are so many propositions connected with
them, and so little is known of what
their constitution will be, that it is hardly
possible indeed for me to refer to them. I
would like to be informed as to their charac—
ter and authority before speaking of them.
My opinion is, that they should have certain
powers defined in written constitutions, so
that beyond these powers they would have
no right to legislate, and if they did, that
their legislation should be set aside and
rendered null and void by the superior
courts. I believe that the British Constitution is of that elastic character that
the
institutions which exist under it can be made
most popular and still work well. I think
history has proved this to be the case.
Under it we have kept sacred the great
principle of responsible government which
we now enjoy, and under which ministers
of the Crown hold seats in and are responsible to the Legislature. Well, we want no
change in that principle; for I think it is
the greatest safeguard to liberty, not only in
England, but the world. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to the executive head of the
General Government, appointment by the
Crown as at present is the only mode that is
desirable. It will not do to tamper with
or change this provision of our government ; for if we become detached from and
cease to be a dependency of the British Crown, what do we become? We
must necessarily become independent, and
when that state of political existence is
reached, we know not what will follow.
(Hear, hear.) The question may be asked,
is the Constitution foreshadowed in these
resolutions such as can be accepted by the
people of this country ? Is there a possibility, if it be defective, of bettering
or amending it? I think that in many of its details
it has a great deal that is good; and if, in
portions where it is desirable, it cannot be
amended, I think, nevertheless, that the
people of this country would hardly be
justified in rejecting it. (Hear, hear.) There
is no doubt that all history shows that
nothing in the way of government is ever
considered a finality. Changes are continually going on in all forms of government
The political history of our own country
even is proof of this fact. At the time of
the union of these provinces, the members
of the Legislative Council were appointed
by the Crown, but since then there has been
a change, and they are now elected by the
people. At that time, too, the wardens of
448
our district councils were appointed by
the Crown ; that principle was subsequently changed, and they are now elected
by the popular vote. It is impossible, sir,
to take this question of Confederation into
consideration, without also taking into account
the question of the Intercolonial Railway. I
have on several occasions spoken against the
construction of that road at the expense of
Canada. I never could see that any advantage would be derived from it, unless in a
military point of view; and as a military
work I did not think it worth the large sum
it would cost. But if commercial advantages
could be pointed out equivalent to the cost
of it, then I admit its construction might
become a subject of consideration. (Hear,
hear.) I think that free intercourse and free
trade with 800,000 of our fellow-subjects in
the Lower Provinces are not light and unimportant considerations. They are, in my
opinion, something like an equivalent for the
expenditure—(hear, hear)—and if there are
no graver difficulties than the building of
this road in the scheme of the Quebec Conference, then they may all be easily surmounted.
(Hear, hear.) That there will
be great expense in the construction of the
road, and in connection with Confederation,
admits scarcely of a doubt. But we have
come to a period in our history when, for
various reasons, expense has become necessary. We must have some change in our
Constitution, and whether it be attended by
additional expense or not, it is indispensable
in order to remove the evils under which
the country has so long labored. (Hear,
hear.)
MR. M. C. CAMERON said — Mr.
SPEAKER, I approach the discussion of this
subject in no degree of diffidence or temerity,
because I apprehend that it signifies very
little what I or any other hon. member may
say, it will receive but little attention, so far
as tending to change in the slightest degree
the opinions that hon. members may have
in reference to the project of Confederation.
(Hear, hear.) Nevertheless, though no
weight may attach to anything that I may
say, I feel it my duty to the constituency
that I represent, and to the province at
large, to enter my protest against the passage
of this resolution in its present shape.
(Hear, hear.) I am in favor of a union of
the provinces, but it must be such a union
as will benefit and protect the interests of
the provinces at large ; and I feel that those
interests cannot be, protected and benefited
if we are going into the extravagances that
must necessarily follow such a union as is
now contemplated. (Hear, hear.) The
question has been considered in its political,
in its commercial, in its defensive or military
aspects, and in its sectional aspects, and very
little that can be said by any hon. gentleman
now will be considered new; and he who
speaks at this stage of the discussion will
speak at a disadvantage, because he can say
very little that is new. He may speak on
these matters that have been discussed in
new language, and so make some little
change, but as for the material positions,
they have been already discussed, and by
honorable gentlemen very ably discussed,
I understand that the position which the
Government of this country assumes, in
introducing this measure with the haste in
which they are doing it, declining to allow
the people to have anything to say upon it,
except through their representatives, who
were not sent here to vote on any such
measure as this, is that this country had
arrived at such a stage that it was impossible
for the affairs of the Government to be
carried on, unless some change took place,
and that of a radical character. In that
assertion I do not agree. I dissent from it
entirely, and I feel that it was not the
necessities of this country that have brought
about these resolutions, but that it was the
factious conduct of honorable gentlemen on
the floor of this House. If that factious conduct had not been persevered in, there
would
have been no necessity for the consideration
that we are now undertaking. (Hear, hear.)
I feel that I am making a statement the
correctness of which cannot be denied; and
I shall refer to the language of the Hon.
President of the Council, even since this
matter has been under consideration, to
establish it. (Hear, hear.) It has been
stated by him that the affairs of this country
had come to a dead-lock. It has been stated
that we were drifting into inevitable ruin;
that our debt was so fast increasing, that it
was absolutely impossible to stem the torrent,
or close the flood-gates of the treasury that
that had been opened by the mismanagement of hon. gentlemen sitting alongside of
the President of the Council at the present
time. Understand me: I am not charging
those hon. gentlemen with extravagance; I
am simply referring to the language used
by the Honorable President of the Council. But on a recent occasion he spoke
of this union as a matter to be proud of, and
449
said that every one of the provinces that
was entering into the union would enter it
with a surplus of revenue, and were, therefore, not obliged to go into it from necessity;
that they did not enter into the partnership
as a bankrupt concern, but, on the contrary,
would commence business in a most
prosperous condition. Now, if that were
the case, what is the necessity for this
change—a change that will render so much
more extravagance necessary to carry on the
government, even under the guidance of the
Hon. the President of the Council? It was
said that the people of the section of the province to which I belong had become satisfied
that there was extravagance in the
Government, that the people of Lower
Canada were absorbing too large a proportion of the revenue that was paid by the
people of Upper Canada. It was asserted
that the people of Upper Canada were paying seven-tenths of the whole revenue of the
country; that we had not sufficient representation in Parliament; and that there was
ruin staring us in the face, because we had
not our proper voice in the Legislature, by
means of which we might resist the extravagance of Lower Canadians. It was said
that for every appropriation made for Upper
Canada, a corresponding one had to be
made for Lower Canada, and thereby the
people of Upper Canada were paying more
than their fair share into the common purse
of the country. Taking that view of the
case, I would ask the Honorable President
of the Council, who is so warm in advocating
these resolutions, how much the people of
Upper Canada will be called upon to pay
more than Lower Canada in the new scheme?
I understand that Lower is to receive $888,531 from the Federal Government. As
Upper Canada has been paying two-thirds,
nay, as much as seven-tenths into the general
revenue, how much are we granting to Lower
Canada out of the pockets of the people of
Upper Canada towards paying the expenses
of managing their local affairs—affairs of
which we in the Upper Province will have
not one word to say? By the arrangement
that is to be entered into, suppose that the
Lower Provinces constitute about one-fifth of
the whole—which, I presume, is all that they
will contribute. This would make $177,706.
Upper Canada, on the principle of paying
two-thirds, would contribute $473,884, and
Lower Canada only $236,941. For the support of the Local Government of Lower Canada
from the Federal exchequer, Upper Canada
would, therefore, have to pay no less a sum
than $473,884, which is nearly double the
amount that Lower Canada itself will pay for
the same purpose. The amount that Upper
Canada will have to pay in excess of Lower
Canada, for exclusively Lower Canada purposes, is $175,859. (Hear, hear.) Now
that is the position in which that branch of
the question stands; but it is said that we are
to become a great people, third, I think, in
rank of the nations of the earth. It is said
that, because we unite with a people who
have less than a million of inhabitants, while
we have nearly two and a half millions, we
are to become this vast nation, and to hold a
position in the world above that of all nations
except three on the face of the globe. Well,
it does not strike me that the mere fact of
our joining the Lower Provinces to this province by the Intercolonial Railway is going
to give us that position. We need a vast
population as well as a vast country to acquire
that greatness. It is said that we will be
stronger by this union; that we will be better
able to protect ourselves in the event of hostilities breaking out between this country
and the United States. But is that true?
(Cries of "Yes, yes," and "No, no.") Are
we to become at once an independent nation
that will make treaties with foreign nations,
or are we still to be dependent on the British
Crown—a dependency that I hope will never
be done away with? (Hear, hear.) Let it
be understood that I am not to be dazzled
by those ideas of greatness that are being
held out to us. We can never be so great
in any way as we can by remaining a dependency of the British Crown. Every one
of these provinces is true and faithful
in its allegiance to the British Crown, and
if that power makes war, each will do all
that lies in its power to defend its own territory and assist the Mother Country.
But
how do we gain strength from the scheme ?
We obtain many hundreds of miles of additional frontier, and we do not get men in
proportion. (Hear, hear.) We shall build
a railway that cannot possibly be of much
use to us, but that will be subject to destruction by the enemy, and will be indefensible
and difficult to keep open. The armies that
will be brought against us by the United
States will be too great to be resisted along
the entire frontier, and no ordinary force
will be suficient to protect so long a line of
communication. I therefore argue that the
450
Confederation will not make us a stronger
or a greater people than before. Then it is
said that in our present exigencies we must
look out for other markets for our produce
than those we have been depending upon;
that we must endeavor to become a manufacturing country, obtaining minerals from the
Lower Provinces and sending them our produce in return. That is all very fine, but
it can be accomplished without entering into
an extravagantly expensive arrangement
such as this is. We could have a legislative
union with one Legislature or Central Government, that would manage all our affairs
on a scale as economical as the affairs of the
province of Canada have been conducted;
but when you provide for a General Government, and then for a Local Government in
each province besides, it stands to reason
that the expenditure must be far in excess
of that which would result from having a
single legislature. The Hon. President
of the Council has said that he is not, although all his other colleagues who have
spoken on the floor of the House have admitted that they are, in favor of a legislative
union, if this union could be accomplished.
The Hon. President of the Council thinks,
perhaps, that this wouid be too damaging an
admission, so he says: "I would not have
a legislative union if I could. There is
nothing but a Federal union for me, because our country is so extensive that it
would be impossible to control it with a
Legislature sitting at Ottawa." Now, is
this so? Would four or five hundred
additional miles of territory make all the
difference ? Â
HON. Mr. BROWN—The hon. gentleman
is mistaken. I never used any such expression.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—0f course it is
very unpleasant to have to say it, but my
ears must have deceived me very grossly
indeed, if the hon. gentleman did not assert
in the hearing of persons in this House,
when delivering his address on these resolutions, that he preferred a Federal union,
and assigned as a reason for his preference
the extent of the country.
HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. gentleman will see that this is a very different
thing from the statement he previously
made. What I did say was this, that it
would be exceedingly inconvenient to manage the local affairs of so widely extended
a
country. I did not say that we could not
exercise a general control over the country.
I said that it was impossible to attend to the
mere parish affairs of Newfoundland, Prince
Edward Island, New Brunswick and the
North-West. That is what I said.
MR. M. C. CAMERON ―Well, one reason
assigned by the hon. gentleman for a Federal
union was that in attending to the private
business of the Lower Provinces, under a
legislative union, we would be kept sitting
at Ottawa for nine months of the year. It
is, however, the case that the affairs of
United Canada can be transacted in a period
of three or four months, while according to
the Hon. the President of the Council, the
affairs of the federated provinces would not
be attended to in less than nine months in
consequence of the private business which
would be added to the legislation from a
people numbering only seven or eight hundred thousand. (Hear, hear.) The business
of two and a half millions can be disposed of
in three months, whilst it is alleged that the
business brought by the addition of seven or
eight hundred thousand more would prolong
the sessions of Parliament by six months.
(Hear, hear.) I think that the position
which the hon. gentleman took in reference
to that, is just as untenable as his position
that a Legislative union in itself would not
be better than a Federal union. Now, it is
said that our commercial affairs will be very
much advanced by this arrangement. It is
said that the Reciprocity treaty is going to
be abrogated. No doubt we have received
notice of it. It is also said that it is
possible — although the Hon. President
of the Council does not think it is so—that
the bonded system is to be done away with
between Canada and the United States, and
that, therefore, we would have no means of
reaching the Atlantic except during the
summer months of the year, in consequence
of which it is very desirable that this great
work of the Intercolonial Railway should
be accomplished, and that this union of the
provinces should take place. I presume it
is a well understood fact that a people will
always find some channel into which to
direct their energies—that there will be a
channel for their commerce—that there
will be a channel for their produce. Now,
if the Reciprocity treaty is abrogated, and if
the bonded system is put an end to, it will
be done long before the Intercolonial Railway can be established, and we must then
remain suffering for a number of years until
451
that work is accomplished and before we
get communication with the Lower Provinces, except through the medium of the
St. Lawrence, which is only accessible during
the summer time. Then it would be
absolutely necessary for us to resort to some
other means, to devise some other scheme,
by which we might not allow the affairs of
these provinces, in the meantime, to be
injured, to lag and to suffer; and when our
commerce flows in such new channel, it will
not be easy to divert it. But is it not the
fact that we have been in existence a number
of years as a colony here? Is it not the
fact, too, that we have been far removed
from the sea? Is it not the fact, that when
Upper Canada was subject to duties to
Lower Canada, and when we had no
connection with the United States except
by paying high restrictive duties, Upper
Canada progressed rapidly and became a
large and prosperous province? Did we
then complain with all these restrictions
weighing upon us? For my, part, I have
yet to see, if the reciprocity treaty is put an
end to and if the bonding system is discontinued, that we would be unable to find
means by which the energies of the people
of this country would find development.
We would still go on in material prosperity,
if we found hon. gentlemen forgetting their
faction, and allowing the wheels of
government to progress without being'
unnecessarily impeded. (Hear, hear.)
In one view of the case, if I were satisfied
that the people of this country fully approved of the scheme, I would give it my support,
although I disapprove of it in its present
shape. But I cannot understand why those
hon. gentlemen who have professed, at all
events heretofore, to be the advocates of the
rights and liberties of the people, should so
far forget those rights and liberties as to set
them aside, and allow half a dozen gentlemen in this province to combine with a
number of gentlemen from the Lower Provinces to completely ignore and set aside the
views of those they profess to represent.
(Hear, hear.) It has been said that the
people of this country have fully endorsed and
approved of this measure. But where is the
evidence of it? It has been asserted that
this is a matter which was under consideration in the year 1858, and that it has been
mooted at different times since. But this
very fact shews that it has never taken a
deep hold on the people, and certain it is
that it has never been made a question up
to this time at the polls. (Hear, hear.)
Therefore, the people have not pronounced
an opinion upon it. And I mean to say this,
that if the people understood it was going to
cost so much more than the present form of
government, they would not be inclined to
approve and to accept it as readily as hon.
gentlemen seem to think. I hold that, if the
hon. gentlemen who occupy the Treasury
benches were really sincere in their views
of the benefits to result from this measure,
they would allow the question to go to the
people for the fullest consideration. In
1841 the people of this country obtained
responsible government, and it was declared
to them then that they should have a controlling voice in the affairs of the country—
that no important change, in fact, should
take place without their having an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. And yet
hon. gentlemen now disclaim the right of
appeal to the people, and arrogate to themselves an amount of wisdom to suppose that
the tens of thousands of people of this province have not the capacity to understand
the meaning or the magnitude of this question. They exclude from these men the
right of pronouncing an opinion; and is it
not singular that it is the people of the province of Canada who are treated in this
way ?
It is not so in the Lower Provinces. New
Brunswick, for instance, dissolves its House,
and goes to the people. And why should New
Brunswick do that which is denied to Canada?
Why should the people of New Brunswick
be treated as more able and more capable
of understanding and pronouncing an intelligent opinion than the people of Canada?
(Hear, hear.) The people of Canada, I
apprehend, are just as capable of comprehending a measure of this importance as the
people of New Brunswick, and they ought
to have the same opportunity of pronouncing
upon it. (Hear, hear.) The Honorable
President of the Council has said that a hostile feeling had arisen between both sections
of the province to such a degree, that the
government and legislation of the country
had almost come to a dead stand. Now, was
there such a feeling of hostility existing
between the peeple of the different provinces? Was such the fact? Did honorable gentlemen
of French extraction meet
honorable gentlemen of British extraction
upon the floor of this House with any feeling
of hostility whatever? Did we not meet as
452
friends? They considered that they had
peculiar interests to serve, and we considered
that we had a larger population than they,
and which population had not a sufficient
representation on the floor of this House, and
we sought a change in order to give them
the representation to which they were
entitled. The President of the Council
claims that he has accomplished a great
work in gaining for the people of Upper
Canada that representation on the floor of
Parliament. Now, I beg to join issue with
him on that point. I assert that, instead of
having gained for the Upper Province that
boon, he has arrayed thirty additional votes
against Upper Canada. He makes Upper
Canada stand not as she is now, but with
thirty additional voices to contend against.
(Hear, hear.) We shall pay in the same
proportion, in fact, that we paid before to
the whole revenue of the country. Let us
see if I am singular in this view—let us see
whether the gentlemen who compose the
governments in the Lower Provinces do not
entertain the same opinion. Hon. Mr. TILLEY
made this representation in a speech which
he delivered on the 17th November last :—
So close is the contest between parties in the
Canadian Legislature, that even the five Prince
Edward Island members by their vote could turn
victory on whatever side they chose, and have the
game entirely in their own hands. Suppose that
Upper Canada should attempt to carry out schemes
for her own aggrandizement in the west, could
she, with her eighty-two representatives, successfully oppose the sixty-five of Lower
Canada and
the forty-seven of the Lower Provinces, whose
interests would be identical ? Certainly not ; and
she would not attempt it.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—" What has that
to do with representation by population?"
asks the hon. gentleman. Representation
by population was agitated, so far as Upper
Canada is concerned, because we are paying
so large a proportion of the revenue of the
country ; and should the Lower Provinces
have a corresponding voice, we should still
pay the same proportion of revenue—instead,
in fact, of standing on an equality, we would
have thirty voices more to contend against.
(Hear, hear.) Now, let us see whether, in
another point of view, it is going to benefit
us. It is represented by this same gentleman in the Lower Provinces that, when this
change takes place, they will be relieved
from the burdens they now bear ; because,
as asserted in the speech to which I have
referred, they have paid $3.20 per head of
taxes ; and, when the change was brought
about, they would only pay $2.75—that is,
they would be gainers by the arrangement
by 45 cents a head. Is that so, or is it not
so? If not, then there is dishonesty at the
bottom of this scheme, when it requires
arguments of that kind to further it. If it
is so, then these gentlemen who assert that
they are looking out for the interest and
the advantage of Canada, are proving traitors
to the trust reposed in them, are doing a
wrong to their country, and are doing that
for the sake of their own self-aggrandizement.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Allow
me to make a remark. A little while ago
the honorable gentleman quoted from a
speech of Hon. Mr. TILLEY, in which that
gentleman supposed the case, that on some
evil day Upper Canada, actuated by selfish
motives, would endeavor to obtain the passing
of some measure that would be conducive to
her exclusive aggrandizement. " In that
event," said Hon. Mr. TILLEY, addressing
himself to his people below, with the view
of meeting that hypothetical case, " you will
have the six-five members from Lower
Canada and the forty-seven from below, to
unite in resisting any attempt of the kind."
On that account the honorable member for
North Ontario has stated that he is opposed
to this scheme of Federation. He prefers a
legislative union ; but of course with a
legislative union there would be the same
ratio of representation, and his opposition,
on this particular ground, ought to apply to
the one system as much as to the other.
MR. CAMERON—I will give you a
practical illustration of how this may affect
our interest. It is a part of this scheme, or
ought to have been a part of it, that the
opening up of the North-West should he included in it; that improvements should be
made in that direction so that we might have
the advantage of the vast mineral wealth which
exists there, and of the great stretch of
territory available for agricultural purposes
as well. But this is not given to us new.
The Intercolonial Railway is made a portion
of this scheme. It is made, so to speak, a
part of the Constitution—a necessity without
which the scheme cannot go on. Now,
suppose we ask in the Federal Legislature
for the improvement of the North-West,
because we consider it— for our interest
have that territory opened up and improved,
453
shall we not find a verification of the language of this gentleman—sixty-five members
from Lower Canada and forty-seven
from the Lower Provinces, whose interests
are identical, will be united against us, and
we will not be able to accomplish a work of
that kind. (Hear, hear.) In considering
a question of this nature—in considering a
change of the Constitution—I presume
every man ought to have the interest of the
whole at heart, and not the interests merely
of individual parts—that every man from
the Lower Provinces who seeks this union
should desire it, not because it is going to
advantage the Lower Provinces merely, but
because it is going to advantage Canada as
well. The argument should be, that it is to
be for the advantage of the whole. It
should not be an argument that $2.75 is the
sum that will be paid by the Lower Provinces
under the arrangement, when they are paying now $3.20 a head to the public revenue.
Arguments of that kind should not be used
to show that an advantage is gained by one
portion of the proposed Confederation at the
expense of another ; for example, that the
subsidy obtained by the Lower Provinces
from the Federal Government will be so
great, that it will meet all their expenditures,
and leave them $34,000 the gainers. (Hear,
hear.) Now, I ask, are we contributing to
that in the same proportion that we are
contributing to the subsidy to Lower Canada
—and is that honorable gentleman who has
taken the advocacy of Upper Canadian
interests so peculiarly under his own control,
acting for the interests of Upper Canada
when he consents to an arrangement of this
kind ? (Hear, hear.) The President of the
Council has used this language with reference
to the matter. He says :―" It is not a
question of interest, or mere commercial
advantage; no, it is an effort to establish
a new empire in British North America."
That is the honorable gentleman's statement. But, for my own part, I think it
would be better to get out of the debt which
now burdens us,—to reduce the expenses the
people are suffering from,―to lighten the
taxation we are laboring under—than to
endeavor to establish an empire such as my
honorable friend the President of the
Council speaks of. It would be much
better for us to endeavor to reduce our
expenditure, and live within our means, than
to attempt to establish a new empire; because, unless he means by that that we are
going to establish our independence, we are
already, as subjects of the British Crown,
sharers in all the glories of the British nation.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman also said—
and this was the argument he addressed to the
House as a reason why his friends from
Upper Canada should unite with him in
supporting this scheme—" We complained,
that immense sums were taken from the
public chest and applied to local purposes, in
Lower Canada, from which we of Upper
Canada derived no advantage." Now I ask,
have we ever seen an attempt made by
Lower Canada to obtain so great a subsidy as
$175,000 a year in perpetuity? And yet,
that is what the hon. gentleman, by this
scheme, actually concedes to them, apart
from the greater expenditure we will have to
pay in connection with the administration of
the general affairs of the whole Confederation. Let us see what the seventeen additional
representatives we of Upper Canada
are to obtain, will cost us. I make it that
for each representative we will have to pay
only $16,397 per annum. I make that out
in this way. The contribution by the Lower
Provinces to the General Government is
$1,929,272. The contribution of Lower
Canada is $2,208,035. The contribution of
Upper Canada is $4,416,072. I am speaking now of the contributions that go to meet
the expenditure of the Federal Government.
The contribution of Upper Canada is thus in
excess of the Lower Provinces, $2,486,800;
in excess of Lower Canada, $2,208,037;
and in excess of both, $278,765, which,
divided by 17, will give $16,397 as the cost
of each additional member we are getting.
MR. CAMERON—Well, this matter is
not left to us either, as the representatives
of the people, to pronounce an opinion upon
it. We are to take the scheme as a whole.
We are not to be allowed to amend it in any
particular. But the Government come down
and tell us, that in consequence of the union
of political parties which has taken place,
they feel themselves so strong that they can
say to the representatives of the people :
" Just take this, or you shall have nothing,
and revert back to inevitable ruin." That is
the position in which they put us. Yet, if the
statement made by the Hon. Finance Minister
is correct, our revenue has increased, so that
we have a surplus of $872,000, after making
up the deficiency of the previous year. He
tells us the revenue of Canada has increased
by a million and a half of dollars ; and that
the revenues of New Brunswick and Nova
454
Scotia have increased $100,000 each—being
an increase for the whole provinces of
$1,700,000. Would we then revert back to
ruin, if these statements be correct? If our
income has really increased so much as has
been represented, would we, if we remain as
we are, go back to ruin ? (Hear, hear.) It
has been said that there has been a deadlock in the affairs of the country for a considerable
length of time; but I think the
province has not been going to ruin, if it
has been getting an increase of revenue to
the extent of a million and a half, notwithstanding that dead-lock. I am not sure
but
the province would do better if this House
were closed up for ten years and hon.
members sent about their business. (Ironical
ministerial cheers.) Then it has been said
that we are bound to accept this scheme, if
we cannot show some better means of getting
out of our difficulties. With reference to
that, I would say that if any of those hon.
gentlemen were really the patriots they
represent themselves to be, let them
exemplify the virtue of resignation—let
them leave their places in the front ranks of
the ministerial benches, and let new men be
introduced to take their places—let them do
this, and I have no hesitation in saying that
parties in this country are not so bitterly
hostile but a government or any number of
governments could be formed to carry on
the affairs of the country. (Hear, hear.)
Hon. gentlemen who have been in the front
of the political affairs of this country for
years back, have fancied that the whole of
the political wisdom of the country was
centred in them, and that this country must
of necessity go to ruin, if they were not at
the helm of affairs. This, I think, is claiming too much. However, I do not mean to
say
that they are not exceedingly able men. But
I would say that the Attorney General
East, and his colleague the Attorney General for Upper Canada, who have been
so much opposed and vilified by the
honorable gentlemen who are now associated with them in the Government,
must have felt exceedingly gratified when
they found that after all the charges of
corruption which had been brought against
them, these pure patriots from our section
of the country were willing to place themselves side by side with them to carry
on the affairs of the country. (Hear, hear.)
It was represented by the Honorable Provincial
Secretary in a political contest that he and I
had together—and which ?—when we were
in the field, we carried on pretty pleasantly, notwithstanding there had been some
rather sharp passages at arms on the floor of
this House between us— that honorable
gentleman, in excusing himself before the
electors for the change he had made in his
views on the question of representation by
population, said the financial crisis of the
country had become so much more imminent
than the constitutional, that it was absolutely
necessary to take office—in fact, to join the
gentlemen of Lower Canada, who made representation by population a close question.
We must look after the purse-strings, he said,
or the country will go to ruin. It is very
gratifying now to find that honorable gentleman now in a position in which he is going
to
create so much larger a debt than before. It
is quite gratifying to find him now seated on
the Treasury benches advocating the additional burdens, to the extent of millions
of dollars,
that will be cast upon us by this union and
the construction of the Intercolonial Railway.
At one time, and it was not long since, this
country was agitated from one end to the
other with the statement that the public debt
was so great as to amount to a mortgage of
$25 upon every cleared acre of land in the
province, and now those who made this statement wish to add millions more to the debt
by this railway, and to add as it were $5 more
to the debt per head of every man in the land.
(Hear, hear.) Now, if the Honorable Provincial Secretary was sincere in his argument
that retrenchment was necessary to save us
from ruin, how can he reconcile it with his
sense of duty and propriety that he should
be found advocating this vast extravagance at
this time, when there is no imminent danger
to call for it, but, on the contrary, a degree of
prosperity that should make us exceedingly
careful how we adopt experimental change;
I find honorable gentlemen complaining of
the incapacity of our railways to meet the
commercial requirements made upon them—
to do the business of the country properly.
It is true the crops are not so abundant as
they were; no foresight or management will
ensure us a plentiful harvest, but still, even
according to these honorable gentlemen, the
trade of the province is growing, and their
statements altogether in this respect do not
show that we are going to ruin. A people
who are increasing in population as we are
increasing, who are growing in wealth as we
are, and who, ever and above all our expenditure, have a million and a half surplus
revenue,
are not rushing to ruin in the manner that has
455
been represented by some honorable gentlemen.
I say, then, that we ought not to hasten on a
change that may prove injurious to us, without
asking the people themselves whether they
approve of it or not. (Hear, hear.) So
anxious are the honorable gentlemen on the
Treasury benches to have it carried, that they
even quarrel amongst themselves as to the
parentage of the scheme; and the House was
amused the other day when the Hon. President of the Council took the Hon. Attorney
General West to task because that honorable
gentleman presumed to say that it was his
Government that had first brought the matter
up. (Langhter.) They appear to take great
pride in the child, but this country of ours,
the mother of the bantling, is travailing in
agony from fear of the burdens that these
honorable gentlemen are endeavoring to put
upon it. (Hear, hear.) The Honorable
Minister of Agriculture the other evening
called our attention to the affairs that are
occurring in the United States, and spoke of
the army of contractors and tax-gatherers
that was springing up there. He said that the
cry of " Tax, tax, tax!" came up perpetually
from the tax-gatherers, and the cry of " Money,
money, money !" from the hordes of contractors who are fattening upon the miseries
of
the people; and while he was talking of the
message conveyed to us in the sound
of every gun fired in the United States,
he may have thought perhaps that in the
formation of this union and the building of
this Intercolonial Railway, we too shall hear
the cries of " Tax, tax, tax! money, money,
money !" in the same way. (Hear, hear.) It
is said again, in reference to this scheme, that
every line of it shows a compromise. The
Hon. Minister of Agriculture, if I remember
right, used an expression of that kind. But
I would ask the President of the Council and
those who with him have been advocating the
interests of Upper Canada, where is there any
concession to Upper Canada in it? If they
can point out one solitary instance, with the
exception of the seventeen additional members given to the west, where anything has
been conceded to that section, then I will say
the scheme is deserving of my support. But
l hold that the additional number of repre—
sentatives given to Upper Canada is no boon
or concession. The differences between the
two provinces of Canada were not merely national differences, but were of a sectional
character. It was the West arrayed against
the east, rather than nationality against nationality, for was it not a fact that
the sixteen
English-speaking members from Lower Canada united themselves with the French-Canadian
majority, and not with the majority of
their own race in Upper Canada? The English members from Central Canada did the
same ; and I contend, therefore, that the differences we had were sectional in their
nature,
and that we had no national differences that
rendered a change at this time necessary.
Are we going to get rid of these sectional differences by this scheme ? Will not the
thirty
additional members called into this legislature
from the east unite with the Lower Canadian
majority, and will not the same preponderance
of influence be cast against Upper Canada as
before? (Hear, hear.) Now, if a union of
free people is to be brought about, it should
be because the people desire it and feel that it
is advantageous on the whole; and I am quite
satisfied that if, in these provinces, we are to
have a union that will confer any advantage
upon us, it ought to be a Legislative and not
a Federal union. We should feel that if we
are to be united, it ought to be in fact as well
as in name; that we ought to be one people,
and not separated from each other by sections; that if we go into a union, it ought
to
be such a union as would make us one people;
and that when a state of things arises favorable to such a union, we will have an
opportunity of forming a union that will give us
strength and protect our interests in all time
to come. The Honorable President of the
Council thinks that we should enter the union
proposed for the purpose of protecting and
defending ourselves. I would like to know
of that honorable gentleman if he thinks that
we, with a population of two millions and a
half, can create a sufficient armament, and raise
a sufficient number of men to repel the millions of the United States, should they
choose
to attack us? (Hear, hear.) I do not suppose, Mr. SPEAKER, that there would be any
more ready to defend the honor and integrity
of Great Britain in this country than those
who feel as I do in reference to this matter;
and I am satisfied that, even with the knowledge of certain destruction before us,
if attacked by the United States, we would have
defenders springing up at any moment—defenders to sell their lives as dearly as possible,
and to fight inch by inch before they would
be compelled to surrender the honor of the
British Crown. But still, sir, we cannot help
feeling the vast disparity of numbers between
us and the United States; we can form no armament that could repel them from every
portion of our territory, and spending millions now
456
in that direction is but crippling our resources
and weakening us for the time of need. If
these moneys we now propose to spend in that
way were carefully husbanded, we will have
them when the necessity arises, and be able to
use them to better purpose than in defending
ourselves. (Hear, hear.) Some say that
Canada is defensible, and others say that it is
entirely defenceless; but I apprehend that
there are certain points in the country which
could be so fortified that they could be held
against any foe. While so held, the rest of
the country would probably be under the control of the enemy, and would remain so
until
the fate of war decided whether we were to
remain as we were or be absorbed in the
neighboring union. Now, it was said by the
Hon. Minister of Agriculture that we are to
have fortifications at St. John, New Brunswick; and if this union is to be brought
about in order that we may be taxed for the
purpose of constructing fortifications in New
Brunswick, it will certainly be of little service
to the people of Canada in preventing their
country being invaded and overrun by an
enemy. Fortifications in St. John, New
Brunswick, would not protect us from the foe,
if the foe were to come here. They, of course,
would be an advantage to the country at large
and aid in sustaining the British dominion in
this part of the continent, and so far we would
not object to contribute to a reasonable extent to an expenditure of that kind; but
I do
say that it would be quite impossible by fortifications to make the country so defensible
that we could resist aggression on the part of
the United States at every point. To endeavor to make it so would be a waste of money.
MR. MCKELLAR. —, What would you
do then ? Surrender to the enemy?
MR. MCKELLAR.—What would you do
if you neither spent money nor surrendered ?
MR. CAMERON —We would do as many
brave people have done before when they were
attacked; and the country from which the
honorable gentleman comes is a marked example of what a small nation can do against
overwhelming numbers, without fortifications,
such as it is here proposed to put up. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. BROWN—It is something new
that a country can be defended without fortifications. (Hear, hear.)
MR. CAMERON—I do not know whether
honorable gentlemen mean that this country
is capable of undertaking the expenses that
would be necessary to put it in such a state of
defence as to enable it to resist the aggression
of the United States. I want to know whether with two and a half millions of people,
we could cope with an army of millions—because the United States have shown that they
are capable of raising such an army—or make
fortifications that could resist it. (Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Provincial Secretary has
spoken on the floor of Parliament as well as
to the electors in the country, to the effect
that it was retrenchment we needed more than
constitutional changes; and yet now he says
that the people are not to have one word to
say in reference to these vital changes that are
proposed, and the vastly increased expenditure
that is to take place. In addressing this
House in 1862, he said—" The finances of the
country are growing worse and worse, and a
check must be applied. It was chiefly for this
cause that the people of Upper Canada desired
a change in the representation." Now, I
should like to understand how a union with
800,000 people, with immense expenditure, is
going to improve our finances, which, according to the honorable gentleman, are "
growing
worse and worse." (Hear, hear.) I have not
heard in what has been yet said on the subject
of these resolutions, anything to show me how
this great increase and improvement is going
to take place by a union with less than a million of people; but arguments for the
union,
when directed merely to the material interests
that will be served by it, are arguments ten-fold
stronger in favor of union with the United
States. (Hear, hear.) The arguments of
honorable gentlemen all point that way, because
they say it is to our interest to be joined with
the 800,000 people of the provinces, who will
furnish us with a market for our produce,
when we have on the other side of the line
thirty millions of people to furnish us a market. Arguments of this kind, urging the
measure because our material interests will be
promoted by it, are, therefore, arguments for
union with the United States rather than with
the Lower Provinces; but union with the
United States, I hope, will never take place.
(Hear, hear.) Still I cannot help believing
that this is the tendency of the measure ; for
when we have a legislature in each province,
with powers coördinate with those of the
Federal Legislature—or if not possessing coördinate powers, having the same right
at least
to legislate upon some subjects as the General
Legislature—there are certain to arise disagreements between the Local and the General
Legislature, which will lead the people to demand changes that may destroy our connection
457
with the Mother Country. The Federal character of the United States Government has
been referred to to prove that it has increased
the prosperity of the people living under it;
but in point of fact the great and relentless
war that is now raging there—that fratricidal
war in which brother is arrayed against brother, filled with hatred toward each other,
and which has plunged the country into all
the horrors of the deadliest strife—is the
comment upon the working of
the Federal principle—the strongest argument against its application to these provinces.
(Hear, hear.) The French element
in Lower Canada will be separated from us
in its Local Legislature and become less united
with us than it is now; and therefore there
is likely to be disagreement between us. Still
more likely is there to be disagreement
when the people of Upper Canada find that
this scheme will not relieve them of the burdens cast upon them, but, on the contrary,
will subject them to a legislature that will have
the power of imposing direct taxation in addition to the burdens imposed by the General
Government. When they find that this
power is exercised, and they are called upon
to contribute as much as before to the General Government, while taxed to maintain
a sep
arate Local Legislature—when they find that
the material question is to weigh with them,
they will look to the other side of the line for
union. I feel that we are going to do that
which will weaken our connection with the
Mother Country, because if you give power to
legislate upon the same subjects to both the
local and the federal legislatures, and allow
both to impose taxation upon the people, disagreements will spring up which must necessarily
have that effect. (Hear, hear.) Then
again, by this scheme that is laid before us,
certain things are to be legislated upon by
both the general and the local legislatures,
and yet the local legislation is to be subordinate to the legislation of the Federal
Parliament. For instance, emigration and agriculture are to be subject to the control
of both
bodies. Now suppose that the Federal Legislature chooses to decide in favor of having
emigration flow to a particular locality, so as
to benefit one province alone—I do not mean
this expression to be understood in its entire
sense, because I think that emigration in any
one portion will benefit the whole, but it will
benefit the particular locality much more at
the time—and if provision is made by the
General Legislature for emigration of that
kind, and grants are made from the public
funds to carry it out, it will cause much complaint, as the people who are paying
the greatest proportion of the revenue will be subject
to the drafts upon them as before. Suppose
again, for instance, that arrangements are
made for emigration to a particular part of
Lower Canada or New Brunswick, and a
grant is made for the purpose, who is to say
whether it is for the local or general good?
It is the Federal Legislature that has to pronounce upon it. The expenditure and the
benefit would be received by a portion of the
province lying remote from that which pays
the largest proportion of the money, and so
we would not be relieved from the difficulties
that have existed between Upper and Lower
Canada. This being the case, the reasoning
on which this whole scheme is based falls to
the ground. (Hear, hear.) But this question
has been of some service. It has enabled us to
ascertain what our debt is. This we have never
previously been enabled with certainty to find
out. Our highest authorities have widely differed in footing it up. I recollect the
Hon.
President of the Council asserting that our
debt was eighty-five millions of dollars.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I heard it in
one of the speeches which you made on the
floor of this House. You remarked that you
had gone to the Auditor that very morning
and found the debt to be eighty-five millions.
HON. MR. BROWN—The honorable gentleman is mistaken in the first figure. It was
seventy-five millions that I stated.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I think the honorable gentleman has made a mistake. I will
show him that his memory is short on this
occasion.
MR. M. C. CAMERON— You said the
debt was $85,000,000, but that there was
the Sinking fund and the Municipal Loan indebtedness which together would amount to
some fourteen or fifteen millions of dollars,
which would reduce the amount to about
$70,000,000 of direct debt.
Mr. M. C. CAMERON—Well, I did not
design to catch the Hon. President of the
Council in the trap that he had laid for himself. (Hear, hear.) We have now found
that our debt is not so much as that honorable
gentleman led us to suppose it was. The
fourteen or fifteen millions did not belong to
us at all. But the honorable gentleman, since
458
he has been so closely connected with those
old corruptionists, has discovered that it is
only sixty-seven and a half millions. Well,
the Hon. President of the Council has also
said, and has acknowledged it too, that he
was very much opposed to the Intercolonial
Railway , and when the Hon. Attorney General West made the observation that he
learned from a brief paragraph in a paper
called the
Globe, that Messrs. SICOTTE and
HOWLAND were about to return, having accomplished the object of their mission, viz:
to throw overboard the Intercolonial Railway,
the Hon. President of the Council remarked,
that that was "a very sensible thing—the
most sensible thing they ever did." But now
the honorable gentleman goes so heartily into
this matter, that he will build this vast railway which it was so sensible to throw
overboard at that time, and I think he went so
far as to say he would build five intercolonial
railways rather than that the scheme should
fail.
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS—Six; he
said six.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—Well, we will
give him the benefit of one, and yet I have
not been able to hear him express in pounds,
shillings and pence the practical benefit there
is to be derived by this country as compensation for the expense of building that
useless
thing that it was so sensible to throw overboard two years ago ; sensible even though
the
persons who went home were charged with acting falsely by the people of the Lower
Provinces,
and the honorable gentleman commended their
throwing it overboard at the risk of our being
charged with a breach of good faith. (Hear,
hear.) Now, looking at this scheme politically, I do not see that we gain any advantage
from it. I do not see that it secures to us
peace for the future. I do not think that it
secures us against the Honorable President of
the Council coming forward again as the
member for South Oxford or for some other
constituency, and shaking our whole political
fabric by his violent agitations. I do not
think it prevents our having political firebrands in this country such as we have
had.
I do not think it prevents our having the
same difficulties on the floor of the Federal
Legislature as we have had on the floor of this
House. (Hear, hear.) We may have, with
all the additional expense we shall have gone
to in order to obviate it, the same thing
enacted over again. (Hear, hear.) Commercially, it does not promise to give us an
advantage that will warrant the expenditure.
We are only to supply 800,000 people with
our products. But it is said the Lower Pro
vinces will have lands of a fertile character,
and that when the railway is built they will
be able to grow enough produce to support
themselves, and we must find a market far
beyond the market that the Lower Provinces
could possibly give us. And it is said that it
would be desirable to create a trade with the
West Indies; but that may be done just as
well without going to the expense of a union
with the Lower Provinces and a double set of
parliaments. Let us have a union in which
we are each looking out for the common interest, and not each for his own individual
benefit.
Commercially, then, it does not hold out such
inducements that we need to have all this
haste in pushing it through and preventing
the people from pronouncing upon it. In a
military sense it does not hold out the inducement that we will get by it from the
Lower
Provinces either such assistance in men or
money as to make it an object to unite
with them. (Hear, hear.) In a sectional
point of view the people of Lower Canada
can see what they are to get. I cannot see
that the people of Lower Canada are to be
any better protected from the means that honorable gentleman has made use of to create
all the dificulty between Upper and Lower
Canada that has existed so long, and to get
rid of which this expensive scheme is proposed. Upper Canada, it is said, will have
the control of the expenditure, because they
will have seventeen members more in the Fed—
eral Legislature than Lower Canada; but how
easily their influence can be checked and completely swamped by the addition of forty-seven
members from the Lower Provinces! (Hear,
hear.) Looking at it in all these aspects, I
am at a loss to understand what great benefit
there is in the Confederation scheme to call
for its being put through in such a hurried
manner. Hon. Mr. GREY said in the Lower Provinces that it might be years before the
change would come into effect; that it
would take years to think about it. He said,
"It is not intended to hurry the proposed
scheme into actual life and operation; it is
not to be carried out today, but years may
roll by before it is carried into effect." This
quotation occurs in a speech made by Hon.
Mr. GREY at St. John, on the 17th November last. Now that honorable gentleman also
takes a very different view of what is being
boasted of here, the imposing of direct taxation for the support of the local governments,
of which he disapproved. Honorable gentle
459
men here, however, have said that they were
in favor of direct taxation for the support of
the local governments, because it would lead
those who have to pay the taxes to look more
closely into what was going on, and the manner in which their money was expended.
(Hear, hear.) There seems also to have been
a feeling in the Lower Provinces in favor of
a legislative union, and the Hon. Mr. GREY
seems to be combatting that idea. He says
that with a legislative union, municipal institutions, and direct taxation in every
province,
would be the only means of getting along.
He expressed himself opposed to that and
in favor of a Federal union, which he thought
would afford them all the advantage that could
be attained, commercially, by union, and
would allow each province to retain control
over its own local affairs. The local legislatures, he said, were to be deprived of
no power
over their own affairs that they formerly
posessed. But in Canada it was represented
that the local legislatures were to be only the
shadow of the General Legislature—that they
were to have merely a shadow of power, as
their proceedings were to be controlled by
the Federal Government. That is the position taken by the advocates of the measure
on this floor. So it seems that those gentlemen who have represented to us that they
acted in great harmony, and came to a common decision when they were in conference,
take a widely different view of the questions
supposed to have been agreed upon, and give
Very different accounts of what were the
news of parties to the conference on the
various subjects. (Hear, hear.) In the
Lower Provinces they were strongly opposed
to direct taxation, while here it was presented as one of the advantages to accrue
from
the Federation. (Cries of No, no.) Well,
Mr. SPEAKER, I say yes. That view of the
case has been taken. If the amount allowed
for the expenses of local legislation—the 80
cents per head—was found insufficient, the
local parliaments must resort to direct taxation to make up the deficiency, while
in the
Lower Provinces, it seems, nothing of that
kind was to follow. Now, all the gentlemen
who have spoken on the Government side of
the House have declared that this scheme
was a great scheme ; but they have declined
to allow us to understand what sort of a local
legislature we are to have. They will not
tell us how our Executive is to be formed.
They will not tell us whether we are to have
legislative councils in Upper and Lower
Canada, and whether or not they will be
elected councils. They will not tell us what
number of members will constitute the
Executive Council of the Confederation,
nor what influence each individual province
will have in that government. They will not
bring down the scheme for the local legislatures. They tell us that it is better to
withhold those details—that we are dealing with
Federation alone, and have no business discussing local governments. What is the object
of all this vagueness? Is it politic
or statesmanlike to tell us that we, the
representatives of a free people, are not to
know anything about these things, but
vote with our eyes shut? I hold that we
ought to have the whole scheme before us,
but they say we shall know nothing about
it. And yet they continue to say it is a
great scheme. Well, if it is a great scheme,
and they continue to deal with it and with
this House in this way, are not they, the
architects and fabricators of this great
scheme, fairly entitled to be called great
schemers? (Laughter.) Are they not treating
us as a lot of school-boys ? As an evidence
of the excellence and popularity of their
scheme, they point to the circumstance that
they have formed a strong government upon
the question, with a majority of seventy in
this House, while two governments preceding them could each only muster a majority
of two. And because they are so strong
they feel themselves at liberty to deny to
the people's representatives the right to
have information on a most important matter of this kind—information they would
not have dared to withhold if they were
weak. (Hear, hear.) When a motion is
placed on the notice paper of this House for
several days, requiring a statement of the
portion of the debt which Lower Canada and
Upper Canada respectively will have to pay,
they tell us that they cannot submit to the
House any information of that kind. Is it
possible that the hon. gentlemen composing
the Government have not determined that
question at this stage of the proceeding,
and that they have not yet made up their
minds respecting it? If they have not,
it shows that they have been trifling
with their position, and have not been discharging the duties devolving upon them.
It has also been represented that this matter
has been so fully before the country for a
great length of time, that it is not necessary
to submit it to a vote. I would ask in what
way has it been before the counter Why,
it was declared, in the fist instance, by the
460
press, that it was not possible the measure
could be passed until it had been submitted
to the people; it was looked upon as a thing
which was quite impossible. There is no
doubt the organ of the Ministry in Toronto
—the organ more particularly of the President of the Council—did declare from the
First, as if throwing out a feeler, that it
would not be necessary to submit it to the
people. But the press generally took a
different view of the question, when out came
that remarkable circular from the Provincial
Secretary's office—(hear, hear)—which had
such a magical effect, that at once the story
was changed, and the advocacy was begun of
disposing of the question without submitting
it to the people, although the people themselves never dreamt that it could be carried
through this House and become a fixed fact
until that step was taken. I do not see how
any man, who does not desire to make himself amenable to the charge of a breach of
the trust reposed in him, can come here, and
without consulting those who sent him,
change a Constitution affecting the well-being
of millions. (Hear, hear.) Those who
have to pay for all this—who provide the
revenue for carrying on the affairs of the
country—are not at liberty to express their
views on the subject in the legitimate way
known to the Constitution. It is argued
that there have been no petitions presented
against Confederation ; but where, I ask, has
there been any agitation in reference to the
question? Where has it been contested at
the polls? I stand here an elected member,
who ran against the Provincial Secretary,
when, as a member of the government
formed for the purpose of carrying out this
scheme, he returned to his constituents for
reëlection, and I succeeded in defeating him.
So far, therefore, as the people of North
Ontario have spoken at all, their pronouncing, in one way, has been against it.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I do not mean
to say, Mr. SPEAKER, that they did pronounce definitely against it ―
MR. M. C. CAMERON—For when it was
being discussed, I told them I was not prepared to pronounce against. it myself ―
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I said that I
must know what the scheme was before I
could say whether I would vote for it or
against it.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—But this much
is certain, that the President of the Council
who took the trouble to go into the riding,
to stump it, to hold meetings there, and to
speak against me at every meeting he held,
took the opportunity of declaring that unless
the Provincial Secretary was returned, it
would seriously damage and endanger the
scheme. And notwithstanding all these
warnings, the people thought fit to return
me (Hear. hear.)
HON. MR. MACDOUGALL—Will the
hon. gentleman allow me to interrupt him ?
Does the hon. gentleman mean to convey to
this House the impression that he did not
declare himself in favor of the policy of the
Government on the subject of Federation?
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I mean very
distinctly to say that I did not declare myself in favor of the policy of the Government.
(Hear, hear.)
MR. M. C. CAMERON —I declared there
as I declare here, that I was in favor of a
union of the provinces. But whether the
union contemplated was a union which could
be approved of, or whether it would be to
the advantage of the country, I was unable
to say until I more fully understood the
scheme, and the hon. gentleman was not in
a position at that time to explain the scheme,
or to say what it was.
AN HON. MEMBER—How about the
elections to the Upper House ?
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I think there
were two elections only for the Upper House
in which the question was a test one.
AN HON. MEMBER—Which were they ?
MR. THOMAS FERGUSON—0h, but
Saugeen would have been carried by us, no
matter whether there was Confederation or
no Confederation. (Laughter.) Everybody
knows that.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—Be that as it
may, I am quite satisfied the people were
under the impression, and that the candi—
dates who appeared before them were also
under the impression, that this thing would
never become law—that this Constitution of
ours would never be changed, without the
constituencies having an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. It was never supposed
that the people's representatives, sent here
for an entirely different purpose, would presume or assume to set aside the Constitution,
to make a complete revolution in the affairs
461
of the country, to involve them in a much
larger expenditure, to change the constitution of the Upper House completely, to bring
in an additional number of representatives
from Upper Canada, and to add a new
element of forty-seven members altogether
to the Lower House. I say I am persuaded
the people did not understand that this was
to be done without their having an opportunity of speaking upon it, and of saying
whether they approved of it or not. (Hear,
hear.) And I scarcely can believe that we
will be able to find, at this late day of the
world's history, in a free country such as
Canada, among a people who understand
what are their rights and liberties, a government prepared to act in so unconstitutional
a manner—a government ready to tyrannize
and to assume the part of an oligarchy.
(Hear, hear.) But this Government is prepared to act thus. They tell their followers
that they are at their peril to accept the
scheme just as it is, that they are not at
liberty to change a single word of it, and if
they do so they will defeat the whole project.
That, however, is not the way in which hon.
gentlemen in the Lower Provinces deal with
this question. Hon. Mr. TILLEY, in Nova
Scotia, only two or three days ago, made the declaration that if the people's representatives
choose to alter the resolutions, they were at
liberty to do so. (Hear, hear.) And yet
we in Canada are gravely told that we are
not to be allowed to exercise any judgment
or to pronounce any opinion upon it. (Hear,
hear.) I regard the scheme itself as having
been got up hastily, for it bears upon its face
the evidence of haste and of compromise.
Indeed, it is a complete piece of patchwork,
and as we are all aware, it is a piece of patchwork in which we are not to be at liberty
to
change the patches in any respect so as to
make it look better to the eye or more enduring to those who will have to wear it.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) On the subject
of the Legislative Council, it does strike me
that the language is not such as to convey
the idea that hon. members of this House
have said it ought to convey. The 14th
section reads thus :—
The first selection of the members of the Legislative Council shall be made, except
as regards
Prince Edward Island, from the legislative councils of the various provinces.
You will observe the language—" From the
legislative councils of the various provinces." That is, from the legislative councils
now in existence. " So far," the clause goes
on to say, " as a suficient number be found
qualified and willing to serve ; such members
shall be appointed by the Crown at the
recommendation of the General Executive
Government, upon the nomination of the
respective local governments." Honorable
gentlemen say that means, upon the nomination, so far as Canada is concerned, of the
present Government. I presume that in the
nature of things, the hon. gentlemen who
are at present administering our affairs anticipate that they will be the controllers
of our
destiny, for some time at all events, in the
Federal Government. So that they are going
themselves to nominate to themselves. Is
that the object of the clause? In in point of
fact, would it be such in its operation, because
before these nominations can take place, I
assume that the Executive Government
must be in existence, and that when the
Federal Government comes into existence,
the present Government will cease co-in-
stanti. I take it that so soon as the
Imperial Act passed, there would be an
end to the present arrangements, and that
the local legislatures and the General Legislature would be brought into existence
at
the same moment. The present Government
of United Canada would cease to exist. And
how then would the nominations to the
Legislative Council take place, from this
Government to the Executive Government
of the Confederation? (Hear, hear) In
one way, these resolutions may be considered
as only an outline of the Constitution. But
they seem to have descended to very small
details. For instance, they say that a member who is absent from the Council for two
sessions shall vacate his seat. This is a very
small piece of detail, and I regard it also as
a very unjust piece of detail, because the
cause of a member's absence may be sickness,
and it may be the case that a member would
be sick during the period of two sittings
of Parliament and well immediately afterwards.
An HON. MEMBER—In that case he
might be excused.
Another HON. MEMBER—Or he could
be re-appointed.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—There is no
provision for any such thing; and I hold
that when they went into detail such as this,
the details ought to be full enough to prove
what is meant. But if it is not detail—if it
is mere skeleton—why did they introduce
this at all? Why not simply say that the
462
Legislative Council should be nominated for
life ? We are also told that we are to have
under the control of the federal and local
governments the sea-coast and inland fisheries. Of course it is impossible for me
to
say what they mean to do with these things,
but this is a clause out of which, at all
events, disagreements might arise. To shew
what little care has been exercised in the
wording of these resolutions, in one place
they speak of the seal of the General Government, and in another place they speak
of
the seal of the " Federated Provinces." I
presume there is no such thing as a seal of
a general government. It is the seal of the
nation— of the country in its entirety; the
same as we speak of our own seal as the
Great Seal of the province. There may not
be much in this; but it shews, at any rate,
a want of care in the compilation of this
document; it shews that they have not
studied each resolution with a desire to
make it a perfect thing. Then it is said :—
" The Local Government and Legislature of
each province shall be constructed in such
manner as the existing legislature of each
such province shall provide." I do not
understand from this whether it is competent or not for us in this Legislature,
before there is a Federal union, to make
provision for the Local Government and
Legislature, or whether we are to await the
action upon the subject of Federation of the
Imperial Government. Our action, one
should suppose, ought to be taken after the
Imperial Government has pronounced. Perhaps this is the intention. Mr. SPEAKER,
they refuse to tell us anything about it. It
may be that, as soon as these resolutions
are carried, we will be sent about our
business; that the Imperial Legislature will
be invited to pass an act, and that they will
convene us again, provision being made for
that course, and so in point of fact, having
once affirmed the principle of Federation,
we will have to accept such local legislalatures as they choose to give us. (Hear,
hear.) I find the Finance Minister, in
speaking of the construction of the local legislatures, saying: "It was known, at
all
events in the Lower Canada section or the
province, that there would a Legislative
Council as well as a Legislative Assembly,"
constituting thereby a very expensive machinery of government for the local administration.
I do not understand that this is
the view Upper Canadians take of this matter.
If we are really to have a Local Legislature, we
want it to be as inexpensive in its character
as possible—we want to construct it as much
as possible with a view to economy, in order
to the public burdens being lessened to the
lowest practical point. (Hear.) Giving this
question the best attention in my power,
desirous if possible of seeing something accomplished by which the semblance of a
cause for faction may be done away
with, I would have been willing to support this scheme had I seen that the
Government in forming it had an eye to
the true interests of the country, and not an
eye to the creating of a number of legislatures, and the carrying on of works most
expensive and burdensome in their character
—works which will be of but little value as
a commercial undertaking, and of very little
value for military purposes, but which, no
doubt, are absolutely necessary for bringing
us into contact with the people of the Lower
Provinces. It seems to me that it would be
much better had this Intercolonial Railway
been built without forming this union at all.
(Opposition cheers.) Had we gone on
building the railway without a union, it
would have been less expensive in its character to us ; we would have gained more
by
it, and we would have had the control of
our aflairs, without being swamped, so far as
Upper Canada is concerned. (Hear, hear.)
As it is, we shall get no more benefit from
it, commercially, than if it had been built
without a union of the provinces.
MR. WALLBRIDGE—We should have
had the railway, without bringing in those
who may limit our western extension.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I do not know
what will be done under the new arrangement. But under the old arrangement we
were to have paid five-twelfths of the cost,
and the charge upon us now will be at least
double that sum. So that in whatever way
this matter is looked at, it will be seen that
there has been no design for the purpose of
advantaging Upper Canada, whose people are
to find the means by which all this extravagance is to be carried on. In the formation
of this scheme, it has been truly admitted
that compromises have been made. The Lower
Provinces have laws which are not in accordance with our own in Upper Canada, and
it
has been thought very desirable that they
should be brought into unison and, if possible, consolidated. Well, provision has
been
made for the consolidation of these laws; but
observe how religiously the laws of Lower
Canada are guarded from interference. The
463
33rd sub-section gives to the General Government the power of "rendering uniform
all or any of the laws relative to property
and civil rights in Upper Canada, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and
Prince Edward Island, and rendering uniform
the procedure of all or any of the courts in
these provinces ; but any statute for this
purpose shall have no force or authority in
any province until sanctioned by the legislature thereof." So that in reality no such
law will be binding until it has the sanction
of the Local Legislature of the province
particularly affected thereby. Such being
the guarded terms of the resolution, why is
it not made applicable to Lower Canada as
well as to the other provinces? Nothing could
be done respecting its peculiar laws without
the consent of its Local Legislature, and it
is quite possible to my mind, that there are
some laws which it would be advantageous
to all parts of the Confederation to assimilate.
But they emphatically declare in these resolutions that there shall be no interference
with the laws of Lower Canada. So that
while it is proposed to assimilate the laws of
the other provinces, there is a large section
of intervening country which is to have, for
all time to come, laws separate and distinct
from the rest. (Hear, hear.) There is a
great deal of difference in making a provision
of this kind, which is to give the people the
option, and which is not to be binding for all
time to come unless sanctioned by them, and
declaring that a law shall be forced upon the
peeple whether they liked it or not. (Hear.)
I can easily understand the feeling of the
French people, and can admire it—that they
do not want to have anything forced upon
them whether they will or not. But that they
will not allow you to contemplate even the
possibility of any change taking place for
the general weal, and with their own consent,
in their laws —that they will not allow anything to be introduced into this measure
by
which, under any circumstances whatever,
we can meddle with the laws of this particular section of the country—I do not understand.
And having feelings of this kind, and
manifesting them so strongly as they do in
this document, it appears to me that in
going into this union, we do not go into it
with the proper elements. We go into it
With elements of strife and dissension, rather
than of union and strength. (Hear, hear.)
That is to be regretted ; for if a change is to
be made affecting the destinies of the people
0f this country, it is lamentable that we do
not find patriotism enough among the representatives of the people to be willing to
give
and take, so that we may have such a union
as will be beneficial to the whole, and not
one burdensome to the whole, because one
portion of the country says, " We have peculiar institutions which we dare not entrust
to
the care of you, gentleman, who are to be
united with us." Having given this whole
matter the best attention I could, with the
most earnest desire that any man could have
to come to a just conclusion, I have not been
able to satisfy myself that there are not the
elements of ruin rather than of safety and
strength in this scheme; that there are not
the elements of the dismemberment of this
country from the Empire to which we belong,
and have pride in belonging; that there is
not the means here of causing us to drift right
into the vortex of annexation to the United
States, whether we will or not. So far as I
am concerned, I should sooner see perish
root and branch everything belonging to
me, than I would become a party to a union
with that power. Feeling no hostility to the
people there—feeling as friendly to them as to
any other people, still I have that attachment
to British institutions—I have within me
that feeling of allegiance to the British
Crown, which would not allow me to throw
off British connection under any circumstances whatever, or even to accept the
disruption of that connection, if it were
off'ered to us by Great Britain. I feel it
would be a curse to this country, if we were
forced into that union—forced to adopt the
licentiousness of conduct which we find
there, and habits and manners totally distasteful to us. To be brought into that
union would seem to me the greatest injury
which by possibility could happen to us. In
adapting the scheme before us, I feel we
would be sowing the seeds of discord and
strife, which would destroy our union, instead
of its being cemented by this measure. I
am therefore opposed to the scheme, because
I believe that politically, commercially, and
defensively, as a matter of economy or of
sectional benefit, it will not be one tittle of
service to this country, but on the contrary
will inflict on it a vast and lasting injury.
(Cheers.)
MR. DUNKIN said he desired to take
part in the debate, but did not wish to commence at this late hour, and if no other
honorable gentleman was disposed to speak,
he would move that the debate be adjourned.
464
MR. McGIVERIN—As I know the honorable member for Brome (Mr. DUNKIN) is
unwell, I am willing the relieve him by taking
the floor. At the same time, I rise with
much diffidence to make the few remarks I
intend to offer on this occasion, after the able
and eloquent speech to which we have just
listened. But, although I may not be able,
perhaps, to place before this House any views
on this subject which have not already been
ably placed before the House and the country
by honorable gentlemen who have preceded
me, still I feel would be wanting in my
duty to my constituents were I not to explain
the reasons which induce me to take the course
which I propose to take with reference to this
question. he subject is certainly a very
important one, and, from the momentous
character of the interests involved in this
proposed change of our Constitution, deserves
the earnest attention of every true Canadian.
(Hear, hear.) In the first place, I feel some
explanation should be given of the reasons
which have induced myself, in common with
a large number of the liberal members of
Upper Canada, to take the course we have
seen fit to take with reference to the present
Government, and the policy they have laid
before the country. In Upper Canada—I
believe in almost every constituency—there
has long been an agitation having reference
to the sectional difficulties between Upper and
Lower Canada. This agitation, instead of
diminishing, has continued to gather strength.
Ever since the union of 1841, Western Canada has felt—and I think justly felt—that
it
did not receive that justice to which its wealth
and population entitled it. On the other
hand, the French population of Lower Canada
believed, or professed to believe, that an increased representation of Upper Canada
in
the Legislature would tend to destroy their
language, their laws, and their religion. The
difficult position into which we were brought
by this antagonism was such, that when the
proposition came from the Government that
the Honorable the President of the Council
(Hon. Mr. BROWN) should unite with them
to see if some means could not be devised by
which these unfortunate sectional difficulties
might be arranged, I felt it my duty—however unpleasant, however strange it may have
seemed that we should alienate ourselves from
the liberal section of Lower Canada—yet,
satisfied that some change was necessary in
the management of the public affairs of this
country, l felt it my duty, as an Upper Canadian—I may say as a Canadian—to do, as
far as I possibly could, what might tend to
remove from our country the unfortunate
difficulties under which we have labored
(Hear, hear.) I believe that the people of
Upper Canada at least—I may say of Canada
generally—have become tired of the strife in
which we have been involved for many years,
and which has put a step to that practical
and useful legislation which the country required for the development of its resources.
believe the people of this country, in consequence of the position in which we found
ourselves, had become earnestly desirous of a
change; but the change they looked to was
not in the direction of a union with the United
States. (Hear, hear.) The change they
looked for was in the direction of a union
with the other British provinces ; one which
should embrace—I hope at no distant day—
the British colonies on the far Pacific coast,
as well as those to the east of us, bordering
on the Atlantic. (Hear, hear.) I believe
that this scheme of union now proposed—
though I feel that it has many imperfections
—is still a step in the right direction. It is
perfectly impossible that the people of this
country should be satisfied to remain in the
agitated state, politically, in which they have
hitherto been, and which might ultimately
land them in difficulties, for which no other
solution could be found than that to which
our neighbors on the other side of the line
have unfortunately been compelled to resort.
(Hear, hear.) The honorable member for
Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION) truly said, so
long ago as 1858, that the country was then
almost verging on revolution, and that a
change was necessary. The necessity for such
a change, instead of diminishing since, has
increased. (Hear, hear.) As far as I have
been able to ascertain the feelings of the members of this House, I have not as yet
understood one honorable gentleman to state that
he was opposed to a union with the other
provinces. Even the honorable gentleman
who has preceded me has stated that he advocates such a union, and believes it would
be
beneficial to this country; only he did not like
the manner and the details of the present
scheme. But, while he and other honorable
gentlemen have condemned that scheme of
union which is now submitted to the House,
While professing to be in favor of union in the
abstract, I have as yet failed to find one of
them offering anything as an improvement
upon it. (Hear, hear.)
465
MR. MCGIVERIN—The honorable member for North Ontario (Mr. M. C. CAMERON) has stated, that while
he is an advocate of union, he believed that a Legislative
would be preferable to a Federal union. It is
easy for honorable members to make that assertion. There are few, at least, of the
English-speaking of this country who would
not also be favorable to the principle of a
legislative union. But can we get it? We
have tried year after year to obtain representation by population, with a view to
bettering
our condition in the western section of the
province, by getting a fair and equal distribution of the public moneys of the country,
according to our wealth and population, and the
measure in which we contribute to the public
revenue. Few, I think, will deny that the
western section—for whatever reason, whether
because of its being more favorably situated,
md having a better climate and more fertile
soil, or from whatever other cause—the fact is
indisputable that the western section of this
province produces more and consumes more
than the eastern section. And this formed
the ground of complaint, the reason of the
agitation, that notwithstanding this fact, we
Upper Canada were not placed on an equal
footing with the Lower Canadians in the legislature of the country, and in the administration
of its affairs. Hence it is that popular opinion in Upper Canada has declared so
emphatically that a change is necessary.
(Hear, hear.) The honorable member for
North Ontario favors a kind of union which,
though desirable in many respects, most
people believe to be impracticable. Are the
French population, who are entitled to claim
just and equal rights, willing to concede it ?
I believe not. Even the liberal section of
Lower Canada refused to concede to us a fair
legislative union. The honorable member
for Hochelaga—a gentleman for whom I entertain the highest respect—I believe a more
liberal or high-minded man does not sit in this
House—even he, whilst we were acting with
him politically, when appealed to time after
time to join with the Liberal section of Upper
Canada in some policy that would remove
these unfortunate difficulties, constantly refused to do so, and told us it was impossible
for
him and his friends to meet us on that ground.
Therefore, when at the cloœ of last session, the
people of Upper Canada were met, as they
were met, by the other political party of
Lower Canada, telling us— "Here, we are
willing to yield you what you desire, only instead of conceding representation by
population pure and simple, we believe a Confederation of the whole British American
Provinces,
with that principle recognised in the General
Government, would be preferable; or, failing
that, we are willing to have a Federation of
the two provinces of Canada,"— when that
was offered us, would we have been justified
in rejecting it, simply because in accepting it
we were compelled for the time to allow party
feelings to remain in abeyance, or because we
had to work in harmony for a time with the
men to whom we had been opposed politically, whom perhaps in time past we had strong1y
denounced ? Should we, when offered that
for which we, as a party and as a people, had
worked and agitated year after year, have refused it, simply because it was not offered
by
those with whom we had hitherto acted politically ? (Hear, hear.) I for one felt—whatever
opinions any might entertain of my conduct—I felt that, as an Upper Canadian and
in justice to my country, 1 was bound to set
aside party feeling and take that course which
was for the best interests of our common
country. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member for North Ontario has stated with reference
to this Confederation—and similar language was held by the honorable member for
Hochelaga—that commercially, politically and
defensively the union of these provinces, constituted in the way proposed, would be
a failure. It was also stated by the honorable
member for North Ontario, that instead of
our preparing ourselves for the contingency of
difficulties arising with our neighbors, we
should remain quiet; we should, in other
words, lie down and allow them to ride over
us and trample us in the dust. (Hear,
hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, that was not the
sentiment, those were not the feelings which
actuated the noble veterans of 1812—(hear,
hear)—who, though few in number, with a
country sparsely settled and an immense extent of frontier, bravely did all that lay
in
their power to resist the foe; and they not
only resisted but repelled him. (Hear, hear.)
Though we are still comparatively few in
number, we have nevertheless increased since
that period in wealth and in population in
an equal ratio with the United States. _ And
though this war has developed great military
resources on their part, I think shall be able
to show that with the resources we have—
with the force we can bring into the field of
at least six hundred thousand armed men if
needed — (hear, hear)—and with the aid
466
Great Britain will always extend to us, if we
show that we on our part are prepared to do
our duty—I believe that we are in quite as
good a position to hold our own as those who
successfully resisted the invader in the war
of 1812. (Hear, hear.) On this point we
can take an encouraging lesson from history.
When the American colonies which now form
the United States rebelled against Great Britain, their population was not over one
or two
hundred thousand in excess of the population
of the five colonies that are to form our proposed Confederation. (Hear, hear.) At
that time they had certainly fewer resources
in every respect than the people of this country now possess, and yet they resisted,
and
successfully resisted, one of the greatest
powers in the world, and wrested from it
their independence. Here, in the event of
an attack, we are placed in a precisely similar
position. One man in this country is equal
to three invaders. (Hear, hear.) It has been
demonstrated in the struggle now pending
between the North and the South, that on
account of the difficulties the country attacked
presents to the enemy, and the advantages it
gives to those defending it, one man is equal
to three in resisting an invading army. The
South—although they have been blockaded
on the sea-cost—although they have had an
immense extent of frontier to defend—although the have had the internal weakness
of four millions of slaves to contend with—
and although the white population is little
more than that now possessed by the provinces which are to form this Confederation;
have nevertheless resisted for four years—I
may say successfully—all the power and
infiuence and available resources which the
United States have been able to bring against
them. Hear, hear.) I sincerely trust and
pray, an it should be the desire of every true
Canadian, that we may continue in peace; but
to say that it is impossible for us to contend
against a force that may be brought against
us, is to say that from which I for one must
dissent. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I believe
that in a commercial, agricultural, and defensive point of view, the union would be
desirable. Placed as we are now, with the Â
of the Reciprocity treaty threatened,
does it not become our duty, I ask, to make
some effort to change and improve our condidition? As I stated, sir, the subject has
been so able placed before this House by honorable gentlemen who have preceded me,
and
who are so much more capable of dealing with
it than I am, that I will not attempt to re
peat the arguments in favor of this scheme,
commercially, financially, and politically,
which have already been adduced. But there
are one or two instances as to the resourses of
the whole of British North America, to which
I would for a moment invite the attention of
the House. The union is desirable with a
view to the development of our mineral resources. In British Columbia and Vancouver's
Island the gold fields equal, if they do
not exceed in value, these of any other
part of the world. Iron we have in that
vast extent of country lying between the
Rocky Mountains and Lake Superior, a
country equal if not superior, for the purposes
of settlement and cultivation to any we
have in Canada, and whose area is estimated at from eighty to one hundred million
acres. Then, again, we have magnificent iron
and copper mines in Canada, while the Lower
Provinces possess vast mineral resources, extensive coal fields, and valuable fisheries.
We
have all the natural wealth to make us a great
peeple if we pursue a course to develope it.
(Hear, hear.) To illustrate my argument. I
will mention some of the figures showing the
resources of the different countries adjacent
to and forming part of that great district, with
an identity of interest. (Hear, hear.) In
Nevada, in 1860, the pepu ation was 6,857,
and in 1863, 60,000. About eleven millions
of dollars have been invested in the opening
up of roads and in other improvements, and
the resources of the country in 1863 amounted
to $15,000,000. Victoria, in Australia, in
1861, had a population of 540,322, and they
have constructed 350 miles of railway. The
revenue was $15,000,000, and they have their
magnificent cities and splendid homesteads,
with every comfort and luxury. In Utah,
where perhaps there are many difficulties to
retard the growth of the country, we find
that in 1860 the population was 41,000—an
increase in ten years of 254 per cent. The
value of property in 1850 was $986,000, and
ten years afterwards, in 1860, it was five and
a half millions—an increase in this period of
468 per cent. Iron and copper mines have
been more developed in that territory than
gold, although they possess gold as well. In
186} the population was estimated at 75,000.
Colorado has a population of 60,000, and the
production of gold in 1864 was fifteen
millions of dollars. Agriculture also is
being rapidly developed. I wished to mention these facts to show what we may look
forward to if we carry out this union
honestly and fairly, as I believe the Gov
467
ernment intend to carry it out; not simply a union with the Maritime Provinces, but
a union of all the British colonies in America
from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. (Hear,
hear.) If I felt that honorable gentlemen
who have now the control of the public affairs of this country did not intend honestly
and faithfully to carry out the union in this
sense, and to take measures for the opening-
up of the great North-West territory, for the
enlargement of our canals, and for the general
improvement of our internal water communications, I for one would not hesitate to
give
my voice, and whatever influence I possess, to
oppose them. (Hear, hear.) I wish to be
understood that I mention these gold-hearing
countries, and countries possessing mineral
wealth, to illustrate that we have all that
wealth in our own possession if we only develop it. The gold produced from Australia,
British Columbia and California during the
last six years has been estimated at nearly
two thousand millions of dollars. The political divisions of British North America
are as
follows: Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Vancouver's Island, British
Columbia, Red River Settlement, and the
Hudson Bay Territory. The combined territory is equal to a square of 1,770 miles,
or
more than three millions of square miles.
This vast area is peopled by about four millions of inhabitants, of whom nearly three
millions are contained in the Canadas. That,
Mr. SPEAKER, is what I understand to be the
contemplated union; that is the union which
I understand the Government are pledged to
this House and to the count to carry out,
and I say that if I did not believe it was their
honest intention to carry that union into effect, I would not have the slightest hesitation
in giving my vote against them. (Hear, hear.)
Now, sir, I would allude to British Columbia
and its resources. British Columbia embraces
an area of 213,500 square miles. Its exports
in 1862 amounted to $9,257,875, chiefly in
gold and furs, and its imports were valued at
$2,200,000. Vancouver's Island embraces
an area of 16,000 square miles, with a population of 11,463. In 1862 its imports amounted
to $3,555,000. The Hudson Bay Territory embraces an area of 1,800,000 square
miles, with a population of 200,000. Now we
come to the Lake Superior region, which has
been entirely or almost entirely neglected by
the people of Canada, whilst our neighbors on
the American side, more energetic and more
enterprising I must confess than we have been,
have built up an immense trade. In 1863 the
amount of capital employed to work the mines
on the American side was $6,000,000.
The amount of copper produced in 1863 was
nine thousand tons, and of iron a hundred
and eighty-five thousand tons. The total
exports were $10,000,000, and the imports
$12,000,000. But whilst this vast trade has
been produced on the American side, little or
no attention has been given by the people of
Canada to the mineral section on our side,
and I mention these figures to show what
wealth we possess still in an undeveloped
state. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, I regret
that I am not able to place my views so clearly before the House as other honorable
gentlemen who have addressed it. I regret that
on this occasion, not having intended to
speak to-night, I have not been able to interest the House more than I have done.
(Cries of "Go on.") But I think that
what should occupy the attention of this
House, and of the people of the country, is
the practical consideration of the question
now under discussion. (Hear, hear.) Sir,
the resources of Canada it is unnecessary for
me to allude to. They are well known to
every member of this House. But it has
been said, in reference to those of the Lower
Provinces, that the people will not bring into
the union a reasonable proportion of wealth.
Mr. SPEAKER, it has been stated that the
have nothing to bring us but fish and coal. I
believe that their resources will compare favorably with those of this province or
of the
United States. (Hear, hear.) The revenue
of New Brunswick in 1850 was $416,348;
in 1860, $833,324; and in 1862, $692,230.
New, sir, I think that these figures will show
that New Brunswick was increasing in an
equal, if not greater, ratio than this country.
Being isolated from this province, being almost entire strangers, and having little
or no
intercourse with each other, we find that
nearly all the trade has gone to a foreign
country. The trade in 1862 was, with Canada—imports, $191,522; exports, 848.090.
Nova Scotia—imports, $861,652; exports,
$341,027. Prince Edward Island—imports,
$82,240; exports, $80,932. Newfoundland—
exports, 811,855. United States —imports,
$3,960,703; exports, $889,416. Under the
union, Canada might expect to get the trade
of all these provinces. The trade with
Canada is almost entirely in flour, shipped
through the United States to these provinces. The agricultural products of New
Brunswick in 1851 and 1861 were as fol
468
lows ;—Wheat, 1851, 206,635; 1861, 279,778. Barley, 1851, 74,300; 1861, 94,679.
Oats, 1851, 1,411,164; 1861, 2,656,883.
Buckwheat, 1851, 689,004; 1861, 904,321.
Maize, 1851, 62,225; 1861, 17,420. Peas,
1851, 42,663; 1861, 5,228. Hay, 1851,
225,083 tons; 1861, 324,160 tons. Turnips,
1851, 539,803; 1861, 634,360. Potatoes,
1851, 2,792,394; 1861,4,011,339. Butter,
1851, 3,050,939 lbs.; 1861, 4.591,477 lbs.
Horses, 1851, 22,044; 1861, 35,830. Meat
Cattle, 1851, 157,218; 1861, 92,025. Sheep,
1851, 168,038; 1861, 214,096. Swine, 1851,
47,932; 1861, 74,057. The area of New
Brunswick is 27,710 square miles, or 17,—
600,000 acres, of which 14,000,000 acres are
fit for profitable cultivation. Prince Edward
Island embraces an area of 2,131 square
miles, or 1,365,400 acres. Its population
has been increasing steadily. In 1798 it was
5,000; in 1833, 32,292; in 1841, 47,034;
in 1851, 55,000; in 1861, 80,552. In 1860,
its imports amounted to $1,150,270; in
1861, $1,049,675; and in 1862, $1,056,200.
The exports in 1860 amounted to 31,272,220; 1861, $1,085,750; 1862, $1,162,215.
The agricultural products in 1860 were—
Wheat, 346,125 minots; barley, 223,195 ; oats,
2,218,578; buckwheat, 50,127; potatoes,
2,972,235; turnips, 348,784; hay, 31,100
tons; horses, 18,765; meat cattle, 60,015;
sheep, 107,242; hogs, 71,535. The area of
Newfoundland is 10,20 square miles, or 25,728,000 acres. In 1857 the total number
of
inhabitants was 119,304. In 1862 its trade
was as follows: With Canada, imports, 850,448, exports, 819,001; Nova Scotia, imports,
$90,596, exports, 837,019; New Brunswick, imports, $2,351 ; Prince Edward
Island, imports, 811,720, exports, 8909;
United States, imports, $345,797, exports,
847,729. The total imports in 1857
amounted to ÂŁ1,413,432; in 1858, ÂŁ1,172,862; in 1859, ÂŁ1,324,136; in 1860,
ÂŁ1,254,128; in 1861, ÂŁ],152.857; in 1862,
ÂŁl,007,082. The total exports were, in
1857, ÂŁ1,651,171; in 1858, ÂŁ1,318.836;
in 1859, ÂŁ1,357,113; in 1860,ÂŁ1,271,712;
in 1861,ÂŁ1,092,551; and in 1862, ÂŁ1,171,723. The principal export is fish. Nova
Scotia is 350 miles in length by 100 miles
in breadth. Its population in 1838 was
199,028; in 1851, 276,117; and in 1861,
330,857. The revenue in 1852 was $483,522 ; expenditure, $483,895; imports,
$5,970,877, exports, $4,853,903. In 1862,
the revenue was $1,127,298; expenditure,
$1,009,701; imports, $6,198,553; exports,
$5,646,961. The agricultural products
of 1851 and 1861 were as follows :—
Wheat, 1851, 297,159; 1861, 312,081.
Barley, 1851, 196,007; 1861, 269,578. Oats,
1851, 1,384,437; 1861, 1,978,137. Buckwheat, 1851, 170,301 ; 1861 , 195,340. Maize,
1851, 37,475; 1861, 15,592. Peas, 1851,
21,638; 1861, 21,335. Rye, 1851, 61,438;
1861, 59,706. Hay, 1851, 287,837 tons;
1861, 334,287. Turnips, 1851, 467,125;
1861, 554,318. Potatoes, 1851, 1,986,789;
1861, 3,824,864. Butter, 1851, 3,613,890
lbs.; 1861, 4,532,711. Cheese, 1851,
652,069 lbs.; 1861, 901,296. Horses, 1851,
"8.789; 1861, 41,927. Meat cattle, 1851,
243,713 ; 1861, 151,793. Sheep, 1851,
282,180; 1861, 332,653. Swine, 1851,
51,533; 1861, 53,217. Coal, 1851, 83,421
tons; 1861, 326,429. I merely allude to
these figures to show hon. gentlemen that
these colonies have other and very valuable
resources besides those which have been
stated by some members, namely, fish
and coal. (Hear, hear.) It was stated
by the honorable member for North
Ontario (Mr. M. C. CAMERON)—and I
think ingeniously stated—that this union
would produce an enormous increase of taxation on the people of Canada; that the
partnership would be a very unprofitable
one to us. Now I think he failed to make
a point on that. It has been shown that we
enter into this union with a debt of twenty
five dollars a head, and that the Lower Provinces, instead of bringing a load upon
us
by coming into the partnership, occupy a decidedly favorable position with regard
to this
country. (Hear, hear.) The hon member
for North Ontario also stated that the union
of the provinces would involve this country
in a great local debt, a statement which I
think is also erroneous. He is favorable to
a union, but would prefer a legislative one.
But does he pretend to say that such a
union would tend less to the swamping of
Upper Canada, which he fears under the
Confederation? His financial argument,
that our debt and our taxation would increase, has failed, except thus far, that the
machinery of the Government may be too
expensive. If the present Government fail
to discharge their duty and adopt an unduly
expensive machinery, it is by that means
alone that an increased expenditure can
arise. It does not depend on the fact of the
union ; it rests entirely on this, whether this
union is carried out fairly and properly.
(Hear, hear.) The next point is the construc
469
tion of the Intercolonial Railway, and to that
the hon. member for North Ontario is favorable, except that he would rather see it
built
without the union than with it, because the
union will add so much to the expenses of
the country. In reference to that, the increase
of the expenditure will depend entirely on
the hon. gentlemen who have now the charge
of the government of the country. If they
are extravagant; if they have a governor
with a retinue, and for each of the provinces an expensive staff, and all the appliances
of royalty, then I believe that the union would
add greatly to the expenses of the country.
But I do not understand that such is their
opinion. I believe their desire is—and I
am satisfied that if they have not this desire
the peeple will require it of them—that it
shall be conducted on principles of economy,
and in such a manner that increased taxation
will not necessarily be the result. (Hear,
hear.) Now, sir, in reference to this great
country which I have briefly adverted to, I
wish it to be distinctly understood by the
members of the Government that I for one
support them on this understanding, and on
this understanding only—that the union of
the provinces and the construction of the
Intercolonial Railway, the opening up of the
North-West and the enlargement of our
canals, shall be considered part of this
scheme, with a view to developing our great
natural resources and placing this country in
a prominent position, not only as a colony
but as a community, that will command the
respect of nations. (Hear, hear.) We must
have these promises respecting the North-
West and the canals fairly carried out, and
not be placed in such a position that after
the Intercolonial Railway shall have been
constructed, there will be a combination of
eastern interests to prevent the accomplishment of these other works and swamp the
great North-West. If there is to be a doubt
upon that point, I for one, without any
hesitation, will state that I will not support
a scheme that will admit of it. (Hear, hear.)
I am most decidedly opposed to the Intercolonial Railway as a commercial undertaking.
I believe it never can be made a
profitable commercial work. But this I do
believe, that situated as we are, with the
probability of being shut out from the markets of the United States by the abrogation
of the Reciprocity treaty-of being restricted
in our commercial intercourse with the world
by the repeal of the bonding system—of being
crippled by every step the Americans may
take with the view of forcing us into closer
political relations with them, it is our duty
for purposes of self-defence, and with a view
of placing ourselves in an independent position and having our resources developed,
fairly, properly and honestly to carry out
this scheme with the construction of the Intercolonial Railway as part of it. As a
commercial work, I have looked into it in all its
bearings, and have failed to see the advantages it will confer. The farmers of the
grain-producing districts of Upper Canada
have the same market to sell their surplus
products as the farmers of the States, that
is, the English market. Now. I think it is
impossible to show that the produce of
Upper Canada can be conveyed by this
Intercolonial Railway to the seaboard, and
thence to Liverpool, as profitably as the
Americans can carry it to the seaboard at
New York and thence to the English market. If by the one route the grain cannot
be carried as cheaply as by the other, it is
impossible for the Canadian farmer or merchant to be placed in as good a position
as
the American. But if, having constructed
the Intercolonial Railway, our Government
says, " We will compete with the Americans;
we will put the rates of transportation so low
as to offer our farmers as cheap a route by it
as by the States," then the cost of this will
have to be borne by the people in another
way, for the road failing to pay even expenses,
the excess of expenditure will become
a charge upon the country for years. View
it then in any light, and the proposed
road cannot be made profitable. But for
purposes of defence, and as a means of communication, if we desire to be united with
the Lower Provinces and retain our connection with Great Britain, the construction
of
the road is a necessity. (Hear, hear.) I
desire, Mr. SPEAKER, to state what in my
opinion will be some of the commercial
results of this union. If the North-West
contains land, as I believe it does, equal to
almost any on this continent, it should be
placed in precisely the same position as
regards Canada that the Western States
occupy in relation to the Eastern. I believe
we should endeavor to develope a great
grain producing district; for whatever
may be said, there is not any appreciable
quantity of grain-producing land in the
hands of the Government not now under
cultivation in Canada, for the benefit
of our increasing population. It is a
melancholy fact that for the want of
470
such a country, our youth seek homes in
a foreign land, who would remain under the
British flag if homes were open to them
there. (Hear, hear.) If we had that
country open to them, to say nothing of
the foreign immigration it would attract, it
would afford homes for a large population
from amongst ourselves now absorbed in the
Western States. Again, we shall have the
trade of that country carried through our
midst, and profit by the transportation to the
seaboard of the produce of a land which I
look upon as one of the greatest grain-
producing countries on the continent, equal
in this respect to any of the fertile states of
the west. (Hear, hear.) If we look at the
marvellous growth of those states, we may
form some idea of what our North-West
territory may become, if properly developed. In 1830 the whole of that vast
country was a wilderness. Now we find
its exportation of grain, in addition to the
quantities consumed, amounting to 120,000,000 annually. The population within a
short period has increased from 1,500,000
to upwards of 9,000,000. We find it now,
in fact, an empire of itself, possessing all the
resources of wealth that any country could
desire. What then may we not expect our
great North-West to become? If we had it
opened up, Canada would be the carriers of
its produce, as the Middle States are the
carriers of the Western States, and the manufacturers of its goods as the Eastern
States
are now the manufacturers of the goods consumed by the west. We would occupy
towards it precisely the same position as the
Eastern States occupy towards the Western ;
the produce of the North-West would find a
profitable market amongst us, while our
manufactories would increase and prosper,
and we would be placed entirely independent
of the United States in our commercial relations. (Hear, hear.) As we are now situated,
the United States afford us a market,
especially for our coarser grains, which
will not bear the expense of long transportation. They have taken of our produce twenty
millions annually since the
Reciprocity treaty was negotiated. That
trade must necessarily seek other channels.
If we can open up the North-West ; if
we enlarge and improve our inland water
communication—if we can build up a fleet
of vessels to ply on our inland waters and
owned by this great empire of provinces,
then, instead of being dependent upon the United States, we would be in a position
of
entire independenee ; we would then have in
ourselves the substantial elements of progress ; and we would have the advantage of
loading our vessels at any of our own ports,
and sending them direct to the Lower Provinces, the West Indies, and Europe. Then
the Lower Provinces would have a profitable trade with us in oil, fish and other products,
and a large fleet of vessels which
would be employed in valuable commerce
and increase the common prosperity of the
whole country. (Hear, hear.) The union, if
based on correct principles and carried out
in honesty of purpose, will be for the advantage of all ; and if our statesmen approach
and finally consummate the work as enlightened and patriotic statesmen should do,
their names will be handed down in the history of the Confederation with honor. (Hear,
hear.) If, on the other hand, they fail to
carry it out in this spirit ; if by the union
they entail an enormously increased expenditure, with extravagance and wild speculation,
then they will do much to injure the
country and check its prosperity. There is
doubtless room for extravagance and speculation in connection with this scheme. The
history of our railways shews beyond a
doubt, that a large portion of the immense
sum expended was spent in a very unsatisfactory manner—(hear, hear)— and that
they might have been constructed without
entailing such a large indebtedness upon the
country ; and if, guided by the experience of
the past, the work now proposed is carried out
in a proper manner, they will deserve
the gratitude of the people. (Hear, hear.)
In looking over the life of FRANKLIN, I
found this passage, which occurs to me as
illustrating a position very similar to that in
which we are now placed :—
No sooner had it become clear to FRANKLIN
that the French meant war, than his mind darted
to the best means of resisting the attack. The
French power in North America was wielded by
a single hand, and all their measures were part
of one scheme. The power of England, on the
contrary, was dissipated among many governments, always independent of one another,
often
a little jealous, and never too cordial or neighborly. " We must unite or be overcome,"
said
FRANKLIN in May, 1734. Just before leaving
home to attend Congress at Albany, he published
an article to this effect, and appended to it one of
those allegorical wood-cuts. It was a picture of
a snake cut into as many pieces as there were
colonies ; each piece having upon it the first letter
of the name of a colony, and under the whole,
in large letters— " Join or die."
Mr. SPEAKER, I believe that our position
471
is similar at the present time. I believe
that it is really the desire, the object and
the aim of our neighbors ultimately, whether
by force of arms or by the course they have
recently adopted, to bring us into the American union. By crippling our resources,
by
destroying our trade and by threatening us
with invasion, they hope to bring about, sooner or later, a feeling of dissatisfaction
among
the people of Canada and a desire for union.
There is no question that, unless we take
proper steps, the people of Canada will become dissatisfied. By union with the Lower
Provinces, it is evident that we will be enabled to increase our trade to the amount
of
five or six millions of dollars, which is of
itself a very strong inducement, aside from
the other considerations that I have alluded
to. I believe there are many members of
this House in favor of the scheme, but
who look upon it as so large a question that it
ought, they say, to be submitted to a vote of
the people. (Hear, hear.) It has been said by
several members, and by the honorable gentleman who preceded me—" Shall we take away
the rights of the people ? Shall we enter
upon a scheme of this importance without
allowing them a voice ? Have there been any
petitions in favor of this scheme?" (Hear,
hear.) That would certainly appear an argument that had great force ; but if we take
into consideration the effect of the agitation
of any question in this House upon which the
people feel strongly, we have a right to ask
why has not a single petition been presented
against it ? We have the effect of this question well illustrated in the introduction,
by
the honorable member for West Brant, of a
railway bill. That question the people of
Western Canada have very strong feelings
upon, and I think they have good reasons for
it. We scarcely find that measure placed on
the records of this House before we have
petitions from all sections of the west, denouncing the bill as an attack upon the
liberties of the people. They fear the power that
it proposes to place in the hands of the Grand
Trunk Railway Company. Now, if the people
of Canada object to this great scheme—and it
has been placed before them in almost every
light—the resolutions have been printed in
almost every paper in Canada—months have
been given for their consideration, and the
whole subject has been placed before them in
an eloquent manner by several of the honorable members of the Government—why have
they not petitioned against it ? The fact that
they have not done so shows that they almost
unanimously acquiesce in what is being done.
Since the Government pledged themselves to
bring down a scheme for Confederation, the
subject has been brought before nearly fifty
constituencies in Canada, either by elections
or by its being submitted to the consideration
of the people by honorable members of this
House, and the people of Upper Canada, at
least, have in no instance voted disapproval of
it. (Cries of " No, no.")
MR. A. MACKENZIE—At a large and
popular meeting held in Toronto, a few evenings ago, only one man could be found to
vote against it.
HON. MR. BROWN—Since the present
Government was formed, and its policy announced, there has not been one election contest
in which more or less importance was not
attached by one candidate or another to this
question. There have been no fewer than
fifty-one constituencies, or portions of constituencies, appealed to since our policy
was
placed before the country, and in every instance that policy has been sustained. (Hear,
hear, and cheers.)
MR. MCGIVERIN—I feel that I am at
perfect liberty to support this measure. Perhaps I was the first to agitate and to
lay the
question before the people of the west in my
own county. I stated to the people that I
was in favor of representation according to
population as a principle of justice, but that I
believed that that question could be settled,
and with it all our difficulties could be arranged by means of the larger project
of the
union of all the provinces. Many honorable
gentlemen who oppose this scheme freely
admit the importance of some change, but
they have not proposed any substitute that
would improve the scheme. I am satisfied
that if the question were brought before the
people of Canada, side issues, political and
personal feeling and party questions would
enter more largely into its consideration than
Federation itself, and that therefore a correct
verdict might not be obtained. I have endeavored to inform myself as to the precedents
for submitting such a question to the
people, and I have failed to find one precedent
in its favor, while I have found several in
favor of the method of dealin with it as proposed by the Government. The first I shall
take the liberty of reading is from HANSARD,
volume 85, as follows :—
At the time Sir R. PEEL proposed the change
in the repeal of the corn laws to a House of Commons which had been elected in the
interests of
their maintenance, it was urged that he should have
472
advised a dissolution of Parliament before submitting this reposition, and that it
was unprecedented and dangerous for the existing House
to deal with the question. Sir R. PEEL took
high grounds against the doctrine, declaring that
whatever may have been the circumstances that
may have taken place at the election, he never
would sanction the view that any House of Commons is incompetent to entertain a measure
which
is necessary for the well-being of the country.
He cited in proof of the soundness of this principle Mr. PITT'S observations when
a similar doctine was proposed at the time of the union of
England and Ireland, as it had been at the time
of the union with Scotland. This view had been
maintained in Ireland very vehemently, but it was
not held by Mr. FOX, and only slightly hinted at
by SHERIDAN, in reply to whom Mr. PITT defended the constitutional system that Parliament,
without any previous appeal to the people, had a
right to alter the succession to the throne, to disfranchise its constituents or associate
others with
them. "There could not," observed Sir R. FEEL,
" be a more dangerous example, a more purely
democratic precedent, if I may so say, than that
this Parliament should be dissolved on the ground
of its incompetency to decide on any question of
this nature."
"I think, sir, that that is a very strong argument ; and here is another, from volume
35,
page 857, of the Parliamentary History of
England :—
The Parliament of Great Britain that had
agreed to the legislative union with Ireland, incorporated with itself the members
for Ireland,
and then commenced the first session of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by electing
a new
Speaker and observing all the formalities usual
upon the commencement of a new parliament
without any previous dissolution."
Next, Mr. SPEAKER, I will take a quotation
from an eminent authority of one of the most
democratic countries in the world—a country
whose people boast that nothing can be done
without their sanction. I refer to the United
States of America, and the work I now cite
is SEDGWICK on Constitutional Law. Speaking of " cases where the Legislature has sought
to divest itself of its real powers," he says :—
Efforts have been made in several cases, by
state legislatures, to divest themselves of the responsibility of their functions
by submitting
statutes to the people ; but these proceedings
have been held, and very rightly, to be entirely
unconstitutional and invalid. The government of
the state is democratic, but it is a representative
democracy in the legislature.
I shall make another extract from the Constitutional History of England, page 316, on
the same subject :—
Upon this prevalent disaffection, and the gen
eral dangers of the established government, was
founded that measure so frequently arraigned in
later times. the substitution of septennial for triennial parliaments. The ministry
deemed it too
perilous for their master, certainly for themselves,
to encounter a general election in 1717 ; but the
arguments adduced for the alteration, as it was
meant to be permanent, were drawn from its permanent expediency. Nothing can be more
extravagant than what is sometimes confidently pretended by the ignorant, that the
legislature exceeded its rights by this enactment ; or, if that
cannot be legally advanced, that it at least violated the trust of the people, and
broke in upon
the ancient Constitution.
Sir, I think that these are pretty strong precedents on the subject, especially as
I find not
one precedent for submitting the question to
the people. I do think that we owe and
ought to pay to the wishes of the people every
deference ; and if I believed that any large
portion of the people of Western Canada, or
of the constituency which I represent, were in
favor of having it submitted to the electors, I
would feel it my duty to bow to their will
and vote for its submission. But I am safe
in saying that I have not conversed with one
prominent individual in my county who was
not strongly in favor of the preposed union.
I will admit that the political ties that bind
men together are strong ties, and approach to
a great extent to the feeling of friendship,
and perhaps there is no one values them more
than I do ; but when 1 aided, at the meeting of
the Liberal party, a year ago, in bringing about
the present movement, I did so believing that it
was for the best interests of the country, and
if properly carried out many of us will live
to see this country become one of the greatest, happiest and freeest on earth, because
it
possesses all the resources and all the material
for wealth and prosperity that is found in any
country. Nature has bountifully given us all
she could well give towards making us a great
and prosperous people. (Hear, hear.) Honorable gentlemen must admit that it is time
a change should be brought about by some
means, for it was a most melancholy sight to
see the two sides of this House so evenly balanced against each other as they were
during
the two last sessions, the members spending
night after night in useless discussion on personal grounds, instead of promoting
useful
legislation. Mr. SPEAKER, I fear if this
course were continued for any length of time
it would lead to serious results. There are
certain bounds and limits, both to individuals,
communities and nations, beyond which they
cannot go with safety. I believe we had al
473
most arrived at that point in this country.
Who would have thought, a month before the
attack on Fort Sumter, that a devastating
civil war would have resulted from the angry
discussions which took place in the Congress
of the United States ? Up to that time
everyone professed to believe that the hard
words bandied to and fro between the representatives of the North and South were mere
characteristics of the people. And who knows
but that the fearful scourge which has overtaken them might not have befallen us,
had
our sectional discussions continued with increasing bitterness and acrimony ? These
dreadful consequences are happily averted by
the scheme now before us for reconciling our
differences. (Hear, hear.) I am one of those
alluded to by the honorable member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION) as being an Upper
Canada liberal who joined in supporting
the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government, and
who, in so doing, gave up the demand for
representation by population, which had for
years agitated the western section of the province. For my part the feeling I had
at the
time was this : the MACDONALD-CARTIER
and the CARTIER-MACDONALD Governments,
which had for years, in different forms, ruled
the country, had refused to give us representation by population. Our natural allies
also,
the Liberal party in Lower Canada—who, I
believe, desired, and honestly desired, to do
the best they could to meet our wishes—in
like manner declared the impossibility of conceding to us this principle. Meanwhile
the
Liberal party from Upper Canada felt that the
country was in a state of financial embarrassment, and that an amelioration of her
condition was urgently needed. A change was
absolutely necessary. It was wisely thought
that it was better to have half a loaf than no
bread. But I have failed to see, and I yet
fail to see, that the Liberal party of Upper
Canada have ever given up the advocacy of representation by population. We found all
parties in Lower Canada—both the English-speaking population and French-speaking population
—refusing to concede to us what we conceived
to be this just and proper principle ; and when
the opportunity was offered to us of relieving
the country from its difficulties, we felt that
no party considerations or party ties should
be allowed to interfere with what we conceived to be our sacred duty to our constituents
and our country. (Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding the high personal feeling I entertain
for the liberal members from Lower
Canada, I cannot help saying that I think it
was wrong of them to have refused us the
concession of the principle for which we had
so long contended, and I feel now that we
have higher aims and motives than those of a
mere partisan character, that we owe a duty
to our constituents and the country which
should carry greater weight with it than party
ties and party feelings. (Hear, hear.) The
honorable member for North Ontario (Mr. M.
C. CAMERON) has made an attack on the
President of the Council for having hitherto
denounced the construction of the Intercolonial Railway ; and there is no doubt, Mr.
SPEAKER, that if honorable members now in
opposition were desirous of entertaining this
House for a few hours, they could do so with
a good deal of effect by reading the past
speeches of that honorable gentleman and the
articles that have appeared from time to time
in his influential paper, the Globe, not only
upon this question, but upon many others
which have engaged the attention of the public
mind. But I believe there is no man who
felt more strongly than he did on account of
the difficulties with which the country was
surrounded, and all honorable gentlemen will
agree with me when I say that I am persuaded
that the Hon. President of the Council did
not feign the feeling he manifested in this
House when he arose and avowed his intention, for the good of his country, of joining
with the men whom he had previously denounced. (Hear, hear.) But did he so act
without a purpose, without receiving anything in return ? No. The principle advocated
by him and his party for years was conceded; and in addition to that, in my opinion,
whatever may be the opinion of others—and
it is an opinion I have held for years—by
adopting the larger scheme we attain the same
result. I ask, then, should the Hon.
President of the Council be denounced now
for the position he has felt it his duty to take ;
and, especially, should he be denounced by
the Liberal party—by those with whom he has
worked all his political life—both in Upper
Canada and in Lowcr Canada, for taking the
course he has taken in common with others,
when by so doing he has attained that for
which he has been struggling for years ?
(Hear, hear.) I believe that no man
can leave his political party,—can leave
that party with which all his political
sympathies are identified and with which
he has been working for years,—and step
across to the other side of the House
without deep feeling. And I do believe that
the President of the Council experienced
474
acutely the position he felt it his duty to
take at that time. And I can safely say for
myself that such is my own feeling in regard
to the question now before the House. If
this were a question which could have been
carried by the Liberal party of Upper and
Lower Canada without their coalescing with
the conservatives, I should feel more happy
in my position than I do now. But to revive the old feeling and associations, to return
to the criminations and recriminations, to revert once more to the bitter attacks
we have
heard in this chamber, could not be justified
for a moment. And the Liberal party wisely
came to the understanding that, pending the
settlement of this question, they would let
by-gones be by-gones. I earnestly hope that
this scheme will be carried out without political acrimony or personal feeling. Whatever
may be its result hereafter, time alone
will determine. But as a Canadian, I feel
—and the views I have entertained for many
years only strengthen that feeling—that
whatever my personal feelings may be, it is
my duty to aid to the extent of my ability in
the consummation of this great project.
(Cheers.) It has been said that information
will be brought down relative to the constitution of the local legislatures. Well,
perhaps, that may accord with the views of this
House. But it would have been more satisfactory to me could the scheme have been
brought down while we are discussing the resolutions now before the House. If, however,
the Government have not matured that
scheme, or if they feel it is to the public interest that it should not be submitted
at this
time, on them must rest the responsibility.
In voting for these resolutions, I am simply
voting to affirm the principle of Confederation of the provinces ; and if the propositions
which shall hereafter be brought down for
the formation of the local governments and
Legislatures are not satisfactory to me ; if I
conceive them to be unjust in principle or opposed to public interest and policy,
I shall
feel myself at perfect liberty to vote against
them. (Hear, hear.) I look upon the two
as distinct propositions.
 HON. MR. BROWN—Hear, hear.
MR. MCGIVERIN — There are many
things in these resolutions I would like to see
eliminated ; but where there were so many
parties to the contract or partnership, and
where there were so many contending views
to harmonise and interests to serve, I believe
it was utterly impossible for each province to
get just what it wanted. We have the best
evidence of this fact from the peculiar views
taken by the non-contents in the Lower Provinces at this time. They say they are
going into this union with Canada, which is a
bankrupt province, and that they will be
ruined by the connection. And we heard
only a day or two ago the strange idea expressed that the Intercolonial Railway was
opposed to the true interests of Lower Canada, but from an Upper Canadian stand point
it was just the thing that is wanted. (Laughter.) We find a section of the people
in
Lower Canada opposing the work on the
ground that it will tend to destroy their language and nationality ; and we find also
the
British element in Lower Canada complain
that in the arrangement for the Local Legislature their rights and privileges will
be
swept away. (Hear, hear.) On the other
hand, Upper Canadians are opposing the
scheme as injurious to their true interests,
and asserting that the financial difficulties
likely to arise under it will be detrimental to
the welfare of the west ; so that where there
is such great diversity of opinion, it was impossible to mature a scheme which should
be
in all respects perfect and satisfactory. No
doubt Upper Canada has some cause to complain. For instance, the eighty cents per
head for carrying on the local governments
appears unfair in principle to Upper Canada,
and as such they have reason to feel dissatisfied. This apportionment is on the present
basis of population, and whatever may be the
increase in numbers of the western section of
the province, if even we increase during the
next ten years in the same ratio that we have
been increasing for the past ten years ; if we
double our population we shall still only get
the eighty cents per head for the present population. There is no doubt this is an
objectionable feature.
 HON. MR. BROWN—Will my honorable
friend allow me to assure him that he is
slightly in error, and to show him how he is
so ? Supposing we increase in population, the
other provinces will increase also, and the
only unfairness that could possibly exist in
the case supposed would be in so far as the
population of Upper Canada was relatively
greater than that of the other provinces.
 HON. MR. BOLTON—Yes, it is simply a matter of
ratio.
 HON. MR. BROWN—Yes, it is simply a
question of ratio. My honorable friend will
see how the principle works. At the rate we
are proceeding now, some 2½, 3, or 4 percent, it would take a great many years before
475
any injustice to Upper Canada could arise.
And then my honorable friend will see how it
is to be distributed afterwards in the way of
population, so that though there might be a
little less in the first instance, there would be
an immense gain in the end.
MR. MCGIVERIN—I am glad to hear
all these explanations. As I said before, I
wish for the fullest and
freest discussion.
I may not have made myself acquainted with
all the details of the scheme, and a question
of this importance to be discussed in
all its bearings. This is a point, however,
which did occur to me. as objectionable. Then
the imposition of an export duty in regard to
the productions of some of the provinces,
appears to me to be contrary to the true
principles of government. But it is said
that this has been imposed simply in the
way of a stumpage. (Hear, hear.) There
are, no doubt, various objections which may
be brought against these resolutions. There
are grounds enough for honorable gentlemen in the opposition to make excellent
speeches against them. But what I would
wish to impress upon the House is this, that
we should approach this subject in a spirit of
candor, honestly desiring to meet the question
fairly in all its bearings. The question is
simply this, Shall we vote for these resolutions, notwithstanding their imperfections?
I freely admit that, in my view, there are
imperfections in the scheme. But shall we,
on that account, take the responsibility of
throwing out the resolutions ? That, I think,
is the question we have to consider. Honorable gentlemen may differ from me, but I
feel
that the advantages of the contemplated union
are such, that notwithstanding the objectionable features in the scheme, I would not
be
doing my duty to my constituents, I would
not be discharging the duty I owe to my
country, were I to vote against it, and thus
lend my influence to ent the consummation
of that union. ( Hear, hear.) I thank the
House for the indulgence accorded to me, and
I only add this, in conclusion, that I would
ask every honorable gentleman, in considering this scheme, to look at it in all its
possible
bearings, free from personal or party prejudices; to look at the position we occupy
and
have occupied for years past in this country ;
to look at the wretched spectacle we presented
here, night after night, when placed in antagonism to each other by our sectional
feelings
and jealousies ; and to say whether it is possible that we can be placed in a worse
or more
humiliating position than that which we have
occupied hitherto on account of those sectional
antagonism. Let honorable gentlemen consider the matter in a proper spirit, desiring
to
take that course which is for the best interests
of the country. If the principle of this union
is wrong, the scheme should be rejected; if,
on the other hand, it is right, it deserves our
support. And as yet I have not heard one
honorable member of this House declare himself opposed to the principle of union.
The
objections have been onl to details. And I
do say that when honorable gentlemen oppose
a scheme of this sort, while admitting that
they are favorable to a union of all the provinces, they ought to propose their own
scheme, and submit it to the House for its
approval or rejection. (Cheers)
MR. DUNKIN then moved that the debate be adjourned.
HON. MR. HOLTON, in seconding the
motion for the adjournment of the debate,
said—I am sure the House has listened with
very great pleasure to the speech of my honorable friend the member for Lincoln (Mr.
McGIVERIN). I certainly did. It is true
that, towards its conclusion, be halted somewhat in his logic. Still, on the whole,
it was
an able and spirited speech. ( Hear, hear.)
But there is one point to which I desire to
call the attention of honorable gentlemen opposite, as arising out of the speech of
my honorable friend, and, as hearing on the future
course of this debate, it is a matter of ve
great importance. He said that he should
oppose this scheme—that he should vote
against this proposition—unless he had the
distinct assurance of the Government that the
enlargement of our canals and the opening of
the North-West territory should proceed
pari pauu with the construction of the Intercolonial Railroad. I ask him whether I have
stated his position correctly.
HON. MR. HOLTON—I want no explanations. I want him merely to say whether I
have rendered him correctly or not. If I
have incorrectly represented him, he will say
so. I am quite sure I have not. While he
was making that statement I emphasized it in
the usual parliamentary way, and the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN) emphasized
it also, giving his assent to it, as I
understood. Now, I think it is of the last
importance that we should understand distinctly whether the Government do really take
that view of the matter; whether my honorable friend correctly stated the position
of the
Government in that respect; and whether the
476
" Hear, hear " of my honorable friend the
President of the Council was to be understood
as implying the assent of the Government to
that proposition.
MR. MCGIVERIN—If my hon. friend
will allow me a moment to answer his question, it may save a good deal of discussion.
What I said was this—that if I believed that the Government would not honestly
and faithfully carry out their pledges with
regard to' the opening of the North-West and
the enlargement of the canals, the improvement of our internal and water communications;
if I believed they did not honestly and
sincerely intend to carry out these measures,
I wouldy oppose them.
HON. MR. HOLTON—" Hand in hand "
was the expression used. (Cries of " No,
no !" " Yes, yes!")
HON. Mr. BROWN—I apprehend my
honorable friend from Lincoln perfectly understood what he was speaking about. What
he
said was this—that he understood the Government were pledged, as a portion of their
policy, to the enlargement of the canals and
the opening up of the North-West, as well as
the construction of the Intercolonial Railway,
and that he believed we were sincere in the
earnest determination to go on with all those
works at the earliest possible moment. He
was perfectly correct in making that statement. The Government are pledged to that.
If my honorable friend has any doubt about
it, he will find it there in the conditions of
agreement come to by the Conference. And
I apprehend it will be found that my honorable friend is not in the slightest degree
more
earnest in his desire to promote those improvements than are my colleagues who sit
beside
me, from Lower as well as Upper Canada.
(Hear, hear.)
MR. SPEAKER stated that Mr. BELLEROSE had first caught his eye.
Mr. BELLEROSE—Mr. SPEAKER, before I give my vote on the great question
which now engages the attention of this honorable House, I consider it a duty to my
constituents and also to myself that I should
say a few words on this important measure,
and reply to some of the arguments put forth
by the honorable members of the opposition—
arguments specious in appearance, but in
reality futile and unworthy of consideration.
Were I to particularize all the difficulties
which have threatened for some years past to
bring. the wheels of government to a dead
lock, to relate the history of all the crises
through which the various administrations
which have succeeded each other have passed,
to recall to your minds the state of anarchy
which has for some time threatened to render
all legislation impossible, it would be a waste
of time and trouble, as on all sides there is
but one opinion, acknowledging the lamentable
position of the province, and the urgent necessity of finding a remedy for the evils
which
beset the future of our country. It was, Mr.
SPEAKER, in obedience to the voice of a whole
people calling on the patriotism of their statesmen, conjuring them to seek out some
remedy
for the cruel distemper which pervades the
body politic and threatens it with dissolution,
that-the members of the administration, forgetting the past, burying in oblivion all
former disagreements, united together to search
for the grand remedy, the value of which we
are now to discuss. Those honorable gentlemen have deserved well of their country,
and
I am glad that I can avail myself of the
present occasion to offer them my thanks and
my congratulations for the admirable and
noble sentiments of patriotism of which they
have given proofs—proofs well understood by
the people, and certain to be repaid by their
applause. I have already taken occasion, at
the commencement of the session, to express
my views of the general scheme of Confedeation which the Government has presented
for the consideration of this House. I declared, Mr. SPEAKER, that I felt not the
least
hesitation in declaring myself favorable to the
union, but that I could have wished, were it
practicable, that certain of the resolutions
might be amended. It would be useless,
therefore, to repeat what I said on this head,
and I proceed to examine the arguments of
the opponents of the plan. It has been said
—the honorable member for Hochelaga has
said, I believe—that the people had had no
opportunity of expressing their opinions on
this important measure. If we look back at
the occurrences of the last six months, when
we look at all that has been said and done in
that time, and recollect all the falsehoods and
deceptions uttered and attempted to be im
posed on the people by the enemies of the
measure, we must arrive at a very different
conclusion from that of the honorable member
for Hochelaga and his friends. The last
session was hardly well concluded when the
opponents of the present Government took the
field, not to discuss in a frank and loyal spirit
the promise made by the Administration that
they intended to seek in the Federation of the
477
Canadas, or all the provinces of British
North America, a remedy for all our sectional
difficulties, but, on the contrary, with a steadfast resoltuion to labor with all
their might to
crush the Coalition. Such was their design,
and their works have been consistent. What
indeed have we since beheld? Men who for
years past have devoted their pen to the unhallowed work of undermining the Catholic
religion and vilifying its ministers, who have
long aimed at destroying in the minds of
French-Canadians all love for their peculiar
institutions—the safeguards of our nationality ; men who more recently promulgated
dissertations on rationalism which our prelates have condemned ; these men we have
seen, prefencing to be suddenly struck and
animated with flowing zeal in favor of our
institutions, our religion and our clergy, take
the field, and, uninvited by any, canvas
the country, descending to entreat all who
loved their nationality to join them in their
crusade, and representing to them that those
who gave in to the plans of the Government
would be accessories to the annihilation of
their religion, the murder of their good pastors, and the ruin of the people themselves
by
the load of taxes which would be laid on them.
They conjured them to lose no time in protesting against this dreadful scheme of Confederation,
which was sure to ruin and destroy
them. Have we not seen, moreover, a press,
conducted by a spirit of unbridled license,
calling itself the protector of the people, scattering insults and abuse on the heads
of the
members of the existing Government, calumnisting some and holding up all as objects
of
contempt, representing the Lower Canadian
members of it as ready to sell their country
for filthy lucre, for the fruits of office, publishing violent diatribes condemnatory
of Confederation, falsely purporting to be written by
members of the clergy, &c., employing, in short,
all means to excite the prejudices of the people against the scheme of the Government
;
and what has been the result ? The people
1istened to them, but were so far from answering to the appeal made to them, that
up to
this time hardly any petitions have been presented to this House against the plan
of Confederation. Now, if the Opposition have not
been able to convince the people that these
constitutional changes are prejudicial to Lower Canada, when they discussed the subject
without contradiction in their own way, will
they find better success when the friends of
the cause are at hand to refute their arguments and to show up what kind of patriot
ism is theirs ? I think not. I may then safely
assume that the people have had the opportunity of pronouncing against the project,
but
have refused to do so; and the honorable
member for Hochelaga is mistaken when he
declares that an appeal to the country is necessary in order to ascertain the opinion
of
the public concerning it. Year by year that
honorable gentleman complains that our election laws are defective ; that money prevails
to the prejudice of merit in our election contests. How can he then demand that so
momentous a question as this of the union of the
provinces should undergo the ordeal of a popular vote, without any other view than
that of
involving the country in trouble and expense
to the extent of several hundred thousand dollars ? I, for my part, Mr. Speaker, am
opposed to an appeal to the people. Every
member has had time to consult the opinion
of his constituents at leisure, and aloof from
the turmoil and agitation incidental to an
election. In this way, when the project submitted by the Government shall have undergone
the ordeal of a vote of this Honorable
House, we shall have the satisfaction of saying with truth —" So would public opinion
have it to be." It is true the honorable member for Hochelaga tells us that in all
the
counties in which meetings have been held,
the people have given their voices against
Confederation. To this assertion I have no
need to make any answer. All the honorable
members of this House are well aware of the
means used by the opponents of Confederation
to procure the passing of resolutions to their
liking at meetings generally representing
small, nay very small, minorities of the electors ; and to cite only one example,
I shall take
the case of the county of Hochelaga, in
which the votes are about 2,400 in number.
The friends of the honorable member for
that county, without any previous notice,
proceeded on a certain Sunday in the month
of January last to one of the parishes of that
county, being that of Sault-au-RĂ©collet,
which contains about three hundred voters.
There they thundered out their anathemas
against Confederation, as being subversive of
religion, intended to crush the clergy, and
ruin the people, finishing with an appeal to
the patriotism of their audience and entreaties that the would raise their voices
against
so objectionable a measure. Next day we read
in the opposition papers : " In the county of
Hochelaga, Confederation was unanimously
condemned by both parties on Sunday last,
at Sault-au-Recollet. " The honorable gen
478
tleman (Hon. Mr. DORION) has told us that
the meeting of the county of Laval, which
was held before the session, had been scarcely
advertised, and that I had not ventured to
put the question of Confederation on its trial.
I beg to remark, sir, that the honorable member is not candid in making this assertion,
and is ignorant of what did really occur.
The meeting of the county of Laval was announced at the doors of the several churches
in the county ; afterwards an influential person in each parish, after mass on the
feast of
the Epiphany, urged the electors, one and all,
to attend the important meeting at which the
question of Confederation was to be taken
into consideration. The opponents of the
measure were invited to meet me, as I can
sufficiently prove in due time and place, but
their hearts failed them—none came. At that
meeting, composed of a majority of my constituents, I stated at great length all that
the
opponents of the project had to say against
it, and the reasons which its friends and advocates had to advance in its favor. I
then
asked to be informed of the views of the
electors. They desired me to give my own
on the subject. I declared that unless the
sense of the county was opposed to the measure, I was inclined to give it my support.
This declaration was followed by an unanimous vote, approving of my conduct in Parliament,
and declaring that having full confidence in me, they left me at full liberty to
vote according to my conscience on this great
measure. Let the hon. member deny this if he
can. The hon. member (Hon. Mr. DORION)
has stated " that it was not right to change the
Constitution without an appeal to the decision
of the people." As a complete answer to that
assertion, I shall quote the words spoken by
the honorable gentleman on the 2nd February,
1859—" If he (HON. MR. DORION) had remained in power, he would have proposed a
measure for the settlement of the representation question, and would have submitted
it to
the decision of the House," &c., &c. Has not
the honorable member changed his opinions ?
When a member of the Government in 1858,
he did not admit that the people had the right
to be consulted on the constitutional changes
he wished to propose ; but as a Leader of the
Opposition, in 1865, he refuses to the Legislature the right of effecting such changes
without an appeal to the people :
Tempora
mutantur et nos mutamur in illis. What a
contradiction ! Such is the effect of
spirit. The honorable member for Hochelaga
says, "that he had been accused of having
been in favor of a Confederation of all the
provinces of British North America, but be
peremptorily denied the truth of that statement ; on the contrary, he had always opposed
that union as a measure calculated to bring us
into trouble and to create embarrassment."
Mr. SPEAKER, either the honorable gentleman's logic or else his sincerity is at fault.
Let us examine. On reading over the
speeches cited b himself in support of his
denial, what do I find ? " A time will perhaps come when the Confederation of all
the
provinces will be necessary, but I am not in
favor of it at this moment." Further on I
find: " I trust the time will come when it
will be desirable for the Canadas to unite
federatively with the Lower Provinœs, but
the time has not yet arrived for such a measure."—(Speech of 3rd May, 1860.) Now
what is the conclusion, the only logical con
clusion to be deduced from the honorable
member's words ? None other than the following : that in all these instances he declared
himself in favor of a Confederation of all
the provinces, sooner or later. The honorable member therefore deceived his electors
when he said to them in his manifesto of the
7th November last : " Every time I have had
an opportunity I have invariably expressed
myself opposed to any union, whether Legislative or Federal, with the Maritime Provinces."
He wished, therefore, to mislead this
House, when in his speech at the commencement of this debate he attempted to show
that he had been wrongfully accused on that
point, and that the expressions he had used
had been tortured into every shape in order
to establish the attacks made upon him. In
the political letter of the honorable member
to his constituents, to which I alluded a moment ago, I find the following words :
" The
proposed union appears to me to be premature." If the words have any meaning at
all, do they not prove that the honorable
member admitted the necessity of such a
union sooner or later ? The honorable member was therefore not sincere when he wrote
to his electors that he was always opposed to
the Confederation of the provinces of British North America. (Hear.) The honorable
gentleman stated " that he could not understand how Confederation could increase our
means of defence, * * * * * that if the
union brought an advantage in that respect,
the Maritime Provinces and not Canada would
reap the benefit." If the honorable member
had taken the trouble to study the question,
I think he would have arrived at a different
479
conclusion. Suppose that peace were established amongst our neighbors, and that the
government of the United States decided to
effect the conquest of the British colonies,
does the honorable member think it would be
difficult for the armies of the great republic
to enter the Province of New Brunswick and
conquer it, and to continue their triumphal
march through Nova Scotia, Prince Edward
Island and Newfoundland ? And what would
the honorable member think of our position
if, in order to find means of communicating
with the rest of the world, we were compelled
to solicit the permission of our powerful
neighbors ? I ask him whether, if these conquests were made, Canada would not find
herself in a more critical position than she is
to-day ? Our position would no longer be
tenable, and despite our repugnance for a
union with the neighboring States, we should
find ourselves so placed that there would remain to us no alternative but union with
the
United States. To defend the Maritime
Provinces, therefore, is to defend Canada ;
to protect them against invasion is, therefore,
to protect Canada, to increase our own power
and strength, and to augment our means of
defence ; viewing things in this light, what
matters it that in proportion to our population
the greater share of the expenditure to be
undergone by the Federal Government for
general defence must be met by Canada,
since all that expenditure will benefit us,
and since it is essentially necessary for our
defence. (Applause.) The honorable member will, perhaps, reply that all the provinces
might come to an understanding
and bind themselves towards one another
for these critical times, and that there would
then be no necessity for the proposed
union. Mr. SPEAKER, the honorable member knows, and every one acquainted, I do
not say with the art of defence, but with the
mere elements of that art which common
sense itself suggests, knows that the first principle, the fundamental principle of
that art is
unity of authority, unity of action ; and if any
honorable member doubt the necessity of this,
let him peruse the history of the neighboring
republic and he will there see the sad evils resulting from want of unity. " The proposed
changes are not at all necessary," says the hon.
member for Hochelaga. I admit that it was
with no little surprise I heard the honorable
member express himself thus, remembering as
I did that in every instance he had expressed
the contrary opinion, as I shall now prove.
ln 1858, on the 7th July, he said :—
Ere long it will become impossible to resist the
demand of Upper Canada ; if representation by
population is not granted now, it will infallibly
be carried hereafter, but then without guarantees
for the protection of the French Canadians. The
repeal of the union, Federal union, representation by population, or some other great
change
must absolutely be carried out, and for my part I
am prepared to examine the question of representation by pepulation, &c. I am ready,
in like
manner, to take into consideration the project of
a Confederation of the provinces, which would
leave to each section the administration of its
local affairs, &c., and to the General Government
the administration of the public lands.
On the 10th August, 1858, addressing the
citizens of Montreal, he said : "We (the
BROWN-DORION Government) found that
these difficulties might be smoothed away
either by adopting a Federal union or some
other modification of our Constitution based
upon representation by population." In his
election address of the 13th August of the
same year, he adds : " There was no room for
hesitation and the discussion soon suggested
that by means of constitutional changes, accompanied by proper checks and guarantees,
&c., or by the application of the Federal
principle, it was possible to prepare a measure
which would meet the approval of the majority of Upper and of Lower Canada, while
adopting population as the basis of representation." On the 2nd February, 1859, in
his
speech on the address, &c., the honorable gentleman said : " That if he had remained
in
power he would have proposed a measure for
the settlement of the representation question,
&c., admitting the principle of representation
by numbers." On the 3rd May, 1860,
the honorable member declared in the House :
"A year ago the whole Cabinet admitted that
constitutional changes were absolutely necessary, &c. But if Upper Canada desires
representation by population, I am ready to
grant it, for I am convinced that an ever-
increasing number of representatives of the
people will come here to claim it, after each
election, as a measure of justice. I am convinced that there will be a collision between
Upper and Lower Canada." These extracts
prove undeniably the truth of the statement
I advanced a moment ago. How then is the
conduct of the honorable gentleman to be explained ? How can any one put faith in
the
sincerity of the opposition he now offers to the
project under consideration ? Clearly, Mr.
SPEAKER, party spirit is the motive of his
opposition to the measure. When a minister, the Hon. Mr. DORION admitted the diffi
480
culty of the position ; he acknowledged that a
speedy remedy was required in order to prevent a collision between Upper and Lower
Canada ; he was prepared to seek out means
of remedying these evils ; but now that he is
in opposition he no longer sees the difficulties ;
the position is a good one, the proposed
changes are no longer necessary ; and, in order to oppose them, to what length is
he not
prepared to go ? The honorable member uses
his influences over a respectable old man, who
heretofore had remained apart from political
struggles ; he persuades him that his country
is on the brink of an abyss ; he tells him how
necessary and what an imperative duty it is
for all good citizens to unite for the defence of
our institutions, our language, our usages, in
fact our very national existence. And the
good old gentleman tears himself from his
beloved retirement and becomes the willing instrument of a factious opposition.
I might have believed in the sincerity of the
honorable gentleman (Hon. Mr. DORION) if I
had heard him admit that he had changed his
opinions and say that he had formerly entertained certain views ou the difficulty
of our
position and the necessity of providing a remedy. But no, he comes to us with the
assurance
to declare that he has never changed his
opinions, and yet the journals and debates of
the House are before him to convince him of
the contrary. What a position. (Hear, hear.)
The honorable gentleman added—" The people are satisfied with their present position."
Since last session more than twenty counties
have been called upon to elect new representatives, and they have all, one perhaps
excepted, elected supporters of the Government and
of the scheme which is now under discussion.
And yet the honorable member tells us, with
an appearance of good faith which I shall not
animadvert on now, that the people are satisfied with their position ; and lastly,
the honorable member for Hochelaga says—" Confederation is direct taxation." The honorable
gentleman is the very last who ought to have
raised this objection. Does he forget that, in
1863, one of the members of his Government,
the Honorable Minister of Finance, when he
brought down his budget, declared to this
House that the time had arrived when it had
become necessary to accustom the people to
direct taxation. What possible effect, then, can
this objection have in the mouth of the honorable gentleman, other than to afford
a still
further proof of the absence of good faith
which he has displayed in the discussion of
this important measure of the Federal union?
Besides, the present Honorable Minister of
Finance, in his learned speech on this question, has given a most lucid explanation
of the
question of the finances, and has made it clear
to us that the local governments will receive
more than they will require to meet their expenditure. Lower Canada, whose expenditure,
including the interest on her share of
the debt remaining charged to Canada, will
amount to $1,237,000, will receive from the
Central Government eighty cents a-head,
making $900,000, which, added to its other
revenues, will make its annual receipts amount
to $1,440,000, shewing an annual excess of
revenue over expenditure amounting to $200,000. The objection of the honorable member
is only a pretext, which ought not to shake
the confidence of the most timid. The honorable gentleman denies the correctness of
the
calculations of the honorable member for
Sherbrooke, it is true, but in a matter of
such vast importance, the House and the
country have a right to something more than
a mere denial. Let honorable gentlemen on
the other side of the House prove the error
of the Honorable Minister of Finance, and
then, and not before, they may hope to bring
conviction home to the friends of the scheme.
I now come to the arguments of the honorable member for Lotbinière. Since I first
took my seat in Parliament, I had learned to
esteem that honorable gentleman ; his conduct,
always so honorable, and the good faith which
appeared to govern his whole conduct as a
legislator, had inspired me with the highest
respect for him. But what was my surprise
to see him condescend to the part which we
have seen him play on the occasion of his
speech on the great question now before the
House ! To act a comic part, to make a buffoon of one's self, and, at the same time,
discussing a scheme for a new Constitution
which, it is alleged, will obliterate a whole
people, and reciting from history all the evils
which democratic doctrines have brought
upon the human race. What a contrast !
How courageous ! And the Montagne applauded the recital by the honorable gentleman of all the scenes of horror, discord,
revolution and civil war which democratic principles had brought about in all those
parts
of the world in which these notions had
prevailed. What impudence ? May the
people, Mr. SPEAKER, profit by the lesson.
The honorable member for Lotbinière has
told us that the Federal system carried in
itself a principle fatal to its existence, and that
all confederation died of consumption. Then
481
opening the volume of history, the honorable
gentleman has depicted to us all the republics
of ancient and modern times gradually succumbing under the pressure of the discord,
civil wars and revolutions to which that form
of government had given birth. The argument was specious. It is only to be regretted,
as regards the honorable gentleman, that the
honorable members of the Quebec Conference,
convinced that, to make sure of the future, it
was advisable to consult and to study the past,
adopted monarchical principles as the basis of
the new Confederation, instead of founding it
on those democratic doctrines which proved so
fatal to all the confederacies referred to by
the honorable gentleman. Confederation is
the obliteration of Lower Canada, the honorable member for Lotbinière has further
told
us. I am far from being of that opinion.
Lower Canada has since the union beheld, for
a period of twenty-four ears, her institutions
at the mercy of a majority different in origin,
in religion, and in language. Under Confederation, on the other hand, Lower Canada
will
have the administration of all she holds most
dear—her nationality, and I am rejoiced to
find in the speech of the honorable member
for Hochelaga some few words which abundantly prove my proposition. "It will be
impossible," says that honorable gentleman,
"for the Federal Government ever to interfere in any legislation relating to the institutions
or laws of Lower Canada. If they attempted, the fifty or sixty members of French
origin, uniting as one man, would very soon
put a stop to any legislation, thus compelling
the majority to afford them justice." (Hear,
hear.) Lower Canada, it is true, will be in a
minority in the Central Legislature, but we
must not lose sight of the fact that the interests of the Lower Provinces are less
identical
with the interests of Upper Canada than they
are with those of Lower Canada ; and, moreover, our position in the centre of the
state
also adds to our influence. On the other
hand, responsible government is essentially a
government of parties ; the national French-
Canadian representation will have all that
influence which fifty or sixty votes given to
one side of the House or the other can exercise ; the one party or the other will
count
upon the votes of the French-Canadian section,
just as in England the Protestant majority
in Parliament is not made up without the
votes of the Catholic minority. Thus the
position of Lower Canada will be a strong
one, and much to be preferred to that which
it holds under the existing union. Other
honorable members have assigned as reasons
of their opposition "the increased expenditure
entailed by the proposed union." To this
objection I have only, Mr. SPEAKER, to make
the same reply which I have already given on
another occasion. Will not Confederation,
whilst remedying our sectional difficulties,
contribute to the progress and advancement of
these colonies ? Will it not increase our means
of defence, securing at the same time to Lower
Canada the exclusive control of its institutions,
its laws and its nationality ? If to this proposition we are compelled, after careful
consideration, to reply in the negative, then, undoubtedly, we ought to reject the
scheme ;
but if, on the contrary, our answer is in the
affirmative, we ought to accept it, even although our expenditure should be increased,
for it becomes the means of safety—Salus
populi suprema lex. Certain other members
object "that the Legislative Council is to be
subject to the nomination of the Crown."
For my part, I see no ground of objection in
this ; on the contrary, I look upon it as an
argument in favor of the scheme. I have
always been opposed to the elective system in
that branch of our Legislature. We have but
one class in our society, we have no aristocracy. Why, then, should we have two popular
chambers ? In my opinion, it would have
been wiser to abolish the Council than to
make it elective. In the spirit of the English
Constitution, the Legislative Council ts a
tribunal for purifying the legislation of the
Commons, for weighing in the balance of
experience the probable consequences of their
legislation. These advantages, Mr. SPEAKER,
will soon disappear under the elective system,
which will cause the members of that body to
lose that perfect independence requisite for the
proper fulfilment of the high mission entrusted
to them by the Constitution. In addition to
this, the trouble of elections, the expenses
which they entail, and the other difficulties
inseparable from those great struggles, will
very often prevent the entrance into that honorable body of the most competent men,
whom
the disgust inspired by all the difficulties I
have just referred to, will induce to avoid
public life and to remain in private life. For
these reasons and in the public interest, I rejoice to see the return to the nominative
principle. (Hear, hear.) I should have liked to
have replied to some of the other arguments
urged by honorable members of the Opposition,
but I perceive, Mr. SPEAKER, that I have
already taken up a good deal of time, and I
consider that in view of the lateness of the
482
hour, it is my duty to conclude. In conclusion I may be permitted to add that I am
now more strongly in favor of the scheme of
Confederation that we are now considering,
than I was at the time of the debate on the
resolutions in reply to the Speech from the
Throne. Then I had some doubts, but the
position taken by the opponents of the measure has sufficed to dissipate them. A cause
must indeed be a bad one, Mr. SPEAKER,
when such men as those whom I see on the
other side cannot find arguments to support
their views, which are worthy of being discusssed, and who, in order to maintain their
position, are obliged to resort to such means
as honorable gentlemen opposite, with their
friends, have been compelled to have recourse
to since it has been under consideration to
establish a Federal union of the British
North American Provinces. (Cheers.)
On motion of Mr. DUNKIN, the debate was
then adjourned.
This individual participated in:
