648
MONDAY, March 6, 1865.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—
Before the debate on the resolutions in your
hands, Mr. SPEAKER, is continued, I wish
to say a few words. The Government is
well aware that the House must naturally feel
anxious and desirous of information—and
that no doubt questions will be asked—as
to the course which the Government will
pursue in consequence of the news that has
been received from the Province of New
Brunswick, with reference to the result of
the elections in that province. (Hear, hear.)
The Government are quite prepared to state
their policy on the question before the
House, in view of that information. Although
we have no official information as to the
result of those elections, and would not be
justified, constitutionally, in making up our
minds as to that result, until the Legislature
of New Brunswick has declared itself either
for or against the Confederation scheme;
yet we know, as a matter of fact—and we
cannot shut our eyes to the fact—that the
Premier and several of his colleagues
in the Government of New Brunswick
have been defeated, and that so far
there has been a declaration against
the policy of Federation. Of course,
in a general election, it is not to be supposed
that the question of Confederation is the
only one discussed at the polls. Being a
general election, there was the usual fight
between the ins and the outs, the Ministerialists and the Opposition; and, of course,
a
lot of other influences were at work, such as
questions between the Intercolonial Railway
on the one hand, and lines of railway to
connect with the United States on the other.
Still, we should not be treating the House
with candor if we did not state that we must
consider the result of those elections as a
check upon the Confederation project. The
Canadian Government however, I may say
at once, do not consider that the result of
these elections should in any way alter their
policy or their course upon this question.
(Hear, hear.) They wish it to be most decidedly understood, that instead of thinking
ita reason for altering their course, they
regard it as an additional reason for prompt
and vigorous action. (Hear, hear.) We
do not consider that in these events to which
I have alluded, there is any cause whatever
for the abandonment of the project, or for
its postponement. In fact, the only reason
why we should consider them to be a matter
of grave import is, that they form the first
check that the project has received since
the question was submitted to the people of
these provinces, at the time of the formation
of the present Government of Canada. If
we only look back to June last, and then
regard the present condition of the question, we cannot but feel surprise at the
advance which has been made. In June
last we would have been satisfied if we could
have contemplated that so soon as this the
question would even have been favorably
entertained by the governments of the different provinces. But, within the short
period which has since elapsed, a conference
has been held, and the measure framed by
that conference has received the sanction of
the governments of all the provinces, and
each of the governments of the five colonies
is pledged to submit, not only the question
of Confederation, but the scheme as prepared by the Conference, to the legislature
of each of those provinces. And we have
gained more than this. Not only has every
government of every colony been pledged
to the scheme, and pledged also to use all
its legitimate influence as a Government to
649
obtain the endorsation of the project by their
respective legislatures, but we have also
obtained the sanction and approval of the
Government of the Mother Country.
(Hear, hear.) That approval has been
conveyed to us by a formal dispatch from
the Colonial Office, and in addition, we have
had, subsequently, the approval of the British Government as expressed in Her Majesty's
own words in the Speech from the
Throne in opening the Parliament of Great
Britain. And not only this, but we know
that it has met, or will meet, with the unmistakable approbation and sanction of the
Parliament, the press and the people of
England. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, instead
of being at all surprised that the whole
scheme should not have been begun, carried on,
and ended without one check, we should be
well satisfied that we have only received one
such check from the commencement. The
obligations under which the Canadian
Government entered at the time that the
Conference was concluded, and those resolutions finally agreed to, still remain in
full
force, and we feel that force. We feel it our
duty to call upon the Legislature of Canada,
and to use all the legitimate influence of the
Government to obtain from the Legislature of
Canada a favorable opinion upon the resolutions that have been submitted for its consideration.
(Hear, hear.) And, sir, in view of
the intelligence that has reached us from New
Brunswick, we think it of more importance
than ever that the scheme should be carried
out as a whole—that it should be dealt with
as a treaty, to be endorsed without one single
amendment or alteration. (Hear, hear.) As
every hon. member of the House who is
desirous of carrying Confederation must see,
it is now more especially necessary that that
course should be taken, so that no other
province shall have the opportunity of saying, "Why, even the Province of Canada
itself, through its Legislature, does not approve of the scheme as settled by the
Conference." We must give no excuse to any
one of the colonies to say, "It is open to us
to deal with the question as we like ; for
even the Province of Canada, which pressed
the subject upon us of the Lower Provinces,
did not express its approval of the scheme,
but propounded a new one of its own, which
it is open to us either to accept or reject."
(Hear, hear.) Sir, not only do we feel that
the obligation and expediency of pressing this measure upon the attention of the
Legislature remain as before, but we feel it
all the more necessary now to call for prompt
and immediate action. The Government
will, therefore, at once state, that it is our
design to press, by all proper and parliamentary modes of procedure within our
power, for an early decision of the House
—yes or no—whether they approve of
this scheme or do not. (Hear, hear.)
One great reason, among others, calling
for promptness, is to provide as much
as possible against the reaction which will
take place in England from the disappointment that will pervade the minds of
the people of England, if they get the
impression that the project of the union of
the provinces is abandoned. (Hear, hear.)
I believe that if one thing more than another has raised British America, or the
Province of Canada, its chief component
part, in the estimation of the people and
Government of England, it is that by this
scheme there was offered to the Mother
Country a means by which these colonies
should cease to be a source of embarrassment,
and become, in fact, a source of strength.
This feeling pervades the public mind of
England. Every writer and speaker of note
in the United Kingdom, who has treated of
the subject, says a new era of colonial existence has been inaugurated, and that if
these
colonies, feeble while disunited, were a source
of weakness, they will, by forming this
friendly alliance, become a strong support to
England. The disappointment of the corresponding reaction would be great in the
Mother Country, if they got the idea
that the project was to be given up;
and we appeal to honorable gentlemen
not to fall away from the position we have
obtained by the mere submission of the
scheme to the Government and the people
of England, and not to allow Canada and the
whole of British America to lose all its
vantage ground by showing any signs of
weakness, any signs of receding on this
question. (Hear, hear.) Another reason
why this question must be dealt with
promptly and an early decision obtained, is,
that it is more or less intimately connected
with the question of defence, and that is a
question of the most imminent necessity.
(Hear, hear.) No one can exaggerate the
necessity which exists for the Legislature of
this country considering at once the defences
that are called for in the present position of
affairs on this continent. I need not say
650
that this subject has engaged our anxious
attention as a Government. The Provincial
Government has been in continued correspondence with the Home Government as to the
best means of organizing an efficient defence against every hostile pressure, from
whatever source it may come. And, as this
House knows, the resolutions themselves
speak of the defence question as one that
must immediately engage the attention of
the Confederation. We had hoped that the
Confederation scheme would have assumed
such an aspect that the question could have
been adjudged of as a whole, and that one
organized system of defence could have been
arranged between the Federal Government
and the Imperial Government at an early
day. But we cannot disguise, nor can we
close our eyes to the fact that the course of
events in New Brunswick will prevent an
early united action among the provinces on
the subject of defence; and, therefore, that
question comes up as between Canada and
England, and we feel that it cannot be postponed. (Hear, hear.) In fact the subject
has already been postponed quite too long.
(Hear, hear.) It is time, high time, that it
was taken up and dealt with in a vigorous
manner. (Hear, hear.) These are two of
the reasons which, the Government feel,
press for a prompt decision of the House
upon the resolutions before it. (Hear, hear.)
Then there is a third reason, which is found
in the state of the commercial relations existing between Canada and the United States.
The threatened repeal of the Reciprocity
treaty, the hazard of the United States
doing away with the system of bonding goods
in transitu, and the unsatisfactory position
generally of our commercial relations with
the neighboring country—all this calls for
immediate action. And the fact of the union
of these provinces being postponed, and of
the construction, therefore, of the Intercolonial Railway being put off indefinitely,
renders this all the more imperative. It is,
therefore, the intention of the Government —
and they seek the support of this House and
of the country to the policy which I now
announce—first, to bring this debate to an
end with all convenient speed, with a view
to having a declaration of the House upon
the question of Confederation. The Government, to this end, will press for a vote
by
every means which they can properly use.
Then, secondly, as soon as that is obtained,
it is the intention of the Government to ask
the Legislature for a vote of credit, and prorogue Parliament at the earliest possible
date. (Hear, hear.) It is their intention
to provide that all the unfinished business of
the present session shall be so arranged, that
it can be proceeded with next session, from
the point where it is dropped at the close of
this session. Upon the prorogation of Parliament, the Government will send a mission
to England at once, for the purpose of discussing and arranging these important points
to which I have alluded—the question of
Confederation, under its present aspect—the
question of defence—and) all matters bearing
upon our commercial relations with the
neighboring country; with instructions to
press their work forward with the least possible delay, with the view of enabling
the
Government to submit the result of the mission—which we hope will be satisfactory—to
this House at an early summer session.
(Loud cheers.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD said—The
manner and spirit in which the Government
have made the announcement of their decision is so far satisfactory. They have,
however, adopted a new policy and announced
a change of tactics, and one which this
House is to be called upon to enforce. They
have departed widely from the policy that
they decided upon not long since. I beg
leave to call the attention of the House to
the words used by the Hon. Premier of the
Government himself, at the opening of the
session. He says :—
They had assumed the charge of affairs with
an understanding that they would have a right to
appeal to the country; and while they were consulting about it, they received an intimation
from
the real chief of the Opposition, through one of
their own friends, to the effect that he was
desirous of making overtures to them, with the
view of seeking to accommodate the difficulties.
The hon. gentleman and some of his friends then
came into contact with the leaders of the Government, and it was agreed between them
to try to
devise a scheme which would put an end to the
misunderstandings, and at the same time secure
for Canada and the other provinces a position
which would ensure their future safety, and procure for them the respect and confidence
of other
nations. They arranged a large scheme and a
smaller one.
And now, Mr. SPEAKER, I wish to call the
attention of the House to this point. " If
the larger failed, then they were to fall back
upon the minor, which provided for a Federation of the two sections of the province."
651
The larger scheme, Mr. SPEAKER, is
evidently a failure. (Hear, hear.) And I
will tell you why I think it a failure. This
scheme was to be agreed to by all the provinces, and the different Governments were
to bring it down for the consideration of
their several Houses of Parliament. The
leaders of the Opposition in New Brunswick, as well as the Government of that
province agreed to a treaty, as it is called,
and went back to submit that treaty to their
Legislature for approval. But being defeated
in New Brunswick, it is not possible for the
arrangement to be carried out. What reason
has the Government for believing that those
who have been just elected in New Brunswick as opponents of the scheme will allow
it to be brought down for the consideration
of their Legislature ? How can it be expected
that a free people will agree to a scheme,
from the terms of which they entirely dissent ? It seems to be the idea of honorable
gentlemen opposite, that if this Legislature
adheres to the scheme, it will be forced upon
the unwilling people of New Brunswick—
that some process will be found by which
the Government of that province will be
induced to submit it to their Legislature.
They seem to imagine that the rejection of
the TILLEY Government, and, consequently,
of their Confederation scheme, by the people, is a matter that can be traced only
to
the annexation proclivities of a large section
of the people of New Brunswick. If that is
so, we ought immediately to appoint a day
of general thanksgiving, in this appropriate
time of Lent, for the blessing of being
relieved from any danger of union with such
a people. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) It
would be one of the greatest misfortunes
that could happen our province to be connected with those annexationists.
 HON. MR. HOLTON—But it is not true
that the annexation feeling was the cause of
the defeat.
 HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I do not say
it is so, but I am referring to what members of
the Government have said about this defeat
being caused by the disloyal and annexation
proclivities of the people of New Brunswick.
 HON J. S. MACDONALD—Well, I find
their organ of this morning attributing it to
that cause. And what did the Minister of
Agriculture (HON. Mr. McGEE say on Friday night, on the reception of the news ? He
said there were many in that portion of the
province who were influenced by a desire for
connection with the United States, and that
there were capitalists from Boston and from
Maine whose interests lay in having New
Brunswick more closely coupled with the
destiny of the United States. If these are
the feelings that induced the gentlemen who
have been elected to repudiate the proceedings of the Convention, then, I say again.
they are a people with whose views we of
Canada should have no sympathy. If the
gentlemen on the Treasury benches suppose
that by passing these resolutions they will
compel the gentlemen, who have been
returned to that Parliament on the express
condition that they shall oppose the treaty
or Convention scheme, to turn round and
support it, then what shall we say of such
men ? What shall we say of men who,
after having obtained the suffrages of the
people as opponents of the scheme, shall turn
round immediately after they have got into
oflice, and in effect perjure themselves ?
(Hear, hear.) We have, unfortuuately,
enough of that class of legislators in Canada,
without linking our destinies with like
persons from New Brunswick. If that is
the character of the people to whom we are
to be united, then all I can say is, that they
are not a desirable class to have added to
Canada. If it is contemplated that they are
going to compel those gentlemen to vote
approval of the scheme, who have been
elected specially to oppose it, it would be
very interesting to know by what process it
is to be done. Are they to be bribed into
acquiescence, or forced into submission ? If
the latter, then we must presume that they
are not of the race of British freemen who,
elsewhere, would resent with indignation—
ay, rebel—before yielding up their independence ; and in that view, they are again
unworthy of association with us. There is
no doubt that the gentlemen who have been
elected in New Brunswick have deliberately
considered their position, and whether it is
attempted to bribe them or coerce them, they
will manfully resent it. I do not believe it
is desirable to have a Confederation
adopted by either course. What are we to
gain by compelling such a community to
come in with us ? Will they not, for all
time to come, cast upon us the reflection
that they became part and parcel of the
Confederacy without their consent ? Is it
desirable to have to do with neighboring
652
colonists, who have been either forced or
bribed to accept what is repugnant to them ?
Will they not always be a source of discord
by endeavoring to make the scheme work
badly ? (Hear, hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER,
we have before us an instance of the danger
of men undertaking to make treaties without
authority. This is the kind of penalty
which they pay, and I think we have an
instalment of the punishment that is justly
due to them, and which they will receive.
Sir, we find that in New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Prince Edward Island, a union
took place between the Government and the
Opposition for the purpose of arranging a
plan by which those provinces should be
joined together. They had the authority of
their respective governments and legislatures
before entering into that Conference. They
met together by deliberate pre-arrangement,
with full consent, unlike the manner in which
the gentlemen opposite precipitated themselves into a union fever, growing out of
a
political contingency. When the delegates
went to Charlottetown, from their respective
provinces, to treat of matters of great importance to the people of those provinces,
and
considered it to be a desirable object to obtain
the union of the Maritime Provinces, they
were interrupted in their deliberations by the
members of the Canadian Government—
Greater inducements were then offered them,
and they were filled with higher hopes and
expectations of the good things to be derived
from the Confederation ol all the provinces.
Lieutenant-governorships, chief-justiceships,
and lite-memberships of the Legislative
Council were all held out in the prospective
by the Canadian Ministers. By these means
they inveigled these men from the object for
which they met, and undermined the purpose
they were assembled to promote. The Canadian Ministers said :—"Never mind your
union of these provinces. Come away from
Charlottetown with us, and we will show you
plans by which your ambition may be better
gratified, although you may thereby betray
the trust of the people who sent you here.
They may not be satisfied, but never mind
them—they can be managed in some way
afterwards. We will show you the way."
This, in effect, was the language used towards
the delegates. They took the bait offered
them, and the next thing we heard of
was the adjournment of the Convention
to Halifax, where the delegates enjoyed the
" feast of reason and the flow of soul" for a
week. They then sped off to St. John,
where convivialities were renewed, and finally
they all agreed to come to Quebec, and we
all recollect the subsequent feastings in
Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto and
Hamilton. I will not allude to the meeting
that took place here, because it is well known
what the result of the Conference was; but I
will speak of the sequel to these proceedings
—the events that subsequently happened in
the Lower Provinces. Hon. Mr. TILLEY knew
he could have submitted the scheme of the
Quebec Conference to the people of New
Brunswick—that he could have summoned
the Parliament of that province and ascertained what its wishes were—as early as the
Canadian Government could. But he did
nothing of the kind. He knew he had violated the trust reposed in him, and that he
had given reason for a withdrawal of the people's confidence; but he thought that
by
bringing on an election in the country, he
could gain his own ends by the unsparing use
of all the influence a government can employ
on such occasions, and by employing all the
arts of cajolery for the purpose of deceiving
the people and winning them over to his own
selfish purposes. Well, what is the result ?
Hon. Mr. TILLEY and his followers are routed
horse and foot by the honest people of the
province, scouted by those whose interests
he had betrayed and whose behests he had
neglected; and I think his fate ought to be a
warning to those who adopted this scheme
without authority, and who ask the House to
ratify it en bloc, without having sought or
seeking to obtain the sanction of the people.
(Hear, hear.) I come now, sir, to a matter
personal perhaps more to myself than to any
one else. I would ask the House who was it
that assailed the Government of Canada more
by his speeches and letters than this same
Hon. Mr. TILLEY? Who was it that charged
the Government of this country with a breach
of faith towards the Lower Provinces in reference to the construction of the Intercolonial
Railway; and whose statement was it that
was reëchoed on the floor of this House over
and over again, that Canada had lowered its
character and dignity by failing to go on with
that undertaking? Was it not the Hon. Mr.
TILLEY who made these false accusations,
and were they not, on his authority, repeated
here by an honorable gentleman now in the
Government, at the head of the Bureau of
Agriculture (Hon. Mr. MCGEE)? Recollecting these things, sir, I have a pleasure—a
mischievous pleasure—(hear, hear, and laugh
653
ter) —I have a mischievous pleasure, I say, in
knowing that the Hon. Mr. TILLEY has been
defeated. (Ironical cheers.) I repeat that I
have experienced to-day a considerable degree
of happiness in announcing that the man who,
at the head of the Government of New Brunwick, betrayed the trust of the people, who
failed to carry out their wishes in respect to
the union of the Maritime Provinces, who
exceeded the authority with which he was
entrusted, who betrayed the interests of his
province and abandoned everything that he
was sent to Charlottetown to obtain—the man
who went throughout the length and breadth
of his province crying out against the good
faith of the then Canadian Government—I
say I have happiness in announcing that he
has been disposed of by the people. (Hear,
hear.) Hon. Mr. TILLEY came to Quebec in
1863, with Hon. Mr. TUPPER, and although
he made the charge of bad faith against the
Canadian Government, he knew as well as
Hon. Mr. TUPPER that the agreement of 1862
respecting the Intercolonial Railway was to
be abandoned, except so far as the survey of
the line was concerned.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—The honorable gentleman cries " Hear, hear," but can he
say that, while a member of the Government,
he did not write a letter to a gentleman in
this province, in which he said that the scheme
of 1862 was abandoned by the Canadian Government.
HON. MR. MCGEE—The honorable gentleman has made that charge once before publicly, and I denied it
publicly. If he can get
any such letter of mine, he is fully authorized
by me to make it public. Hon. Mr. TILLEY,
so far from believing the scheme abandoned,
went back to New Brunswick with a very different impression ; and I ask the honorable
gentleman whether he did not say to him while
here: —" I declare to God, TILLEY, if I
thought by resigning my office we could get
the Intercolonial Railway, I would do it."
The honorable gentleman is out of office now,
and perhaps he will say whether he made this
declaration or not. (Hear, hear.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD— I do not
deny that. I was then, and always have
been, in favor of the Intercolonial Railway,
and am desirous that it should be built.
I think that an outlet to the ocean on British soil, at all seasons of the year, is
a
very desirable thing to be obtained, and upon
that point I have never changed my opinon.
But I do say that Hon. Mr. TUPPER and Hon.
Mr. TILLEY understood that it was not to he
proceeded with at that time, and a memorandum was drawn up by Dr. TUPPER at the time
(I am now speaking in the presence of my
late colleagues, who are aware of all the facts),
embodying the decision at which the Government arrived, but which was not signed,
because
Hon. Mr. TILLEY asked that Mr. FLEMING
might be considered as engaged to proceed
with the survey, and wished to reserve it for
the formal ratification of his colleagues when
he went back to New Brunswick. When he
did go back, his colleagues dissented from the
views he had formed, and, in order to get
himself out of the awkward position in which
he was placed, he took the ground that the
abandonment of the project was owing to the
bad faith of the Canadian Government. Now
I say it is a matter of great satisfaction to
me that the honorable gentleman who circulated this charge, and gave ground for
honorable gentlemen now on the Treasury
benches to attack the Government of which
was a member, and accuse it of bad faith to the
sister provinces, has for these bold and audacious statements met his just deserts.
He has
been scouted and rejected by his own people.
He has lost their confidence, and with that
loss of confidence this great scheme of Confederation has come to woeful grief. I
say
punishment has overtaken him. It was a
long time coming, but it has come at last with
terrible effect. (Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Attorney General West says that the Government will ask for a vote of credit, but
he has
not told us how long this vote will extend.
He does not tell what they will do if the
Confederation scheme fails, as it is pretty
sure to fail. He does not say that it is going
to carry, nor does he say that it will be succeeded by any other. Where, I would like
to
know, is the smaller scheme—the pet scheme
of the member for South Oxford—of a Federation of Canada first, to be followed, if
need be, by a Federation of all the provinces ? What is the honorable gentleman
to do with this scheme ? Is it to be
brought down to the House, or, the larger one
having failed, is it to be kept in hand for use
at some future time? Have we not a right
to know what this scheme is and what the
Government proposes to do in regard to it?
(Hear, hear.) Are the people of the country
to be left in a feverish state of excitement,
because the Government has no definite policy,
until the mission spoken of goes to England,
in the hope that the people of the Lower
Provinces will in the meantime repent of the
654
action they have taken ? Why, sir, not only
have the minds of the people of Canada been
unhinged by the proceedings of the past year,
not only have they been made dissatified with
the institutions under which they have lived and
prospered for a number of years, but political
parties have also been demoralized. (Hear,
hear.) Yes, the Reform party has become so
disorganized by this Confederation scheme,
that there is scarcely a vestige of its greatness
left—hardly a vestige of that great party that
demanded reform for a number of years, but
which unfortunately, in 1864 as in 1854,
went over to the other side when its leaders
could no longer endure to remain in the cold
shades of opposition. (Hear, hear.) Is it
too much to ask honorable gentlemen on the
Treasury benches to tell us something of the
scheme for federating these two provinces—
to give us an inkling of what is to be done,
now that the other scheme has failed, and of
the liabilities to be assumed by the respective
sections of Canada? Are we to be kept in
ignorance on these subjects ? Are the affairs
of the country to continue in the unsettled
state in which they now are ? Is all legislation to remain at a stand-still until
the more
and more doubtful prospect of Confederation
is realized ? (Hear, hear.) What amount
of money is required by the Government to
meet the danger that is said to have suddenly
threatened us? Are the people not to know
what preparations are to be made and what
sums are to be expended in our defence ? I
am not opposed to any proper measures being
taken to defend the country, but at the same
time prudence dictates that we should know
what the are to cost before we blindly vote for
them. If Confederation is not to take place,
what is the use of going on with measures of
defence that depends upon Confederation
being carried ? Why not come down now
with a scheme that will apply to Canada alone,
and let us know precisely what burdens the
people will have to bear for their defence,
what additional taxation will be required, and
all other information connected wit the subject ? ( Hear, hear.) I do say that it
is
anything but satisfactory to be told that we
are to postpone the promised scheme for our
defence at this time, to adjourn over till summer, and in the meantime to send commissioners
home to treat with the Imperial Government.
If the danger is so imminent as it is said to
be, why this long delay ? (Hear, hear.) Sir,
I never was myself an advocate of any change
in our Constitution ; I believed it was capable
of being well worked to the satisfaction of the
people, if we were free from demagogues and
designing persons who so ht to create strife
between the sections. (Hear, hear.) I am
not disposed to extend my remarks further at
present. All I can say is, that the Honorable
Attorney General West has done the House
justice if he has given us all the information
in his possession with regard to the present
aspect of the Confederation question ; and yet
it appears to me somewhat absurd to proceed
with the debate, when even the Government
itself admits the measure to be a failure.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. Mr. DORION—I think the announcement made by the Hon. Attorney General West must have taken the
House a little
by surprise. (Hear, hear.) The policy
agreed on by the Government in June, 1864,
was certainly not the one carried out at the
opening of this session, and still less that which
has just been announced. The policy, as we
find it in a memorandum then communicated
to the House, was that a measure for the
Confederation of the two Canadas, with provisions for the admission of the other provinces,
should be brought before the House
this session. I will give the terms of the
memorandum, in order that there may be no
doubt about it. When explanations were
given in June last, by the present Government two memoranda were communicated to
the house. One was a memorandum that
had been communicated to the Hon. the
President of the Council, and marked " Confidential." It was in these words :—
The Government are prepared to state, that immediately after the prorogation, they
will address
themselves, in the most earnest manner, to the negotiation for a Confederation of
all the British North American Provinces.
That failing at successful issue to such negotiations, they are prepared to pledge themselves to
legislation during the next session of Parliament
for the purpose of remedying the existing difficulties, by introducing the Federal
principle for
Canada alone, coupled with such provisions as
will permit the Maritime Provinces and the North-
Western Territory to be hereafter incorporated
into the Canadian system.
That, for the purpose of carrying on the negotiations and settling the details of
the promised
legislation, a Royal Commission shall be issued,
composed of three members of the Government
and three members of the Opposition, of whom
Mr. BROWN shall be one, and the Government
pledge themselves to give all the influence of the
Administration to secure to the said Commission
the means of advancing the great object in view.
This was the first memorandum that was
655
communicated to the Honorable President of
the Council. It was a proposition on behalf
of the members of the then Government to
the Honorable President of the Council, to
the effect that the Government would be prepared, immediately after that session,
to take
measures for obtaining a Confederation of all
the provinces, and, failing in that scheme, to
bring into the House at the next session—
that is the resent session—a scheme for the
Confederation of the two Canadas, with a
provision that the Maritime Provinces might
come into the union when they saw fit. But
this proposition was not accepted, and another
memorandum was submitted to the Honorable President of the Council in the following
terms :—
The Government are prepared to pledge themselves to bring in a measure next session
for the
purpose of removing existing difliculties, by introducing the Federal rinciple into
Canada,
coupled with such provismns as will permit the
Maritime Provinces and the North-West Territory
to be incorporated into the same system of government.
This, then, is what the Government pledged
itself to do. The first memorandum to open
negotiations for a Confederation with the
Lower Provinces was rejected by the Honorable President of the Council, and he agreed
to go into the Government on this pledge,
that it would be prepared to bring in a measure, this session, for the purpose of
removing
existing difiiculties, by introducing the Federal principle into the Government of
Canada,
coupled with such provisions as would enable
the Lower Provinces to come in at any subsequent time. This is the measure that was
promised by the Government ; this is the
measure that honorable gentlemen on the
other side, at the end of last session, said
they would be prepared to introduce to the
Legislature this session. But instead of that
the whole scheme has been altered. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. Mr. DORION—There is nothing in
the remainder of it to qualify the pledge then
made by the Government. (Hear, hear.) It
is a distinct and positive pledge given by hon.
gentlemen in their places on the Treas
benches, that at this session of Parliament
they would bring in a measure for the Confederation of the two Canadas, leavi it to
the other provinces to come in if they p eased.
(Hear, hear.) Certainly there is this addition
at the end of the memorandum :—
And the Government will seek, by sending
representatives to the Lower Provinces and to
England, to secure the assent of those interests
which are beyond the control of our own legislation, to such a measure as will enable
all British
North America to be united under a General
Legislature based upon the Federal system.
We find, from these explanations, that a
measure for the Confederation of the whole
of the provinces did not suit the Hon. President of the Council and the Liberal party
in
Upper Canada, that it was rejected by him
and his party as not the proper remedy
for our difficulties, and that another measure was accepted by him, applying the
principle of Federation to the two Canada,
and in order to secure to that measure the
acquiescence of those interests which were
beyond the control of the Government of this
country, delegates were to be sent to confer
with the Lower Provinces with the view of
bringing them into this union. Well, sir,
I must say that if the honorable gentlemen
opposite had not been untrue to their pledge
— if they had brought to this House the
measure they then promised—we in this
country would, at all events, have been saved
the humiliation of seein the Government
going on its knees and begging the little
island of Prince Edward to come into this
union, and then going to Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick and supplicating them to relieve us of our difficulties; and saved the
humiliation of seeing these su plieations and
the bribes in ever direction with which they
were accompanied, in the shape of subsidies
to New Brunswick and Newfoundland, and
of the Intercolonial Railway, rejected by
those to whom they were offered. Canada
would, at all events, have held a dignified
position, and not suffered the humiliation of
seeing all the offers of our Government indignantly rejected by the people of the
Lower
Provinces. The Hon. Attorney General
West says that the scheme of Confederation
has obtained the consent of the governments
of all the provinces; but where are those
governments now ? Where is the Government
of New Brunswick? Where is the Government of Prince Edward Island ? (Hear,
hear.) As for the Government of Nova Scotia, it pledged itself to bring the scheme
before the Legislature; but it is wellknown that
it dare not press it, and still less appeal to
the people upon it. The members of that
Government were wiser than the Government
of New Brunswick, and would not appeal to
the people. And here I must say that I
656
compliment the Government upon the wisdom
it shows in not appealing to the people of
Canada. Honorable gentlemen have shown far
more foresight in this matter than the Government of New Brunswick, in refusing to
let the people have an opportunity of pronouncing upon this scheme, for the petitions
coming down daily against it show conclusively that the people, of Lower Canada at
all events, are almost unanimously against
it, and that an appeal to them would meet,
as regards the members of the Lower Canada Administration, with the same fate
which befel the members of the New Brunswick Government. (Hear.) I do not wish,
sir, to prolong this ebate more than necessary, out I must say that I am surprised
to
hear the Hon. Attorney General West say that
the defences of the country require such immediate attention that the matter cannot
be
delayed for a moment. If I mistake not, the
Government have had in their hands a report
from Col. JERVOIS upon the defences, since
the 12th of October last, and yet since that
time not a single thing has been done towards
defence. We are now told with startling
emphasis that the country is about to be invaded, or is in most imminent danger; and
all at once, now that the great scheme of
Confederation is defeated, we learn that not
an hour's delay can be allowed, and that we
cannot even wait to vote the supplies, so
urgent is the necessity of sending a mission to
England about this matter. Between Friday
last and this morning the Government has discovered that this imminent danger threatens
us, and so anxious is it about it that we
cannot even stop to vote the ordinary supplies, but must pass at once a vote of credit.
(Hear, hear.) And, sir, while I am on the
subject of the defences, I must say it is most
astonishing that although we have repeatedly
asked for information on the subject, in connection with this great scheme, we can
not
get it. (Hear, hear.) At the earliest moment after the commencement of the session,
the honorable member for Drummond and
Arthabaska (Mr. J. B. E. DORION) made a
motion for any despatches, reports, or communications, or for extracts thereof, which
might be in the possession of the Government
on the question of the defences of the country,
and the Hon. Attorney General West rose
and replied that to give this information would
endanger the safety of the province. The
Ministry of Canada therefore refused us that
which we now find in the report which comes
from England.
HON. MR. DORION—If not the report,
at all events the substance of it. There they
do not find that it will endanger the safety of
the country by giving the House of Commons
such information as will enable Parliament to
take the necessary steps to provide for the
defences of any part of the British Empire.
I moved another Address at a later period,
asking for such information on the subject of
our defences as the Government might deem
it proper to give; ' and although that Address
was voted a full fortnight ago, I have been
unable to obtain an answer to it up to the
present time. Nor can we get information in
regard to the finances—in fact every kind
of information which is necessary to enable us
to form roper and correct judgments is
refused. But, sir, I must say that at the
present moment I am unaware of any reason
which could be urged for our being called upon
to act with such precipitate haste as to grant
a vote of credit to hon. gentlemen. ( Hear,
hear.) The session has been called at the
usual time—rather earlier than the usual
time for holding our meetings of Parliament—and I say it is a most extraordinary thing
that we should be asked by the
honorable gentlemen on the other side to give
them a vote of credit. (Hear, hear.) Why,
air, is the whole business of the country to be
thrown into a condition of derangement in
order to allow the honorable gentlemen to get
themselves out of a difficulty—not to get the
country, but themselves, out of the difieulty
which they have acknowledged to have overtaken them? (Hear, hear.) Are all the
affairs of the province to be thrown over, for
such a reason, until next session, which may
not be held for six months or nine months, or
until the honorable gentlemen choose to call us
again together ? Because " an early summer
session " may be the month of; August or the
month of September, or it may mean even a
later period than that. Do they expect a
vote of credit of six millions of dollars to enable
them to construct these defences which are
spoken of by Col. JERVOIS?
HON. Mr. DORION—Then, if we do not
pass a vote for that purpose, what is to become of the count in the meantime? (Hear,
hear.) We are told that there is urgent necessity for expending money on our defences,
and that the danger is imminent. Well, sir,
I apprehend if there is imminent danger, we
ought to be kept sitting here until provision
657
is made to meet that danger, or at all events,
affairs ought to be placed in such a position
that, at any moment, we can be called together to provide for the danger. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. DORION—It puzzles the honorable gentlemen to reply. I think that they
themselves never discovered there was any
cause for alarm until Friday last, when there
was imminent danger of the defeat of their
scheme, and imminent danger also of the loss
of their position. (Laughter.) This, sir, is the
real danger the hon. gentlemen want to avert,
and they proceed to do so by asking us, in lieu
of granting the ordinary supplies, to pass a vote
of credit. We will then be sent away, with
the prospect before their friends and supporters of another session this summer, when
the
additional sessional allowance will of course
be welcome to all. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I simply rose, sir, to protest against
the continuance of this scheme by the honorable gentlemen opposite. I think they are
bound to proceed in some other way, seeing
that this scheme cannot be carried, as it certainly cannot. It has been rejected not
only
by New Brunswick, but by Prince Edward
Island, one of whose delegates to Quebec, Mr.
WHELAN, has been holding meetings, and all
that he has been able to accomplish is the
passing of resolutions of confidence in himself,
and the assertion that no such scheme should
be given effect to without being first submitted to the people. That is the most favorable
expressron of opinion that can be obtained
in Prince Edward Island. It is well known,
too, that the Legislature of Nova Scotia is
against the scheme by a large majority. And
now we find that New Brunswick has pronounced against it also. Will hon. gentlemen
go to England and press on the scheme under
such circumstances? Will they argue that
because we are 2,500,000 and they only 900,000, we ought to swallow them up by pressing
them into Confederation against their
wishes? (Hear, hear.) I do not suppose
honorable gentlemen on the other side purpose attempting to coerce, by means of their
influence with the Imperial Government, the
Lower Provinces to come into this Confederation. Therefore it is that I say that this
scheme
is killed. (Hear, hear, and derisive Opposition
cheers.) I repeat that it is killed. I claim
that it is the duty of hon. gentlemen opposite,
and particularly is it the duty of the Hon.
President of the Council, to insist upon their
colleagues keeping to the pledges they have
made. It is the duty of the Liberal members
generally to insist on these pledges being
redeemed, without which they would have
refused to sanction the taking of office by the
three Liberal members of the Government,
and in accordance with which alone they
could justify that step before their constituents. It was only the knowledge that,
failing the success of this measure, they would
carry out a scheme which was within the
power of the Government to carry, that the
Liberal party of Upper Canada approved of
their three friends making part of the Government. The Administration could not give
a pledge that they would carry the Confederation of all the provinces, but they could
pledge, and did pledge themselves to bring
in, in the event of the failure of that scheme,
a measure for the federation of Upper and
Lower Canada. And, sir, not only was this
promise made at that time, but we have since
seen, this session, the head of the Government,
Hon. Sir E. P. TACHÉ, renewing the pledge
then given in these words :—" They arranged
a large scheme and a smaller one. If the
larger failed, then they would fall back upon
the minor, which provided for a federation of
the two sections of the province." And it
was expressly stated that during this session,
if the present scheme failed, they should bring
in a measure to federate the two provinces.
(Hear, hear.) That was the promise given
to the Honorable President of the Council,
and, if it is not redeemed, I fear his position
will be a most unenviable one in the country.
(Hear, hear.)
MR. T. C. WALLBRIDGE—There is
another point, Mr. SPEAKER, upon which I
desire to see an understanding come to before
we proceed further with this discussion.
Honorable gentlemen opposite have attempted
by their professions to manufacture a little
cheap pocket loyalty, and to that end I find
the most atrocious sentiments expressed in this
morning's editorial of their organ, the Quebec
Chronicle. I will read the paragraph.
MR. WALLBRIDGE—It will bear reading again for the information of the House.
It is as follows :—
A telegram from New Brunswick on Saturday
night says TILLEY and WATTERS are defeated—
majority 250. These gentlemen were the Confederate candidates for the city of St.
John.
Knowing the influences at work, we are not greatly
surprised at the result; but our conviction in the
658
alternative of confederation or annexation is
more than ever confirmed when we see how completely American influence can control
elections
of the provinces.
These sentiments are calculated to introduce
into political discussion in this country a
dangerous element, a mischievous cry. I
would like to ask the Hon. Attorney General
West, who has to some extent endorsed this
sentiment, whether I was right in understanding him to say that it was the influence
exerted by American railway men on the
elections which led to the defeat of the
Confederation candidates ?
MR. WALLBRIDGE—I understood the
Hon. Attorney General West to state that the
American railway influence had had some
effect upon the St. J ohn's elections.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I will
repeat to the honorable gentleman what I did
say. It was this: that I had no doubt the question of Confederation was one of the
subjects
which influenced the people of St. John.
But I did not pretend that that was the only
one. There were other local questions which,
I have no doubt, had their due weight of
influence. There was, for instance, the
usual struggle between the ins and the outs,
and I presume there was the influence to
be contended against of those who were
in favor of the railways to the American
frontier—the Coast Line or Western Extension Railway—as opposed to the Intercolonial
Railway interest.
MR. WALLBRIDGE—I wish to nail this
forgery to the counter before it goes further,
and to that end I desire to be permitted to
read a few extracts from one of the leading
papers in the Lower Provinces (the
Nova
Scotian) , and which are as follow :—
But not quite so fast, good friends. This is
not the first we have heard of this "military"
railway. Last summer, a committee of Congress,
composed mostly of shrewd New Englanders,
came from Washington to examine and report as
to the expediency of constructing a "military"
road to the frontier of New Brunswick. They
were not allowed, however, to stop at the frontier, for when they arrived there they
found an
invitation inviting them to go on to St. John.
They went, and St. John was in a perfect furore
of interesting excitement. A public meeting was
called; we are not sure whether Mr. TILLEY was
present or not—we think he was accidentally
absent from some inevitable cause, but sent a
message with his compliments and sympathies.
The mayor occupied the chair; the viands were
excellent; the champagne flowed "Ă la Ottawa;"
the speeches were eloquent; and although St.
John but recently been all in a blaze with
sympathy with the poor suffering Southerners,
somehow it happened—under what genial influences we cannot say—that they managed to
create a most agreeable impression, not only upon
the stomachs, but upon the loyal hearts, of the
committee of Congress.
But this was not all. The provincial railway
was placed at their disposal free of expense, and
they were chaperoned over it by leading men, to
Shediac and back to St. John. Mr. TILLEY, we
think, was on this trip; and after all was over,
they went back with a wondering appreciation of
the "good lord, good devil" versatility of our
New Brunswick friends.
Again the same paper remarks :—
The New Brunswickers understand this, and
with Mr. TILLEY at their head, co-operating with
the shrewdest men of New England, are bidding
in a spirit of commercial enterprise for the great
stream of passenger traffic across the Atlantic,
which they (the Americans) desire to turn into
our good city (Halifax). Apart from all its
other advantages, they propose, it appears, to
purchase our railroads, and thus release, for our
disposal in other railways, the capital employed
in its construction.
In another article, the same authority
places this story about the American interference in the St. John elections in a stronger
light. I will read it for the benefit of the
credulous :—
Strange to say, we find Mr. TILLEY, not only
investing the public funds of New Brunswick in
the construction of a military road from Portland
to St. John (of course only the Yankee end of
the line is military), but the delegates themselves
have actually made special arrangements with
that gentleman to enable him, in event of the
present scheme of Confederation being consummated, to construct the New Brunswick
portion
of this proposed railway. Now, we would like
the delegates to explain this little matter to the
satisfaction of the old ladies whom they have been
frightening with horrible stories of Yankee devastations, smouldering homesteads,
and blazing
churches.
In the face of these extracts is it not idle to
say that Hon. Mr. TILLEY was defeated by
American railway influences? The presumption would be the contrary. Looking to their
interest those shrewd New Englanders spoken
of would have supported the candidate who
is willing to invest the funds of New Brunswick in a railway connecting with their
line.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY, the leader of the New
Brunswick Government, was defeated, not
through American influence, but because of
the unpopularity of the Federation scheme,
659
as presented to the people of his province ;
and it is wrong to introduce this new cry
into our politics. Canada has been cursed
with party cries, and it is time for us to clear
the political arena of such false issues and
dangerous contests. To introduce this new
element of discord can only gain for its
promoters a temporary relief, whilst the
damage it will inflict upon the best interests
of the country are positive. Our critical
relations, at this moment, with the American
people are mainly traceable to cries of this
kind. By rendering the people suspicious
of such influence, the promoters of the cry
are hastening the accomplishment of what
they pretend to oppose. Once render the
people of this country dissatisfied with the
working of their system of government, and
there will be danger of their continuing
what will then seem inevitable. If there
be any who desire annexation, they could
not better forward their views than by raising
the false cry of American interference in our
political contests. Once destroy public confidence in our institutions, and it is
impossible to
predict what extremes may not be resorted to.
If the Ministry have information of the kind
alleged, of an interference by foreigners in
the political contest now going on in New
Brunswick, they are bound to lay it before
the House. Such an interference could not
be tolerated, and the country should know the
truth of the allegation at the earliest possible
moment. If the vote of credit asked for is
for military purposes, for fortifications, the
Government will find their hands strengthened by the support of every hon. member
of this House. It is not necessary to cry
loyalty to obtain the vote, no more than it is
necessary to cry annexation to secure the
passage of an act to unite the provinces.
I have been surprised at the alternative
that has so often been put by hon. members,
—Federation, or Annexation. Yes, and by
hon. members who, in 1858, helped to laugh
out of the House the resolutions of the present Hon. Finance Minister, on the ground
that if they were carried and confederation
follow, there would be a movement in the
direction of annexation. (Hear, hear.) I
ask where is the consistency of the two
positions—in 1858 federation was a move
towards annexation, in 1865 it is the
only measure that will prevent annexation ?
The language of Her Majesty and of some
" noble lords" has been referred to as a
reason why this scheme should be accepted
without enquiry. But it should be remem
bered that this is not the first time that
language has been put in an Address from the
Throne, to palliate the sacrifice of the true
interests of Canada. We are as capable of
judging here, on the floor of this House,
what is for the true interests of the country,
as any of the noble lords of the realm. If
their speeches contain the sum of wisdom
in regard to our affairs, pray how is it that
our frontier has been in times past so extensively sacrificed ? Every one who has
given
any attention to the subject will see that
under the Ashburton treaty our frontier
was shamefully surrendered to the Americans, and that it received the sanction of
noble lords at home ; and now we have
to build our railway over the rocks of New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to the seaboard.
(Hear, hear.) This question of Federation is a
question which concerns our country, which
concerns our allegiance, which concerns our
connection with the Home Government and
the future of this country ; and when our interests are at stake, we are the proper
parties
to judge of what is best. (Hear, hear.)
Therefore, to raise a false cry to enable hon.
gentlemen on the opposite side to carry out
their measure without amendment and without consulting the peeple of this province,
is unjust in practice and wrong in principle
It is a dangerous experiment. Had hon.
members been aware of the whole circumstances of the New Brunswick elections, they
would perhaps have reflected before placing
Hon. Mr. TILLEY in a false position.
MR. WALLBRIDGE—The extracts read
are confirmatory of this view. I know
something of the railways of New Brunswick,
and I am aware that a. scheme was favored
by the people of St. John to extend their
railways to the American frontier, as Canada
has done in several instances. It was their
interest to connect with the Portland road,
just as it was the interest of Canada to connect the Grand Trunk with the road from
Montreal to Portland. And with Hon. Mr.
TILLEY as the advocate of such extension, is
it reasonable to infer that the American railway men opposed his election ? The scheme
before us is fraught with a job of greater
proportions than the New Brunswick people
ever thought of. The lurking influences of
the Grand Trunk Railway, or of the well-
known contractors, who are uppermost whenever this union is spoken of, are at work.
(Ministerial laughter.) Ministers may
laugh, but it is patent to all that the rail
660
way, by the longest route it will be
possible to find, is the pivot on which
the scheme revolves. If it be the desire
to get to the seaboard, and not to give
certain contracting firms a job, why is not
the shortest, cheapest and best route, from
every point of view, selected ? Why climb
over the mountains of the centre of New
Brunswick, or along the seacoast, when a
road can be constructed by a better but
shorter route, for much less money, by the
valley of the St. John ? I contend that the
route this road is to run should be made
known to this House. It is a question involving the expenditure of millions, and if
the cheaper route be built, the saving to
Canada will also be many millions of dollars.
I know that certain honorable gentlemen are
prepared to vote on this question phlegmatically. (Laughter.)
MR. WALLBRIDGE—An hon. gentleman asks me what a phlegmatic vote is?
I would inform him it is to vote on this
question, which so deeply concerns our future interests, without inquiry. It will
cause
some honorable gentlemen to give the lie to
their whole political lives. It is to vote
away, without enquiry, our rights to the
North-West territory. It is to seal up that
country hermetically for all time to come.
That is what I call giving a phlegmatic
vote. (Hear, hear.) We find that the representatives at the Conference from Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick made it a point
of the proposed Constitution to construct
the Intercolonial Railway, also took good
care to make the opening of the North-West
contingent upon the state of the finances,
and the Confederation will commence life
with a debt of $150,000,000. It is evident,
therefore, that the North-West is hermetically sealed, as far as Canada is concerned.
What shall we gain by this particular scheme
of Confederation ? We have been running
with railway speed into bankruptcy. and
this scheme is one which will add immensely to our debt, and especially to our debt
on
account of unproductive and useless railways, and of which we do not even know
the route, although, now that the elections
in New Brunswick are over, it cannot affect
the position in that province to give the
information we are seeking. (Hear, hear.)
I am in favor of a union of the British
North American Provinces. But the union
that is desirable is a union in fact, not an
organized system of discord, with a number
of petty legislatures that will only serve to
create strife and prevent our moving forward
in the career of civilization and improvement.
The scheme of the hon. gentlemen, to some
extent, will give us the advantages of a
legislative union, but it is incumbered with
objectionable details—details which, in their
importance, amount to principles, and to
secure their rejection or amendment I shall
employ what energy I can bring to hear.
The scheme has been submitted to the
people in New Brunswick, and it has there
been admitted, as well as in Nova Scotia, that
it was subject to amendment. Why should
Canada not have the same right accorded ?
Why should we take the scheme in its entirety, when its authors cannot justify certain
provisions which specially relate to this country ? It is treating Canada with contempt,
and hon. gentlemen will be held responsible.
I have very great confidence in several of
the hon. gentlemen opposite. I have very
great confidence in the Hon. President of the
Council and the two other hon. gentlemen whom he took into the Ministry with
him. But, when the Hon. the President of
the Council consented to go into the Administration without getting a fair representation
in it of the party with which he was
acting, both in Upper and in Lower Canada,
he miscarried. (Laughter.) That may account for some of the objectionable features
of this measure. It may account for Canada
consenting, and for the Hon. President of the
Council giving his consent, that the voting
at the Conference should be by provinces,
instead of by numbers. They took very
good care to arrange that we should pay
according to population. (Hear, hear.) But
they voted by provinces, and in that way
hampered the scheme with many objectionable
details. And I think, therefore, it is now
competent for this House to criticise those
details, and to take such steps as will ensure their exclusion from the Imperial Act.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. HOLTON— Before these explanations are over—and I have no desire to
prolong them further than is necessary—I
would like to ask the Hon. Minister of Finance
as to the course to be pursued with referenc
to the Lower Canada School Law, which was
promised to be introduced this session. We
are now told a prorogation is to take place,
and I would like to know whether the pledge
given by the honorable gentleman at Sherbrooke, on behalf of himself and his col
661
leagues, and renewed several times in the
House since the session commenced, is
intended to be carried out, or whether it is
to be modified—because it must be obvious
that that matter has an important bearing
on the question of Confederation, with which
it has been connected by honorable gentlemen
opposite.
HON. MR. GALT—I think the statement
made this afternoon by the Hon. Attorney
General West is perfectly explicit. The
Government intend to ask for a vote on the
resolutions now in the hands of the Speaker.
With regard to the School question, the
Government are under the same ledge as
they have always been : it will be legislated
upon by this House.
HON. MR. GALT—It will not be legislated upon this session, because, as the Hon.
Attorney General West has stated, it is the
intention of the Government to prorogue the
House at the earliest date. But all the conditions connected with the resolutions
will
he legislated upon as a matter of course.
HON. MR. HOLTON—I understand, then,
that the pledge to bring down that question
this session is withdrawn—the policy of the
Government on that point having been
modified by the result of the elections in
New Brunswick.
HON. MR. GALT—There is no change
in the policy of the Government on the subject of Confederation, or any of the other
measures connected with it.
HON. MR. HOLTON—But the honorable
gentleman must permit me to recall the
nature of the pledge given by himself and
his colleagues at Sherbrooke and in this
House—that there would be a bill brought
down by the Government during this session of Parliament, for the amendment
of the Lower Canada School laws. This
was repeated by the Honorable Solicitor
General East, on behalf of the Government, in the course of certain interpellations
made on this subject in the absence of my
hon. friend the Finance Minister. And the
conclusion of the whole matter now is, that
the hon. gentleman states emphatically that
this is not to be done. The people of New
Brunswick, therefore, among the other mischiefs they have wrought by the free exercise
of their franchise in the rejection of the
Government which undertook, without legislative or other authority, to enter into
arrangements for revolutionizing the country—
among other mischiefs they have wrought
has been this, that the Minister of Finance
and his colleagues conceive themselves to be
relieved thereby of the obligations they
undertook to the country and to the House—
HON. MR. HOLTON—The obligations
they undertook to the country and to the
House to bring in an amendment to the
Lower Canada School laws during this session of Parliament. The hon. gentleman
knows full well—none better than he—the
point of these remarks. It may not be appreciated by the House generally, especially
by the members from Upper Canada, but
the hon. gentleman knows well the importance of it, and that the English Protestants
of
Lower Canada desire to know what is to be done
in this matter of education, before the final
voice of the people of this country is pronounced on the question of Confederation.
The assurances given by the hon. gentleman
led them to believe—and in point of fact they
do generally believe—that. that measure is to
be brought down before the final vote of this
House is taken on the question of Confederation. That is the point of the whole matter.
And the honorable gentleman now tells us,
through his leader, that the Confederation
resolutions are to be put through this session
immediately, and that commissioners are
going to England to press legislation founded
on those resolutions, while on the other hand
he himself, the great Protestant champion of
Lower Canada, who claims the confidence
of Lower Canada Protestants in an especial
manner, now tells them that this promised
legislation is not to be had until next session
of Parliament, when it will be too late perhaps to petition this House. or even to
send
popular petitions to the Imperial Parliament
against this measure. Therefore it is, I
repeat, that among the many curious results
of the free exercise of their franchise by the
people of New Brunswick, we have this,
that the Protestant champion of Lower
Canada is not going to do that which he
undertook to do on behalf of his fellow-
countrymen and co-religionists—that which
he promised this session, but now postpones
till another session, when all the circumstances may be changed. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. GALT.—I think the interest
evinced by the hon. member for Chateauguay
in this matter is somewhat remarkable. I
feel grateful indeed to him for the kind solicitude he expresses on my behalf, that
I
should cause no disappointment to the class
which to a certain extent looks to me. Still
662
I think he is guilty of rather a paltry
quibble in the statement he has just made.
The position of the Government was most
distinctly stated by the Attorney General
West, and no misunderstanding can exist
with regard to it. It is admitted frankly that
the events in New Brunswick call for some
special action by this Government, and the
action which they propose to take was stated
in the most distinct terms by the Government. As regards the education question,
statements have been made already as to the
nature of the amendments which are to be
proposed to the existing School law. The
Government will unquestionably take care
that that law shall be amended in the sense
of those statements before the Confederation
scheme finally becomes law in Canada. I
think no further statement is necessary. I
can add nothing to the assurances which
have already been given on that subject.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. J. H. CAMERON—There is one
point on which I should like an explaination
from the Hon. Attorney General West. He
says there will be a vote of credit asked from
the House, until the next meeting of the Legislature. That, I suppose, will not be
until
July or August, but the appropriation for the
services of the volunteer force on the frontier
expires in May. Will that vote of credit include
the amount necessary to continue the volunteers on their present service, if the Government
find that they require it to be continued
up to a subsequent period, say the first of
August? I should like an answer to this
question, if the Government have made up
their minds on this part of the subject. I
may remark, also, that one cannot help feeling it to be a matter of regret that the
public business of the country could not go on.
Of course, if the Government determine
that the question of Confederation shall
be pressed to a speedy decision by the
House, and the Hon. Atty. Gen. West and
other members of the Government proceed
immediately thereafter to the other side of
the Atlantic, it will be necessary that the
House should rise, without getting through
the ordinary business of the country.
At the same time, a few weeks more would
enable the House to get through all that
business, and when we met again in July
or August, we would be able to devote our
whole time to the measures which the Government may submit to us, as the result of
the mission to England. If this debate is
to be pressed as rapidly as the Hon. Attorney
General indicates, I have no doubt we would
be able to dispose of it, and also to get rid
of the whole of the public and private
business on the Orders, so as to allow the
prorogation to take place before the first of
April. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. GALT—I will answer the
question put by my honorable friend to the
Hon. Attorney General West. The intention
of the Government is to ask such a vote of
credit from this House, as in their opinion
the necessities of the country will demand,
until the period when Parliament may again
be called together. With reference to that,
I would remind the House that the ordinary
supplies have been voted up to the 30th June,
and this will have to be borne in mind in
considering the sum the House will be asked
to vote. The Government will unquestionably have in view the continuance of the
protection of the frontier. (Hear, hear.)
As the Hon. Attorney General has stated
the intention of the Government is to
meet Parliament again, so soon as they
are in a position to state to them frankly the
views of the Imperial Government; and
that of course, to a certain extent, depends
on the time during which they may be delayed in London in getting a final answer.
But the intention of the Government is to
lose no time in meeting Parliament again.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I have a
word or two to say. The Government have
changed their policy so quickly, that we can
now place no reliance on the statements of
Ministers of the Crown. I have not the
slightest doubt that hon. gentlemen on the
Treasury benches at this moment contemplate—and I ask the attention of the House
to what I am saying, because it is a bold
statement I am to make—I say it is my
deliberate opinion, that if we pass these resolutions, the gentlemen on the Treasury
benches
will go home and find a justification in England for manufacturing a bill of perhaps
an
entirely different character, that will cover all
points, and that they will come back and
force that on the people of this country at
all hazards, having embodied in it whatever regulations they please as to schools,
and whether there shall be one House
or two Houses in the Local Parliament,
and all other such matters. I am satisfied
that that is their plan. They know
well they cannot go to an unwilling people
663
with this scheme—they dare not submit it
to the country—and they propose, therefore,
to steal a march on the people, and will
come back with a bill manufactured in
London, as was done in 1840, and press it
on the people of Canada. We know how it
was in 1852 or 1853, when an act came
over to us, making an alteration in our Constitution, with respect to the increase
of
representation in Parliament, of which no
one to this day has been able to trace the
origin. What was done on that occasion
may be done again. They will be met in
England by gentlemen from New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia, and they will manufacture
there a Constitution for the people of Canada—which the people of Canada will be
compelled to take, or else expose themselves
to be called traitors and rebels. They will
come out with the authority of the Government, and invoke the name of the Queen,
and will attempt to impose the Constitution
thus manufactured on all the colonies, stigmatising as traitors all who oppose them.
This is not the first time that that game has
been played. Honorable gentlemen, failing
to obtain the assent of an unwilling people
here, will take that course—especially when,
as is well known, the people and Government of England are only too anxious to
throw upon us a large burden for the defence of this country. Influenced by the
attentions and blandishments they will receive in England, Ministers will sacrifice
our interests, and, as the price of it, will
perhaps come back with high-sounding
titles. (Laughter.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—And what
has been done before may be done again.
They will go to England as if armed, as
they suppose, with a
carte blanche from the
people of this country, because of the adoption
of the scheme by this House to obtain a Constitution, such as is shadowed forth in
these
resolutions—imperfectly as they themselves
admit—for Upper and Lower Canada and the
provinces generally. The English Parliament
will say, " We have here the best intellects of the provinces, the leaders of both
parties, the men who have played their part
before the country for the last eight or ten
years, with the confidence of their respective
parties." But, if they were to read at the
same time what these leading men have in
that period said of one another, they might
well question whether the men who had
branded each other with infamy and disgrace, were the men best fitted to unite in
framing a bill to secure the peace and quietness of this country—a measure, in the
language of the hon. member for South
Oxford (Hon. Mr. BROWN), forever to settle
the difficulties between Upper and Lower
Canada. (Hear, hear.) I protest vehemently against these attacks on our rights. I
protest against our being asked thus blindly
to vote away our rights and liberties. However clever these gentlemen may be, we know
to our cost what our cleverest financiers
have done and will do again when they get
out of the reach of public opinion, for the
moment. When the country got tired of
them, they entered into this Coalition to
strengthen themselves. These are the men
who will give us a new Constitution made in
England. I do not pretend to has prophet ;
but I ask you, Mr. SPEAKER, to remember,
that I have declared now what is my
deliberate conviction as to the game that
will be played by hon. gentlemen on the
Treasury benches. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. BROWN—It does astonish
me that an hon. gentleman in the position
which the hon. member for Cornwall has
occupied for so many years, should deliberately rise and make such statements as we
have heard from him, after the grave announcement made from the Treasury benches
with the assent of the Governor General of
this province. The hon. gentleman has
been told that the Government intend, if
the House sanction this measure, to carry it
home with the honest intention of giving
effect to it, and of having arrangements
made with reference to the other grave
matters which have to be considered there.
HON. MR. BROWN—The question of
defence, and the question of the commercial
relations between these provinces and the
United States. He has been told that
it is the intention that members of the
Government should go to England ; that on
their return, at the earliest possible moment,
Parliament shall be called together and
have submitted to it the result of the negotiations. And after all this, the honorable
gentleman has the rashness—I shall not use a
harsher word—to get up here and impute
to the whole members of the Government,
and to the head of the Government, who has
664
sanctioned the making of this announcement
to the House—
HON. MR. DORION—I rise to a point of
order. I ask if it is in order to bring before
the House the authority and name of the
Governor General.
MR. SPEAKER—The name of the Sovereign cannot be introduced in this way, but
I do not know that the rule extends further.
HON. MR. BROWN—I am quite in
order. I apprehend it is quite impossible
that we could have made to the House the
statement with regard to the prorogation,
and the intention of sending members of
the Government to England, in the way we
propose, unless we had the direct sanction
of His Excellency.
HON. MR. BROWN—Of course. With
the duty we owed to His Excellency, it was
impossible we could make such a statement,
without first obtaining His Excellency's
sanction. The hon. gentleman knows it
well, and when he ventured to get up and
make the rash charge that the whole thing
is a trick, to get some scheme entirely
different from this carried through the
Imperial Parliament, he assumes a liberty
that is entirely unworthy of a member of
this House. (Hear, hear.) And I can
tell the honorable gentleman and my
honorable friend from Hochelaga, who
are so anxious about the position
which has been taken on this side by
myself and by my hon. friends the Postmaster
General and the Provincial Secretary—I
can tell them that we are quite alive to the
position in which we are placed, and that we
have no fear with regard to the course we have
taken, are now taking, and shall continue to
take, till this measure is brought to a satisfactory conclusion, but we will be able
to justify
ourselves in the eyes of those who placed us
here. (Cheers.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—The statement
just made by the Hon. President of the
Council is one, I conceive, of very great
importance, as it puts a meaning on the
declaration made by the Hon. Attorney
General West, which some of us, at all events
—myself among the rest—did not catch
when the hon. gentleman made his statement. We are to understand now, by the
declaration of the Hon. President of the
Council, that the Government do not intend
to have anything concluded in this matter
of Confederation till the next meeting of
the House.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Then what was
the point of attack on the hon. member
for Cornwall? That hon. member indicated
his fear and his belief that a Constitution
would be framed in England, at the instance
and, perhaps, under the supervision of certain
of the hon. gentlemen on the Treasury
benches, which would prove to be utterly distasteful and unpalatable to the people
of this
country. And the Hon President of the Council gets up and repels that with the greatest
possible indignation. It appears to me that,
if there is any point in his indignation, it
must be here—that some further action is
to be sought from this House before any
effect is given to the question of Confederation. I take it, that is the fair inference
from the statement now made by the Hon.
President of the Council. I ask whether that
is the inference to be deduced—whether that
is what the hon. gentleman meant ? (A
pause.) The honorable gentleman declines
to answer.
HON. MR. HOLTON—The honorable
gentleman knows well that this is not part of
the regular debate. I did not rise to make a
speech. The Hon. Attorney General West did
not rise to make a speech. No one has done
so. The Hon. Attorney General, on behalf
of the Government, made a statement. That
statement has led to some observations, and
some enquiries, that the House might understand its full purport. The regular debate
is
to be resumed by my honorable friend from
Quebec (Hon. Mr. ALLEYN), who, having
moved its adjournment, is entitled to the floor,
and I should be sorry to keep it from him,
by making a speech. But I want those points
to be clearly understood, for it is in the interest of all parties that they should
be. Though
I do not go quite so far as my honorable
friend from Cornwall in his observations—
HON. MR. HOLTON—Though I do not
go so far as he has done, yet I thought there
might be some danger, but I look upon the
statement made by the Hon. President of the
665
Council, and the indignation with which he
repelled the charge of my honorable friend
from Cornwall, as calculated to reassure the
House. And I merely rose for the purpose of
asking honorable gentlemen whether we are
really to understand from the supplementary
statement made on behalf of the Government
by the Hon. President of the Council, that
the further consideration of this House is to
be invited to all these measures—to the new
Constitution for the country, as well as the
arrangements that may be come to with
respect to our defences, and with respect to
our commercial relations.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—If I
supposed for a moment that the honorable
member for Chateauguay really required an
answer, he should get it. I have no doubt
the Hon. President of the Council would
gladly give an answer, if he really thought he
had any information to give to the honorable
gentleman. But no one understands better
than the honorable member for Chateauguay
the way in which the case was put. The
honorable member for Cornwall (Hon. J. S.
MACDONALD) rose, and in rather an unparliamentary way—after a statement had
been formally made to inform the House and
the country what was the policy of the Government—upon his honor declared his belief
that the Government were not sincere in the
explanations they had made, and that their
design was to get a bill passed by the Imperial Parliament, contrary to the feelings
of
this country and of the Lower Provinces, and
to force that upon the people. That was the
declaration of the honorable gentleman. I do
not know if he was sincere in making it. He
seemed to be sincere, and pledged his honor
and his conscience to it. (Laughter.) But
his doing so only convinces me, that, if he
had been in office himself, that is the course
he would have adopted ; no such suggestion
would have risen to any man's mind, unless
he had thought it a feasible one. (Hear,
hear.) For our part we do not consider such
a course to be in accordance with our position
in this House, or in accordance with our
principles as men of honor ; and the Hon.
President of the Council rose to repel the dishonoring insinuation with that just
indignation which was felt by every man who heard
it, and to declare that the belief of the honorable gentleman was utterly untrue,
unfounded, and unwarranted. But I shall repeat the anouncement in a way that it may
be
understood by the hon. member for Cornwall
—in language that will be plain to the meanest
capacity— (laughter) — so that no man can
mistake it. Our intention is to get the
sanction of this House to the Address I
have moved, and this having been done,
the two branches of the Legislature will have
given their votes in favor of the Confederation scheme, and there is the end to that,
so
far as Canada is concerned. We will then
go over to England with that in our hands,
and will say to the Imperial Government :—
" Canada has agreed to this, New Brunswick
has not agreed to it, and we wish to take
counsel with the Imperial Government as to
our position. This is the unmistakable voice
of the people of Canada through their representatives, and we, as representing the
Government of Canada, which has three-fourths
of the whole population of the provinces, come
to consult with the authorities of the Mother
Country what is best for the interests of these
provinces." (Hear, hear.) We shall also
discuss the question of defence, and, I have
no doubt, we shall be met in a most largehearted and liberal spirit by the English
Government, and that England will now, in justice to Canada, pledge herself to her
utmost
resources in men and money for our defence.
(Hear, hear.) Then there is a third question—that of the Reciprocity treaty ; and
we
will also take counsel with the British Government as to the best means of treating
that
subject. And the honorable gentleman knows
—at least he ought to know, for I cannot answer for the limits of his understanding—that
we can only discuss that through Imperial
avenues, that we can have no direct communication in such matters with the American
Government. Having taken counsel with the
Imperial Government on those three points,
we shall call the House together at the earliest period, I hope long before the current
half-year terminates, that is, before the 30th
June. We will submit the result of our mission, and it will then be before the House
for
discussion. Though another session, it will
be in effect a continuation of this session, and
when we have debated and disposed of the
most pressing subjects, we will then take up
what remains of the Confederation scheme—
such as the constitution of the local governments and the school question, with regard
to
which, as the Hon. Minister of Finance has
stated, we shall propose to carry out to the
letter the pledges we gave at the Conference,
and which we ask the House to endorse, and
hope it will. (Hear, hear.) We will also
submit the result of our negotiations on the
question of defence, and on all those matters
666
connected with the relations between Great
Britain and the United States, so far as British America is concerned, and on which
we
are authorized to take action by the Imperial
authorities. We cannot know at what stage
the negotiations between the Imperial Government and the United States Government
may have arrived when the House meets
again ; but the result of the mission of
those members of the Canadian Government
who go home, will be submitted to the
House. We shall lay before the House all
that the British Government resolve upon,
after hearing what we have to say as to
the question of Confederation in its general
aspect, and in its relation to the position it
may have assumed in the other provinces.
We shall then lay before the House the
scheme of the local governments for the
two Canadas. We shall lay before them the
action necessary to be taken with reference to
the School question, the matter of defence and
the Reciprocity treaty. The honorable member for Cornwall gets up, and, because he
finds the Government, are resolved to take
a firm and proper course in this matter, he
chooses to throw improper and insulting
remarks across the floor. But the House has
learned what value is to be attached to the
honorable gentleman's statements, when a
little while ago it heard him—an honorable
gentleman who professes to be such a patriot
—stating, with reference to this scheme, in
favor of which a large majority of the people
of Canada had declared, that he had a " mischievous satisfaction " in seeing it checked.
It was in the same spirit of causeless, senseless mischief that he got up to prophecy
all
sorts of improper conduct on the part of the
Government. (Hear, hear.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—Whatever
views may be entertained by the Honorable
Attorney General West of my capacity, I suppose I have got along in my own way as
he
has got along in his way. But I think the
House may thank me for having obtained at
last—notwithstanding the castigation the honorable gentleman has dealt out to me,
and
which I hope I shall be able to survive, as I
have borne up heretofore under similar avalanches of hard words about my want of judgment,
want of capacity, and so forth—I think
the House may thank me for having obtained
at last from the Honorable Attorney General
the explicit statement he has made, that the
scheme is to come back again for the consideration of this House.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—He said—if
not the scheme itself—that all the arrangements connected with it, as to the local
governments, the proportions we are to assume of
the defence of the country, and the School
question—which the Honorable Finance Minister told us, but for this untoward affair
in
New Brunswick, would have been submitted
before this session closed—that all these things
will be brought back and be submitted next
session, before the Confederation scheme is
finally concluded. This was not so explicitly
stated in the honorable gentleman's first speech.
I have been accused of being so unpatriotic as
to take a mischievous pleasure in any check
upon the scheme. What I said was, that I
had mischievous pleasure in seeing that the
honorable gentleman who had charged the
Canadian Government with bad faith had been
defeated and ousted from his place. And I
say that, if this scheme were likely to prove
for the advantage of the people of this province,
no one would rejoice more than I in seeing it
carried. But I have always felt, and do now
feel, that the Constitution of this country can
be well worked out. I have never given a
vote for Federation. I have never given a
vote for a legislative union.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—No ; I did
not sign the annexation manifesto. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) I have not assented or
given countenance to any scheme for changing
our present Constitution, and it is not right
for the honorable gentleman, because I do
not choose to assent to this scheme without
knowing all the details, to taunt me with
being unpatriotic. (Hear, hear.) The honorable gentleman would have the House
to understand that I was ignorant of the fact
that this Government could not deal directly
with the American Government with regard
to the Reciprocity treaty. And yet in the
face of this charge, he must have known that
the only record which an Address of this
House brought down the other day was a
Minute of Council addressed to the Secretary
of State by myself and colleagues, on the
subject of reciprocity.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—They have
done nothing since, of course. We were attacked
by the Hon. President of the Council because
we did nothing with regard to the Reciprocity
treaty.
HON. MR. BROWN—The honorable gen
667
tleman is entirely mistaken. He is thinking
of the time when I privately urged upon him,
as Prime Minister, the necessity of taking
steps, and prompt steps, for ascertaining what
was the mind of the Washington Government,
and whether or not a new treaty could be
negotiated. He explained to me the obstacle
that stood in his way ; and, though I considered the difficulties in his way ought
to
have been overcome, yet the circumstances
were such that I never blamed him.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—We did all
we could in the way of making representations
to the Imperial Government. And what have
honorable gentlemen opposite done since ?
HON. MR. BROWN—We have been acting
in the same direction ever since, and I think
it would have been well for the interests of
this country if we had not been fettered as we
have been.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—Well, I say
that this explanation of the Honorable Attorney General is more explicit and much
more
elaborate than the explanation we had from
him in the first instance. In commenting
upon that first explanation, I hope I did not
make use of unparliamentary language. But
I am entitled surely to draw deductions from
the announcements made to us from the
Treasury benches, and I am not bound to
mince matters if I feel alarmed at the consequences which may result from the giving
of
this dreadful blow to the Constitution we
have so long lived under. It is surely not
unseemly that I should feel keenly on this
subject, and that, before the Constitution to
which I am sincerely attached is swept away,
I should express that indignation which I may
have expressed somewhat warmly this afternoon. (Hear, hear.) Much stronger language
has been expressed on the floor of this
House, when the motives of the honorable
gentlemen on the Treasury benches have been
questioned by honorable gentlemen whose
intellect perhaps as far transcends mine as day
outshines night. (Laughter.) But I think
the country and the House will yet thank me
for stating, even in the earnest manner I did,
my alarm in connection with this matter.
At all events, I have a sincere belief in the
truth of what I stated. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. DORION—The explanations
given to-day by the Honorable Attorney General West are fuller than those at first
given ;
yet I am afraid that there is still some misunderstanding. The Honorable Attorney
General West stated that the scheme for the
constitution of the local governments would
be submitted to the House next session. Is
it the intention of the Government, or the
delegation when in England, to press the
scheme upon the Imperial Government without the concurrence of the Lower Provinces
?
If the Lower Provinces do not come in, will
the Government press the adoption of the
scheme so as to apply it to the two provinces
of Canada ? For, if I understood the Honorable Attorney General West, he said that
next session they will bring in the constitutions of the local legislatures. Now,
if they
are not to press the scheme at all, there would
be no necessity for local legislatures. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I desire simply to state, as I have said before, that
after these resolutions are carried, those who
go to confer with the Imperial Government
will doubtless adopt such steps as they think
are best suited to us. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)
MR. RANKIN—I feel obliged to the honorable member for Cornwall if he elicited the
explanations just given, though I cannot approve of what he said otherwise. To me
the
intelligence is most acceptable. (Hear, hear.)
I learn that it is the intention of the Government to go on without regard to the
action of
the Lower Provinces, and to press this measure through without being influenced by
the
action of New Brunswick. I hold that it is
common sense for us to remember that we are
considering the interests of the people at
large, and this scheme, if acceptable to the
people of Canada, is acceptable to four-fifths
of the people of British North America.—
(Hear, hear.) It must be evident to the meanest capacity—to make use of the words
of the
Honorable Attorney General West a few minutes ago—that one of two destinies awaits
us :
either we must extend and strengthen British
influence and British power on this continent,
or these provinces must, one by one, be absorbed by the neighboring republic. (Hear,
hear.) That has been my opinion for years,
and it is my opinion still. However, Mr.
SPEAKER, I simply rose for the purpose of
soliciting more distinct information upon one
point on which I have heard nothing said, although the explanations may have been
given
before I came into the House. I wish to
know what is the intention of the Government
with reference to the volunteers now on the
frontier,—whether they have provided the
means to maintain this force, if required, beyond the 1st of May next ?
668
MR. RANKIN—I only hope the Government will ask the House for means to keep up
whatever force may be thought necessary, not
only till June, but till October if requisite.
(Hear, hear.) .
Mr. GIBBS—I think that the policy of
the Government, as announced to-day by the
Hon. Attorney General West, is bold, manly,
and straightforward, and such as will entitle
them to the confidence of this House and of
the country. (Hear, hear.) It shows that
they, at least, are in earnest on this great
question of Confederation which they have
introduced, and whatever may have been the
opinion of the Opposition as to the motive
which induced them to lay this measure
before the House at the opening of the session, I think it must be utterly dispelled
by
the announcement just made to the House.
(Hear, hear.) If the scheme was worth anything when the Government, in the opening
Speech this session, declared its intention of
asking the consideration of the House for 1t,
the same scheme must be worth as much
now, and I trust that none of the difficulties
which may for a moment interpose, will prevent the Administration from carrying it
through. (Hear, hear.) It has been said
that the measure which they should have
brought down was the smaller one, whilst
they have introduced the larger. Now, sir, I
hold that the greater always includes the less;
and that the Government, instead of being
blamed for the course they have taken, are entitled to the thanks of this House for
bringing down the more important one at the outset. (Hear, hear.) It is not often
that questions of the importance of that now before the
House are carried without considerable opposition. I need only refer, as an example,
to
that of the Clergy Reserves, during the discussion of which there were fights, fierce
and
numerous, lasting for many years, until the
measure was carried at last. And now, as we
are about to obtain what Upper Canada has
sought for years—representation by population—we find, unfortunately, difficulties
interposing; but I hope that notwithstanding
these, the Government will not falter, but will
carry out the wish of the majority of the members of this House and of the people
of the
country, and consummate the scheme of
uniting the British North American Provinces. (Hear, hear.) I am very happy to
find that the Government have taken into
consideration the negotiations on reciprocal
trade with the United States. That is a most
important question, and I should have been
glad, for that alone, if the Confederation
scheme had been carried out successfully,
because it would have been much easier to
discuss the matter through the British
Government by means of representatives from the
General Confederacy, than by representatives
from the various disunited provinces. Now
I say, Mr. SPEAKER, that the course the Government have pursued must inspire confidence
in them on the part of their supporters, and I
believe that the country will approve of it too.
(Hear, hear.) I hope they will relax no
effort to see the scheme carried to completion.
(Hear, hear.)
DR. PARKER—If I understand correctly the statement just made by the
Government, they propose to send a delegation to England for the purpose of discussing
the three questions of the Reciprocity treaty,
the defences, and the scheme of Confederation now before the House. The Hon.
Attorney General says that the question of
the defences is very pressing, and that
immediate action should also be taken with
regard to the Reciprocity treaty. If these
subjects are so pressing, they should be dealt
with at once, irrespective of whether this
scheme is carried or not. (Hear, hear.) A
period of constitutional changes is most
unfavorable for the proper consideration of
these questions; and if the necessity is as
urgent as represented, they should be taken
up and considered at once, even in advance
of Confederation. Earl RUSSELL, then Lord
JOHN RUSSELL, was severely ridiculed by the
British press because he introduced a Reform
bill during the Crimean war. I deprecate
most strongly the attempt made to coerce
constitutional changes upon this House
and the country under the pressure of
danger and coming war. (Hear, hear.)
He is no friend of Canada who is constantly
creating alarm and raising the cuckoo cry
of loyalty. (Hear, hear.) This Government
was formed for the express purpose of discovering a remedy for our constitutional
difficulties, and I hold them to that engagement. This scheme is to unite the whole
of
the British North American Colonies; and
if the treaty is adopted by the Imperial
Government, if an Imperial Act is passed
on the basis of these resolutions, and the
Maritime Provinces persist in their present
refusal to come in, in what position are we
then placed? Is this plan of Federation to
be applied to the two Canadas? Sir, this is
669
not the constitutional remedy we desired
and sought? And I ask the House if it is
prepared to accept this union for ourselves?
(Hear, hear.) I think that the Government
should have confined themselves simply to
the constitutional question, and should not
have tacked on to it our commercial and
defensive relations, for the purpose of obtaining a little prestige. They have not
put the question before Parliament fairly,
or as it has been placed before the legislatures of any of the other provinces. I
think the House should look at the question
in this way—is an Imperial Act to be
passed, establishing a Confederation of the
two Canadas on the basis of these resolutions? I am not prepared to accept that as
the constitutional remedy. I do not want
it in that form. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. MCGEE—The hon. gentleman
who has just sat down says that we have
put this question before the House as it has
not been put in any of the other provinces.
Now, my information, which perhaps is as
correct as his, leads me to believe that the
same course has been pursued here as has
been or will be adopted in three of the other
provinces—Newfoundland, Prince Edward
Island, and Nova Scotia. The last information received shows that there is, as I am
informed, a fair chance of the resolutions
being adopted in Newfoundland. In Nova
Scotia the resolutions were brought down by
the Provincial Secretary, and it was then
stated that the adoption of the resolutions
would be moved, on a future day. So Dr.
TUPPER, the Provincial Secretary, stated.
HON. MR. MCGEE—Well, it was a very
proper one. But the hon. gentleman will
see that out of the four provinces he is wrong
in regard to three of them. Then, my hon.
friend the member for North Hastings (Mr.
T. C. WALLBRIDGE) repudiated the idea
that American influence had anything to do
with the result of the elections in New
Brunswick. Now, I may say to my hon.
friend that one of the successful candidates
is the agent of the American line of steamers
—the International line—which does all the
carrying trade to New Brunswick; and there
is not, I am told, a pound of the stock of
that company held in New Brunswick.
(Hear, hear.) Does any one suppose that
the influence of that company was not used
for his election? Both steamboat and rail
way, and mining and fishery influences were
brought to bear; and I think it will not be
saying too much—and I have no hesitation
in saying, for my part—that in that portion
of the country, as well as in others, that the
fight was between parties pro-Yankee and
pro-British. It was a fair stand-up fight of
Yankee interests on the one side and British
interests on the other; and those who are
here ungenerously and unwisely rejoicing over
the defeat of Hon. Mr. TILLEY, are in reality
rejoicing in the triumph of Yankee interests.
I state this from the knowledge I have
obtained from ten different visits to that
country, and I am quite sure, if my hon.
friend had been there all the times that I
have been, and had the same opportunities
for observation, that he would understand that
there are influences there quite apart from the
real merits of Confederation. (Hear, hear.)
Among other cries, Hon. Mr. TILLEY was
assailed because it was said that Hon. Mr.
MACDONALD had stated the Intercolonial
Railway could not be made—as of course a
railway could not be made—a part of the
Constitution. That is a sample of the cries
against Hon. Mr. TILLEY. ln fact, it was a
contest between prejudice and patriotism; between ignorance and intelligence; between
Yankee influence and the broad principles
of British North American policy.
(Hear, hear.) Those who rejoice over that
state of things may congratulate themselves
if they choose, but it is for us to stand by the
true public opinion of the country; it is for
us to show an example of firmness and good
faith in carrying out this scheme; it is for
us to show the rest of the Empire that we
are determined to adhere to our original
resolution, and that we are not a people who
do not know our own minds for three weeks,
and make proposals one day or one week to
breathe them down the next. (Hear, hear.)
I am sure if my honorable friend from
North Hastings only knew that country as
well as I do, that he would come to the same
conclusions.
After the recess,
HON. MR. ALLEYN said—Mr. SPEAKER,
those whose fortune it has been to sit since
1854 in the reformed Legislature of Canada,
have had to deal with and settle matters of
the highest importance to the province.
Questions which in other and older lands
have loosened the bonds of society, have
caused bloodshed and almost led to anarchy,
such as our Seigniorial Tenure and Clergy
670
Reserve Acts, have been finally and peaceably disposed of, not possibly without injustice
to a few, but certainly to the satisfaction
of the community at large. Yet all those
things, though of the greatest importance
to us in Canada, sink into insignificance
in comparison with that now before this
House. While they related to our own
affairs only, and were designed to promote the peaceful working of our own
province, the question which we have
now to pronounce upon concerns and relates
to a Constitution for all the provinces of
British North America, and for a country
which may eventually comprise half a continent, and extend in one unbroken chain
from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
(Cheers.) But although the consideration
of this great question has consumed a good
deal of the time of this House, and
though it is one of such great importance,
and so wide in its extent that it does
not excite those strong personal and party
feelings in the minds of honorable members
which much less important questions, of
a more local nature, generally excite, still,
sir, I think there is no one who looks
at the future of this country for which we
are called upon to act, who can avoid coming
to the conclusion that the question is one
deserving of so much deliberate consideration at our hands, that no amount of time
can be considered wasted in debating and
deciding upon it. Yet Mr. SPEAKER, this
is no new question. It has been brought
up several times in Parliament, and before
the people, and has occupied the attention of our ablest men, more or less, for
the past forty or fifty years. It has been
presented, theoretically, to the minds of the
public of every province in British North
America, in articles and pamphlets that have
been written upon it ; but now for the first
time, by an extraordinary combination of
events such as may never occur again, it
presents itself to those empowered to deal
with it practically and to give it life and
vitality. (Hear, hear.) We have a great responsibility resting upon us with reference
to
the decision we shall come to on this important question. When I say that there
has been an extraordinary combination of
events, I think not the least extraordinary was
the coming together of the leading men from
all parts of the provinces, entertaining widely
different and hostile views, yet determining
to keep those views in abeyance while they
devised a scheme for the benefit of our common country. When before has the spectacle
been witnessed of the leaders of adverse
political camps surrendering that advantage
which a resistance to any great change must
always give in party politics, and meeting
together to settle upon a common ground of
action ? This we saw last summer in the
meeting of the delegates from all the provinces.
Many of these gentlemen must have known
that they risked their political positions, and
we now know it in a practical way. But far
better for a public man to be defeated in a
great cause than to succeed in a bad one.
(Hear, hear.) We cannot look upon the
action of those men without conceding to
them, first of all, a great amount of credit for
the honorable and patriotic spirit which they
evinced. Whatever views we may hold of
their judgment, it must be conceded on all
hands that their conduct deserves a high
mood of praise. (Hear, hear.) But when
we see this question taken up in all the
provinces, and receiving so much attention
in England, and even in other portions of
Europe, in so short a period of time, I think
we must feel that there must be some great
overruling cause at work to induce so vast
an amount of attention to be given to the
subject. I have examined the question
carefully in this aspect, and I venture to
express an opinion respecting the cause,
by reference to the history of nations. I
recollect in a speech from Lord MACAULAY,
in addressing the University of Aberdeen
I think it was, speaking of the events of
1848, the remark occurs that since the invasion of the Huns civilization never ran
such
risks as in that year. (Hear, hear.) Its
dangers passed away, but the results remain.
The wave which threatened to submerge,
obeying a natural law, retired beyond low-
water mark, and has left exposed more than
one coast. Small nations seem not to be
considered, the faith of treaties is laughed
at, and in this boasted age of civilization the
doctrine that might is right prevails as
strongly as in the seventeenth century.
(Hear, hear.) The Danes, a brave and Virtuous people, have been exposed to a hopeless
war with Austria and Prussia, chiefs of the
Teutonic race, while England and France
remonstrated, by words and proto cols, but
acted not. The iron heel of Russia has crushed
out the last sparks of freedom in Poland—
long-suffering Poland, for whom so much
sentiment has been expended, and free En
671
gland and generous France stood silent
lookers on. (Hear, hear.) From the Caucasus
we have had the exodus of a nation from the
land they defended for centuries, in bitter
pilgrimage, losing thousands and tens of
thousands on the way, to seek in the wilds
of Asia for subsistence and freedom. On this
continent the great nation which adjoins us
has resorted to the bitter arbitrament of the
sword, and an internecine and deplorable
combat is being waged on a scale unknown
since the Russian campaign and the great
Napoleonic wars. These things, according to
the stern rules of statecraft, may be right,
and nations possibly cannot break the hard
law of non-intervention ; but when we see
such events passing around us, must we not
come to the conclusion that power must of
necessity increase and encroach, or that it is
as unreasonable now as it ever has been, and
that pure justice and abstract right, without
armed battalions to support them, will neither
preserve integrity of territory nor secure protection of person. Again, in the discoveries
in
the arts and sciences, we can perceive how
much the power of great states have become
increased as compared with the smaller ones.
The telegraph has annihilated time, railroads
and steamers have devoured space. War can
only be waged by nations possessing vast
resources in money, warlike engines and
materials. One iron-clad man-of-war, with
her complement of Armstrong guns, would
cost the year's revenue of a province. (Hear,
hear.) And if we look around us we see this
principle of territorial aggrandizement, this
gathering together of the
disjecta membra of
nations ; this girding up of the loins of empires for coming events is steadily carried
out. The principle of centralization is rapidly going on, is pressing together the
great
nations, and rendering it necessary for smaller
nations and provinces to unite, and centralize for their common defence. (Hear,
hear.) The subject is not one of theory,
but of fact. Look at Italy, such a short time
ago a weak and scattered congeries of states,
now united into one powerful government.
VICTOR EMMANUEL is King of some twenty-
five millions of people ; France has Nice
and Savoy and possibly a portion of Central
America; Prussia and Austria have robbed
Denmark; Russia has absorbed the Caucasus
and is advancing into Central Asia; Mexico
is springing into a powerful empire; the
United States are, in men and the materials
of war, showing a power which the world has
seldom seen excelled. Such things passing
round us, it would ill become us not seriously
to consider our position, and, if possible, profit
by the occasion. (Cheers) What I have
already said applies to all the provinces and
to all small powers; but we in Canada have
had peculiar difficulties of our own. Usually
great questions strengthen governments.
Aaron's rod swallows up the rods of the magicians; but, though we have settled great
questions, our governments have fallen like houses
of cards. Coalition and party governments
alike have met the same fate, and it had
become seriously to be considered as to
whether responsible government was not a
failure in Canada. Before the cry for an
increased representation for Upper Canada,
several of our best public men were driven
from political life; and it must have become
clear to those who watched events that there
must soon have been a readjustment of the
representation based partly, at least, on
numbers, or a dissolution of the union. I
think, sir, that those who have read and
profited by the events of the past, and have
considered what is likely to occur in the
future, must be satisfied that a repeal of the
union between Upper and Lower Canada
would be a very great misfortune. And as
to representation according to population,
the appeals to prejudices and passions, and
possibly well grounded fears which must
result from granting that to Upper Canada,
would be must disastrous. (Hear, hear.)
We should have had, in Lower Canada,
a very large amount of discontent and
even disaffection; and, therefore, I consider it a great advantage to Canada that
the adoption of Confederation will meet these
difficulties without causing the discontent
and disaffection which either of the above
measures would inevitably arouse. (Hear.)
But, sir, I may be asked, will these provinces, if united, become a great power?
Sir, I shall frankly answer that I think
not at present, nor will I venture to predict
what the future has in store for us; but I
think thereby we obtain a greater chance of
obviating the evils to which I have referred,
and we in Canada shall also overcome our
peculiar difficulties — and this I say, that
united, we shall possess advantages which
separate, though portions of the same empire,
we cannot realize. (Cheers.) We shall be
one to deliberate, to decide and to act. We
shall have but one tariff; trade will be unshackled, our intercommunication will be
unbroken, the Lower Provinces will give us
a seaboard, while the manufacturing capa
672
cities of Lower Canada and the agricultural
wealth of Upper Canada will be theirs. A
worthy field will be opened for the ambition
of our young men, and our politicians will
have a future before them, and may fairly
aspire to the standing and rewards of state-
men. (Cheers) I therefore think it cannot
but be a very great advantage to all the
provinces to be united together, and I think
that we in Canada especially have peculiar
reasons for desiring Confederation. If united,
with the assistance of Great Britain, and
true to ourselves, not calling on Jupiter
without putting our shoulders to the wheel,
we need fear no foe, and if the day should
come when it shall be necessary for us to
stand among the nations of the earth, we
shall do so under far more favorable circumstances than should we remain till then
separate provinces. (Hear, hear.) I forbear
to criticize the details of the scheme; in
the nature of things one portion or another
must be displeasing to each of us; but I am
ready to accept the lesser evil for the geater
good. I know, too, when worked out the
united Parliament will alter and amend as
the evils become serious. Holding these
opinions, it is needless for me to say that I
shall vote for the Address and the resolutions
unchanged. On Friday night I heard an
hon. member (Col. HAULTAIN) declare that
the Protestant minority of Lower Canada
entertained apprehensions with regard to
their religious liberty, and that hon.
member expressed grave doubts as to the
toleration of Catholics in matters of religion.
While I give the hon. gentleman full credit
for his sincerity and the temperate manner
in which he expressed himself, I think it
would have been far better had that portion
of his speech been omitted. It would certainly have had much greater weight with
the country without that portion than with
it. I do not believe the Protestants of Lower
Canada fear persecution, and there are those
in this House, their natural representatives,
yielding to none here in talent and knowledge, well able to speak for them. But,
sir, had the hon. gentleman read history
as carefully as he seems to have studied
polemics and theology, he would not have
fallen into the error into which he has.
He would have found that all sects of
Christians have had reason to blush for the
persecutions of their fellow-men, and that
the best course we can pursue is to allow
the veil to fall over the errors of the past.
(Hear, hear.) But, sir, he would have
learned this, also, that those who laid the
foundations of the British Constitution were
Roman Catholics; that the barons who
wrung the
magna charta from King JOHN
were Catholics. (Hear, hear.) It was a
Catholic Parliament, the Diet of Hungary,
that alone granted full, free, unrestricted
and unqualified emancipation to Protestants,
and Catholic Bavaria has followed the
example. In America, the Catholic State
of Maryland first adopted, without limit,
religious toleration. Had the hon. member
visited Rome he might have seen a Protestant Church, and have attended service
every Sunday in the year under the eyes of
the Pope.
MR. T. C. WALLBRIDGE—There is no
Protestant Church in Rome. I have been
there, and speak from personal knowledge.
HON. MR. ALLEYN —It is not in a
central place, but it is in Rome as properly
understood.
HON. MR. ALLEYN—Not in a garret,
though the church is not attractive, but
there is full tolerance in respect to the
service. But this is only a little incident
growing out of the remarks of the hon.
member for Peterborough, In making the
observations I have, I trust he will not
think I have intended to say anything that
might prove personally disagreeable to him
or to any hon. member, because the manner
in which he stated his propositions to the
House was all that could be expected or
desired from an hon. gentleman of his
position, and I should be very sorry to
say anything that would be considered offensive. My hon. friend asked me if I ever
went to church. In reply I would say
that I only go when I can be sure the
preacher is a properly admitted clergyman. Had the hon. gentleman travelled in
France, he might have found the Protestant
clergyman received from the state an allowance of one-fifth more than his Catholic
brother, on the ground that he may have a
family to support. In Lower Canada a
Catholic Legislature gave equal rights to
Jews a generation before enlightened England emancipated Catholics. (Hear, hear.)
And, sir, the history of the Jews gave a
terrible warning to all who persecute for
belief's sake. They, GOD'S own people, set
673
that bad exemple. For belief they crucified,
and during a thousand years for belief they
were oppressed and wronged as no nation
ever suffered. Sir, it has not been by persecution that while all other denominations
of
Christians scarcely number 120,000,000, the
members of the Roman Catholic Church are
at least 150,000,000. Had her's been a rule
of intolerance and persecution, by an inevitable law they would long ere this have
caused
the destruction of that which used them, and
MACAULAY would not have been obliged to
write with regret, as he admits, that the
Church of Rome,—
As she saw the commencement of all the
governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world,
there is
no assurance that she is not destined to see the
end of them all. She was great and respected
before the Saxon had set foot in Britain, before
the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian
eloquence still flourished in Antioch, when idols
were still worshipped in the temples of Mecca.
And she may still exist in undiminished vigour
when some traveller from New Zealand shall in
the midst of a vast solitude take his stand on a
broken arch of London Bridge and sketch the
ruins of St. Paul.
In reading this extract and bringing it to
bear in this connection, I hope my hon.
friend will not think I intended to shock
his feelings by alluding to an early fall of
London Bridge, or a speedy decay of the
cathedral of St. Paul. (Laughter.) I quote
this passage alike for its novelty as knowing
it will be particularly agreeable to my hon.
friend the member for Peterborough. I can
assure my hon. friend the feeling pervading the Catholics of Lower Canada is a
disposition to give the utmost tolerance to
all religious sects. For my part, Mr.
SPEAKER, persecution for religious belief I
know to be a crime against humanity, and I
therefore believe it to be a sin against the
Creator. I have to say, however, once more,
in conclusion, that I shall vote for the resolution now before the House. (Cheers)
MR. HOPE MACKENZIE said—As
there seems to be a lull in the debate, Mr.
SPEAKER, I will embrace the opportunity of
briefly stating what I have to say in reference to this scheme. And to begin, I
congratulate the Government upon the stand
they have taken on this matter. There was
a degree of anxiety, a feeling of uncertainty
amongst the friends and supporters of the
Administration, as to the mode of dealing
with this question after the reception of
unfavorable news from the Lower Provinces.
For my own part I have not shared in that
feeling, but continued to have confidence
that the Government would pursue the only
proper course, and ask the House to pronounce upon the scheme on its merits. If
the result of the first elections held in New
Brunswick is a true indication of the state
of feeling in that province, then it is plain
that defeat awaits the present proposition
for union in that quarter ; but as yet no
province has pronounced upon it, either for
it or against it ; and the intelligence received
that the union party have met with unlooked
for reverses at the New Brunswick elections,
however dampening to the prospects of early
success, is no sufficient reason why we, the
originators of the scheme, should set the
bad example of summarily giving it up.
We have a plain duty to discharge in
regard to the proposition laid before Parliament by the Government, and that is,
either to accept or reject it as a whole.
(Hear, hear.) Sir, I will not occupy the
time of the House so long as I probably
would have done, had I spoken at an earlier
stage of the debate, and that for two reasons,
because the ground has been all gone over
by those who have spoken already, and
because I think the Government have good
ground for urging upon the House the propriety of bringing the debate to a close as
soon as possible. I can easily understand
that it is a matter of paramount importance
to have the views of the Canadian Parliament laid before the Imperial Government
at the earliest possible moment. I cannot,
however, feel it to be consistent with a proper discharge of my duty to give a silent
vote. Having spent some time amongst
my constituents prior to the opening of this
session, and had conversations with the
peeple in reference to this scheme, at my
meetings with them I gave expression to
certain objections which I felt in my own
mind to certain details of the scheme, if I
did not express those objections on the floor of
the House. (Hear, hear.) But, Mr.SPEAKER, while I discussed freely and candidly
what appeared to me the objectionable features of the scheme, I stated most distinctly
to my constituents that in the event of no
alteration being agreed to by the governments
of the several provinces, the scheme as a
whole, just as it stood, ought to be accepted ;
and that in the event of the alternative being
offered to Parliament of accepting or rejecting
the scheme as it stood, I should feel it my
674
duty to vote for it. (Hear, hear.) And I
may say here in regard to the question of
an appeal to the people upon this subject,
that I at any rate can vote freely against any
proposition of that kind. I stated to the
people of North Oxford that in my opinion
an appeal to the people upon this scheme
was entirely uncalled for, and they agreed
with me. I may, perhaps, take the liberty
of saying to those honorable members who
clamour for a dissolution, merely for the sake
of ascertaining the mind of the people upon
the measure, and who do not take to the
untenable ground of denying the right of
this Parliament to legislate on the subject,
that if they did not consult their constituents
with a view to obtaining an expression of
public opinion, they ought to have done so.
They had the scheme before them in all its
details for months, and I think they ought to
be in a position, when they came here, to
know whether their constituents were in
favor of the scheme or against it. In the
meetings which were held in my county, I
met with only two individuals who were
prepared to go the length of denouncing the
scheme
in toto, although many would prefer
to see it, in some respects, different from
what it is. So well disposed did the people
show themselves to be towards the union
scheme, that in the town of Woodstock,
where a very large and influential meeting
was held, the editor of a newspaper that
had been, up to that night, urging the
necessity for a dissolution of Parliament
before the adoption of the scheme, was the
first to rise to move a resolution approving
of the scheme in all its features, and neither
in his speech nor in his resolution did he
even hint at an appeal to the people ; and
that meeting voted for the scheme without
a single dissentient voice. (Hear. hear.)
MR. RYMAL—The circular had been
sent to that editor, perhaps. (Laughter.)
MR. H. MACKENZIE—Well, if so, I am
not aware that it has done him any good or
produced any change in his political course.
I am quite satisfied, Mr. SPEAKER, that the
people are perfectly willing that this Parliament should deal with this Confederation
scheme. I will now, sir, state briefly what
I think of the general features or underlying principles of the scheme. The honorable
member for Brome the other night entertained the House by a very elaborate examination
of the scheme, and, among other
things, he proposed to show that the propose Constitution was an entire departure
from the British model, and had in it so
large an infusion of the republican system
of the United States as to render it obnoxious to Britons ; but, in opposition to
his
own premises, he succeeded in proving to a
demonstration, if he proved anything, that
in scarcely a single particular is it modelled
after the pattern of the republic. He even
denounced this scheme because it is so very
different from and, in his opinion, inferior
to the United States Constitution. Well,
sir, I accept of it because of its British
and monarchical features,—I accept of it
because of its monarchical character. (Hear,
hear.) I look upon it as a scheme more
national than federal in its character—as
looking more to a national union of the
people than a union of sections, and it is
chiefly because of this feature of it that
it commends itself to my judgment.
Hear, hear.) The honorable member for
Lotbinière dissented from this view the other
night, and argued that unless the supreme
power was placed in the hands of the separate
provinces, it could not be acceptable to
Lower Canada, as otherwise their institutions
would be endangered ; and yet oddly enough,
he elaborated an argument to prove the
fleeting and unstable character of federations
established upon the only principle that he
seems disposed to accept for this country.
In the course of his remarks on this head,
he said :—
The Hon. Minister of Agriculture said of
Federalism, that it was on account of the weakness
of the central power confederations had failed ;
and it was argued in our case, that there would
not be so much weakness in the central power.
This was precisely why the French-Canadians—
his fellow-countrymen—looked with suspicion on
the proposition to establish a Confederation with
a central power—a power so strong that the local
parliaments would possess, so to speak, no power
at all. (Hear, hear.) All the confederations he
had referred to had at least this excuse, they were
sovereign states, and, when menaced by other
powers, leagued themselves together for the common interest.
Now, sir, while the honorable member will
have nothing to do with it, because of
the supreme central power that is provided
in the scheme, I take it just because of
that controlling central power. I stand
as an advocate of national unity, and I would
not accede to the principle of state sovereignty in this Confederation, the provinces
delegating certain powers to the General
Government and reserving the residuum of
power to themselves. (Hear, hear.) We
675
need not go to the history of the South
American republics, as the member for Lotbinière did, to find an illustration of the
working of the principle of Confederation as
applicable to our case. Being not only republican in their character, but based upon
the principle of divided sovereignty, and inhabited by a people who had no aptitude
for
working democratic institutions, they can
bear no comparison with this proposed Constitution. But if the hon. gentleman desired
to travel to South America to find
something approaching a parallel to this
scheme of union, he could find it in the
constitutional monarchy of Brazil, where
the wide-spreading provinces of the empire
have their local parliaments for their local
affairs, and a central parliament and executive over all—elected and chosen pretty
much as our Central Parliament and Executive will be, and exercising similar powers
;
and he would find that while the republics
founded upon the doctrine of state sovereignty were in a state of perpetual turmoil,
and whose daily bread was, according to the
hon. member, anarchy and revolution, the
Empire of Brazil was flourishing and shewed
signs of stability that predicated its future
greatness. (Hear, hear.) But to come
nearer home, sir, we have abundant evidence of the dangerous character of the doctrine
of state supremacy in a confederation.
I would remind the House of the early ruin
that threatened the United States under
their first Constitution, which was an
embodiment of this vicious principle,
and how clearly the great men of the
first year of the republic foresaw the ruin
it threatened to bring upon them. WASHINGTON, perceiving the rapid decline of
the Confederation, was incessant in his
correspondence with the leading patriots of
the day to obtain their opinions upon a new
Constitution, and MADISON replies as follows :
Conceiving that an individual independence of
the states is totally irreconcilable with their
aggregate sovereignty, and that a consolidation
of the whole into one simple republic would be
as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought
for some middle ground which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority,
and not exclude the local authorities wherein they
can be subordinately useful.
Mr. JAY'S convictions in favor of central
supreme authority are equally strong. He
says :—
What powers should be granted to the Govern
ment so constituted, is a question which deserves
much thought. I think the more the better, the
states retaining only so much as may be necessary
for domestic purposes.
HAMILTON, likewise, speaking of Federation
such as men had hitherto been familiar with,
and such as then existed in America, and
equally anxious with his co-patriots to save
his country from the anarchy and ruin that
he saw approaching as the inevitable result
of a partitioned sovereignty, thus addressed
the head of the republic :—
All Federal governments are weak and distracted. In order to avoid the evils incident
to
that form, the Government of the American
Union must be a national representative system.
But no such system can be successful in the actual
situation of this country, unless it is endorsed with
all the principles and means of influence and
power which are the proper supports of government. It must, therefore, be made completely
sovereign, and state power, as a separate legislative power, must be annihilated.
I read these extracts to show how rapidly
the Central Government of the United States
was falling into contempt because of its
subordination to the separate states, and to
show that the leading minds of America,
while the republic was yet in its infancy,
felt that the doctrine of state supremacy
was one calculated to foster anarchy, and
that was sure to bring the early destruction
of the fabric they had reared, and also to
show how earnestly they labored to remove
the evil and transfer the sovereignty to the
Central Government, as their only hope of
maintaining permanent peace and order, and
of imparting stability to their system. I
think, sir, it becomes us in framing a Constitution for these provinces to profit,
not only
by the early but by the later experience of
our neighbors—to enquire how far they
succeeded in eradicating the evil from their
new Constitution, and to what extent their
present troubles are chargeable to what is
left in their system of the dangerous principle referred to. Let us profit by the
wisdom of the framers of the American
Constitution, and by the experiences of that
country under it—not to copy their work,
but to help us when framing a Constitution
for ourselves to steer clear of evils that they
have felt. Believing that the Quebec Conference has done so and have presented to
us the framework of a Constitution, the leading features of which are in unison with
the
constitutional principles of the British monarchy, and consistent with that allegiance
676
which we all owe and cheerfully yield to the
Throne of Britain, I cheerfully endorse the
scheme. (Hear, hear.) I will now, Mr. SPEAKER, look at the scheme in its sectional
aspect ;
and, in my judgment, it is in this respect a
fair one. The apportionment of the debt
and other financial arrangements is a theme
upon which many remarks and explanations
have been made in this, as well as in the
other branch of the Legislature ; and charges
are made of having bribed the Lower
Provinces into the scheme, and that the
Canadian Delegates in the Conference sacrificed the interests of Canada in their
eagerness to consummate a scheme that had
its origin in their political necessities. One
hon. gentleman complains that population is
not the proper basis upon which to distribute
the burden of the public debt, and that by
adopting it Canada has been saddled with
many millions more than her share. " Revenue," it is contended, " is the true test
of
ability to pay, therefore revenue is the basis
upon which the apportionment should be
made." Were the taxation alike in all the
provinces, there would, at least, be the
appearance of justice in the argument ; but
with revenue raised under the operation of
different tariffs, in the several provinces, I
think population is a juster basis than
revenue. Taking, however, the revenues as
we find them under existing tariffs, and
adjusting the debt by that standard, we find
that it will differ but little from the apportionment that has been agreed upon ;
and
were the tariffs of the Maritime Provinces
somewhat higher than they are now, I
apprehend, sir, that the consuming ability
of these provinces would demonstrate not
only their ability to pay according to this
test, but also that Canada is in no way
imposed upon in regard to the amount of
debt with which these provinces are to be
permitted to enter the union. I believe that
every one of the five provinces has had its interests well consulted in this scheme,
and that
it is so well balanced throughout in reference
to those interests, that there is very little to
complain of. (Hear, hear.) But speaking
from an Upper Canadian point of view—
which I deem it my duty to do, as one of the
representatives of that section—I will glance
at one or two of the objections urged by the
honorable member for North Ontario, very
briefly. That honorable gentleman accuses
Upper Canadians of disregarding and forgetting their former professions on the representation
question, and broadly asserts that the
Honorable President of the Council, as the
leader in the agitation for representation by
population, has agreed to a measure that is a
mere delusion, that in point of fact puts Upper Canada in a worse position than she
now
occupies. He says that instead of occupying
a position of equality in the legislature, as
now, she will be found in the new union with
a majority of thirty arrayed against her. The
honorable gentleman builds his argument upon
false and erroneous premises, when he says
that Upper Canada does not get by this
scheme what its people have long sought,
representation according to its population;
and when he points out that all the other
provinces, unitedly, will outvote her in the
General Legislature by thirty votes, I submit,
sir, that his ent is exceedingly unfair,
and is founded on the assumption that Upper
Canada asked for an increase of representation for the purpose of obtaining supremacy
in the Government. Now, I deny that most
emphatically on behalf, not only of myself,
but of every man from Upper Canada who demanded a change in the representation. We
did not advocate that change for the purpose
of' gaining the supremacy, but simply and
solely as a measure of justice to the people
of Upper Canada, and to place them on an
equal footing, man for man, with the people
ot Lower Canada. We had certain grievances
and wrongs which we complained of, and
which the granting of representation would
not of itself redress; we complained that a
larger proportion of the public revenues, to
which we contributed seventy per cent, was
spent in Lower Canada than in Upper Canada; we complained also of legislative acts
passed by majorities from Lower Canada and
which concerned Upper Canada chiefly; we
did not ask representation by population because we believed it, of itself, would
sweep
away all this injustice, but because it would
give us this advantage, that we would in tins
House have our due proportion of the representation, every man in Upper Canada having
an equal, and no more than equal, voice In
the Legislature with every man in Lower Canada. This was all we asked, we never demanded
more than what was just; we asked
but fair play—British fair play—an equal
representation, man for man, and we would
be willing to take our chance in the political
struggle for the redress of the evils we complained of. We never sought or wished
for
supremacy, but only our just and fair influence according to our numbers and the
public burdens we bore, and having obtained
677
this we were willing to take our chance
whether that influence, employed in a legitimate and constitutional way, succeeded
in removing our grievances or not. (Hear, hear.)
To say now that we do not obtain what we
have contended for—to say that we do not
get representation by population because the
Lower Provinces, including Lower Canada,
will have thirty more votes in the General
Legislature, is simply doing Upper Canada
an injustice and a wrong ; and the history of
the British parliamentary system and our own
experience in Canada, warrant the conclusion
that in the General Legislature we shall not
have, as alleged by honorable gentlemen opposed to the scheme, parties divided against
one another because of the provinces which they
represent. Under our present Constitution
we are not divided sectionally, but as political
parties, for we find gentlemen from both
sections taking sides according to their political predilections, irrespective of
sectional
considerations ; and so it will be under the
proposed Confederation. We have conservatives and radicals, and always will have them.
Do we not find men of both races in the province voting on both sides politically
? It is
true the demand for constitutional changes
has to some extent, but only to some extent,
divided us as the representatives of sections
in this House ; but on all other questions—
such as commerce, banking, customs tariffs,
excise, and other questions—we find gentlemen voting according to their political
views,
and not as representing sections. So it will
be under the Confederation. People will be
divided into parties by their political opinions
and leanings, and not by sectional considerations. (Hear, hear.) In claiming, then,
that
under it there will, on all questions, be a
majority against Upper Canada, is to assume
that Upper Canada will be at war with all the
other provinces, and that they will be continually at war with it. Well, what right
has any man to assume that this will be the case
—that Upper Canada will be the Ishmael of the
Confederation ? I think he has none whatever. (Hear, hear.) The addition of seventeen
members to Upper Canada in the outset,
with the proposed arrangement for re-adjustment every ten years according to the increase
or decrease of population in each of the provinces, is substantial justice to all,
and is all
that Upper Canada ever asked for or expected.
But, Mr. SPEAKER, the honorable member for
North Ontario not only accuses the Upper
Canadians who support this scheme of an
abandonment of their principles on this point,
and of offering to the people of Upper Canada
the very opposite of what they asked for,
but charges that we have sacrificed our cash
as well as our principles. An honorable member of the other House has taken similar
ground, and charges in effect that the Lower
Provinces have been bribed into this scheme
at the expense of Upper Canada, and that as
regards Lower Canada, we undertake to pay
her in perpetuity a subsidy of $167,000 a
year; and the honorable gentleman asks if ever
Lower Canada asked for anything like that
under our present system ? He tells us, too,
that for each of the seventeen additional members we get in the Federal Government,
we
pay at the rate of $16,000 each. As regards
the Lower Provinces, I submit that it
cannot be shewn that their union with us
will be to our detriment in money matters.
They will contribute as large an amount per
head to the general revenue as we do in
Uper Canada, and if any financial effect
will be felt by Upper Canada in consequence
of the union of these provinces with us, I
think it must be in the direction of lessening
her burdens ; such, at all events, is the conclusion I have arrived at, and such,
I think, is
the conclusion any man will arrive at who
will take the trouble to inform himself of the
position of these provinces as regards the financial questions between Upper and Lower
Canada. I do not know where the honorable
member gets his figures, nor can I very well
understand them, but in regard to the subsidy
of $167,000 a year that he speaks of, what
are the facts of the case ? Let it be borne in
mind, sir, that as Upper Canadians we claimed
that we were paying an enormous price for
the present union with Lower Canada, and
that we urged this as one reason why we were
entitled to the concession of representation by
population as an act of justice, that we might
have our due share of influence in controlling
the expenditure of the revenues of the country
to which we contributed so largely. We complained, and it was advanced in this Assembly
over and over again, as one of the reasons for
demanding representation by population, that
our money was given away to sections which
contributed little or nothing to the general revenue ; that while we paid seventy
per cent.
of the revenue and Lower Canada only thirty
per cent., an equal proportion of the expenditure was enjoyed by Lower Canada ; and
that under this system Upper Canada was
paying not only for its own local improvements
678
and sustaining not only the cost of carrying
on its own local affairs, but contributing
largely as well to the local wants of Lower
Canada. (Hear, hear.) Now, it was in reference to these local matters that the evil
was chiefly felt and that complaints were
louder than with reference to general expenditure, for they were tangible grievances,
things that were easily understood, and that
presented themselves as an injustice every
year in the estimates presented to this House.
There was a sum of two millions, or more
voted every year for the support of local interests and to promote local works or
improvements, including such items as the support of
education, hospitals and charities, and the
opening up of colonization roads ; and of this
sum one-half was applied to local purposes
in Lower Canada. Now, our argument
was, that of this money taken out of the
public chest, Upper Canada contributed
seventy per cent., and Lower Canada the
remainder. If this was true—and I think it
was incontrovertibly so—then it was perfectly
clear that we in Upper Canada had to pay not
only the appropriations made for local purposes in that section, but also nearly one-half
of the appropriations for local purposes in
Lower Canada. Let me remark here that I
do not think any man will complain that we
in Upper Canada are paying this large portion
of the public revenue. Under our system of
indirect taxation, or indeed under any system,
it must be that the richest part of the community shall bear the largest share of
the
public burdens, and they have a right to do
so. I do not complain that the people of
Upper Canada pay a larger amount of the
revenue of the country than those of Lower
Canada, because if they choose to consume
the imported articles upon which duties are
levied, they do so because they are able to pay
for them. They are not required to consume
them, but if they do, and are made to pay
indirectly to the public exchequer, they have
no right to complain that the people of Lower
Canada, more frugal and economical, consume
less dutiable goods and therefore contribute
less to the revenue. We in Upper Canada do
not complain of this, but we give it as a
reason why we should have our just share of
influence in the legislature and government
of the country. We do not argue that because
we contribute more we ought to have a larger
representation than Lower Canada ; but we
say that if we really do pay more to the public
exchequer, it is an additional reason—our
population being greater—that we should have
an equal voice with Lower Canada, in proportion to our numbers, in controlling the
expenditure of the country. (Hear, hear.) Well,
this being the case that Upper Canada contributes the largest share of the revenue,
it is
perfectly clear to my mind—and I think it
will be to that of any man who examines the
subject intelligently—that Upper Canada pays
to Lower Canada, under our present system,
a considerable sum of money, amounting to
half a million of dollars yearly, for the support of its local interests and institutions
;
and if the honorable member for North Ontario will balance the proportion that Upper
Canada pays of the eighty cents per head
proposed to be paid to Lower Canada with
the amount now paid to it by Upper Canada,
he will find that a large saving will be effected
by the plan now proposed for our acceptance.
(Hear, hear.) We have thus, I think, gained
by this scheme, not only representation by
population, saving us from the imputation of
having sacrificed this principle in order to
obtain Confederation, but we have also, by the
same measure, gained a substantial redress of
the grievances to remove which representation
by population was demanded. (Hear, hear.)
Not only has a saving of money been effected,
but also a removal from this Legislature of
those subjects upon which angry, intemperate,
and painful discussions have taken place in
times past. For these reasons, I think it is
a most desirable thing that the scheme should
be carried out. (Hear, hear.) It is marvellous how inconsistent some honorable gentlemen
show themselves to be in their desire to
oppose this measure. The honorable member
for Lotbinière, speaking of it from a sectional
point of view, has also, I think, exposed himself to this charge. He charges the Honorable
Attorney General East with inconsistency, if not something worse, in occupying
the position he now does as affecting the interests of Lower Canada, forgetful of
his own
relative position. He said :—
If the member for South Oxford had earned
his popularity by attacking the institutions of
Lower Canada through the agitation for representation by population, it might be said
of the
Hon. Attorney General East that he had risen to
popularity by defending or by affecting to defend
those institutions. (Hear, hear.) He had so well
succeeded in obtaining the good graces of the
people of this section of the province, and in securing their confidence, that it
was extremely
difficult for any of those who were politically opposed to him to attempt to speak
in the interests
of their fellow-countrymen. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member for South Oxford (Hon.
679
Mr. BROWN) is here represented as having
earned his popularity by attacking the institutions of Lower Canada, and the honorable
member for Montreal East (Hon. Mr. CARTIER) as having earned his by defending these
same institutions, and the insinuation is that
he has now abandoned the defence of these
institutions and handed them over to the tender mercies of the Honorable President
of
the Council. Let me ask the honorable member for Lotbinière, if being in company with
the honorable member for South Oxford be
evidence of hostility to the institutions of
Lower Canada, how he explains his own position, and that of his party, when they cast
in their lot with the honorable member for
South Oxford, while earning his popularity
by, as he says, attacking the institutions of
Lower Canada, and abandoned the Honorable
Attorney General East when doing battle in
defence of those institutions ? (Hear, hear.)
I think the question is one not easily answered. The honorable gentleman must either
have been politically dishonest before, or politically dishonest now, and he can take
either horn of the dilemma he pleases.
MR. JOLY—I never supported the Honorable Attorney General East, and if I have
been forced upon the same side as the honororable member for South Oxford, it was
because we were united together in opposition
to that honorable gentleman. That was the
only bond of union that connected us together. On the question of representation by
population we were always divided. What I
meant in the observation I made, that has
been alluded to by the honorable member, is
this, that the Honorable President of the
Council had gained the position he occupies
now by attacking Lower Canada, and the
Honorable Attorney General East his, by assuming to defend it ; and when at length
they
found that the game would no longer answer,
when the Honorable President of the Council
saw himself excluded forever from a seat in
the Ministry if he continued to play it, they
banded together, and we now see the result.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
MR. H. MACKENZIE—At all events, Mr.
SPEAKER, the hon. member makes it clear
that he has changed sides. For when the
Hon Attorney General East was defending
the institutions of Lower Canada, he opposed
him, and now he opposes him because he
says he has adopted the contrary policy.
MR. JOLY—I opposed him for other
reasons—not for that reason.
MR. H. MACKENZIE—At all events the
hon. member has contributed his mite to the
influence the hon. member for South Oxford
had in this House, by attacking, as he
declares, the institutions of Lower Canada.
I have already said that all parties are not
satisfied with this scheme ; and while on
this point, I wish to allude for a moment to
the constitution of the Legislative Council.
It is the only reference I shall make on this
branch of the subject. When addressing
my constituents, I took exception to this
portion of the resolutions. I did so, not
because I cared very much whether we had
in this country a Legislative Council nominated by the Crown or elected by the people,
but, the nominative system having been
superseded by the elective, I preferred to
have it as it was. It was in these terms that
I spoke to the people. After having addressed one or two meetings, I saw the
despatch of the Colonial Secretary, and I
noticed that this matter of the constitution
of the Council was pointed out as one which
required revision ; and I took it for granted
that communications would be opened between the several Colonial Governments such
as would possibly lead to a change. Doubtless
there are sufficient reasons why this has not
been done. But, although I would have
liked it to have been so, and although it
would have concurred more closely with the
views of Upper Canada, I do not think it of
sufficient importance to warrant me in rejecting the scheme on that account. (Hear,
hear.) If it involves the rejection of the
whole scheme, I do not feel myself warranted
in pressing lor an amendment on the point.
(Hear.) In framing a constitution of this kind,
everybody must be aware that an agreement
could never have been arrived at except on
the principle of compromise and concession.
It is perfectly useless—it is worse than useless
—to suppose that any of the several sections
of a wide-spread territory could come together
with a view to the formation of a union
among themselves, unless each one of these
sections was prepared to sacrifice and give
up something. What right, I would ask,
had we to expect that all the other colonies
would agree to the views of Upper Canada,
or to the views of Canada as a whole ? What
right had we to expect that the Province of
Nova Scotia would agree with us in our
views with reference to every particular
matter ? What right had we in Upper Canada
to expect that in framing this scheme we
would be able to expunge the separate school
clauses from the School Act ? If that could
680
be done, it would no doubt be agreeable to
the people of Upper Canada, because we think
that in our Common School system there
should be no element of sectarianism. As
a people, we are desirous of having our
School law without any provision for separate
schools. It is perhaps a bold statement to
make, but I believe the people of Upper
Canada as a whole, Roman Catholics as well
as Protestants, would be content with our
school system without a particle of sectarianism in it. We could scarcely expect that
if we were to succeed in framing a basis of
union under a new Constitution, we could
get the sectarian clauses of the School Act
removed, if they were insisted upon as
sine
qua non by the Roman Catholics in Lower
Canada in
conjunction with the adherents of
the same faith in Upper Canada. But notwithstanding this, although it is a sensitive
point in Upper Canada, and particularly
among my own constituents, I venture to
say that the people of the west generally, in
their willingness at all times to listen to
reason, will be quite content to accept the
scheme as a whole, as it has been presented
to us. (Hear, hear.) I hope that no
attempt will be made to increase the privileges of the advocates of separate schools,
but that the question will be left where
we now find it. (Hear, hear.) It is
worth while, perhaps, to read a single
passage, written by a distinguished man, in
reference to this principle of concession. I
have already instanced the views of e
framers of the American Constitution when
they set to work to do away with the first
Federation scheme and to adopt a new Constitution. When they had framed the new
Constitution, we find WASHINGTON accompanying the document with a letter, in
which this passage occurs :—
It is obviously impracticable in the Federal
Government of these states to secure all rights of
independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide
for the interest and safety of all. Individuals
entering into society must give up a share of
liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of
the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and
circumstances as on the object to be attained.
It is at all times difficult to draw with precision
the line between those rights which must be surrendered and those which may be reserved.
Doubtless, sir, the members of the Quebec
Conference encountered the same difficulties
as the framers of the American Constitution
did. They must have found it difficult to
draw the line exactly where it should be
drawn. I presume it could not be done,
and that each one felt it incumbent upon him
to make certain concessions, and that all they
could hope to do was to have some broad
margin, some neutral ground, on which to
draw the line, so as to be able to say they
did the best they could to unite the sectional
interests of the provinces and to further
something like a nationality for the country.
(Hear, hear.) I do not desire to trespass
upon the House ; I have purposely passed
over much that I intended to have said, had
the Government desired to encourage discussion at greater length ; and I pass on
rapidly to a conclusion. (Cries of " Go on !")
I think the union desirable, not only as a
benefit to ourselves, but as a means for consolidating the British Empire on this
continent, and to save us from a degrading
dependency on the United States, especially
as we have the means within ourselves of
making them to a certain extent dependent
upon us. Look at the map of this country,
look at the position we occupy geographically ; see the outlet we possess to the ocean
;
look at the magnificent St. Lawrence, with
the vast grain growing country beyond it.
Is it not in our power to draw the trade of
the Great West through this its natural
outlet to the ocean ? Is it not possible to so
improve this channel as to bring the produce
of the great Western States to market
through our territory ? Is it not possible,
by means of a little judicious outlay, to make
the people of the United States dependent
on us, instead of us being dependent
on them ? (Hear, hear.) There is
much that could be said on this subject, and the means that might be resorted
to for securing to us these benefits of trade
and commerce. It is not so much to the enlargement of the Welland and St. Lawrence
canals, although that is necessary, as to the
construction of a ship canal to Lake Huron
through the Ottawa country, that in my
opinion we must look for the ultimate commercial greatness of this country, as furnishing
the shortest and safest route for the
conveyance of the contents of the great
granaries of the west to foreign markets.
The proposed Ottawa canal may not run
through a country as fertile as the valley of
the St. Lawrence ; it is of a different geological formation; nevertheless, I believe
it
to be a country of great riches, whose resources are as yet undeveloped. I think that
681
a ship canal from Georgian Bay in that
direction would not only furnish a satisfactory outlet for the produce of the west,
but
would lead to a splendid market for the lumber trade, and find employment for a class
of
vessels to which we cannot at present give
profitable occupation ; and, besides, it would
open a channel for such vessels and implements of war as may be necessary for the
defence of the country. (Hear, hear.) I
would conclude by saying that I think union
desirable, not only because of its present advantages, but on account of our future
prospects. Looking at the future, I do not think
it desirable that one government should exercise sway over the whole of the North
American continent. (Hear, hear.) Nor do I
think it desirable that such a government
should be a republican government. (Hear,
hear.) Taking this view of the case; looking
back to the history of the past; reflecting
upon the evils which have followed hasty
constitution-making, and the troubles that
have occurred in consequence of blundering
at the outset, it becomes as to consider
whether the scheme which has now been
laid before us has in it the elements of
stability. I think it has, so far as human
foresight can determine. (Hear, hear.) Geographically this country covers a vast extent
of territory. We can lean our backs on the
snows of the north, and from that quarter no
enemy can attack us ; and if we have no great
breadth from north to south, we have a large.
expanse westwards. Although, too, we are
in a northern clime, although our latitude is
higher than that of our southern neighbor,
yet this is no obstacle to the growth
of population or to the increase of prosperity. (Hear, hear.) Teaming millions
will in future inhabit this land, and
we are called upon now to lay deep and
broad the foundations of a great empire.
Let us shew that we value the free institutions of Britain transplanted to this soil
;
institutions founded upon principles of
freedom and universal toleration ; institutions
that have made the parent land great, and
that mark it out as the one bright spot in
the old world to which the eyes of the
nations turn when their liberties are imperilled, and as the city of refuge to which
crowned heads, as well as the victims of
their misrule, can alike flee for safety in the
hour of their misfortune. (Hear, hear.) I
have no hesitation, MR. SPEAKER, in endorsing the scheme before us. I do so
because I believe its leading principles are
in harmony with the principles upon which
the British constitutional system is founded,
and because I think it is a fair arrangement
between all the provinces; and, as an Upper
Canadian, I accept it because I think it
concedes to us the status we are entitled to
occupy. I accept it, further, because of the
prospect it holds out to us of building up a
great nationality here, and of handing down
to our children institutions which our
fathers have bought with their blood. (Loud
cheers.)
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I wish to shew
the honorable member for North Oxford the
figures upon which I have based my calculation. I find that under the scheme—
| The Federal aid to Lower Canada is |
$ 888,531 |
| do do Upper Canada.. |
1,117,590 |
|
$2,006,121 |
| Of the aid to Lower Canada— |
|
| The Maritime Provinces contribute,
say 1-5th ..................... |
$ 177,706 |
| Upper Canada contributes 2/3rds of
the balance, or ................ |
473,884 |
| Lower Canada contributes 1/3rd do . |
236,941 |
|
$888,531 |
| Of the aid to Upper Canada—
The Maritime Provinces contribute,
say 1-5th ..................... |
$ 223,514 |
| Lower Canada, 1/3rd of balance ..... |
298,025 |
| Upper Canada, 2/3rds do. ..... |
596,051 |
|
$1,117,590 |
| Contribution by U.C. to L.C. . . . . . |
$473,884 |
| do by L.C. to U.C ...... |
298,025 |
|
$175,859 |
| Expenses of General Government.. |
$8,553,379 |
| Contribution by Mar. Pro.
according to Mr. GALT. |
$1,929,272 |
|
| Contribution by L. C., at
1/3rd of balance ........ |
2,208,035 |
|
| Contribution by U. C., at
2/3rds of balance ....... |
4,416,072 |
|
|
$ 8,553,379 |
| U. C. in excess of Mar. Prov ..... |
$2,486,800 |
| U. C. in excess of L. C .......... |
2,208,035 |
| U. C. in excess of both ......... |
$ 278,765 |
This sum divided by 17, the additional representatives to Upper Canada, makes the
cost of
each $16,397 annually.
682
HON. MR. DORION—Mr. SPEAKER, the
intelligence received from New Brunswick
since the last sitting has caused the question
of Confederation, now under discussion, to
lose much of its interest. Every one is now
convinced that it is a question which no
longer has any real existence, and which
may safely be shelved for some time to come
at all events. I deem it, however, to be my
duty to make a few observations in reply to
the hon. member for Montmorency, and to
allude in passing to the speech of the Hon.
Solicitor General East (Honorable Mr.
LANGEVIN). The honorable member for
Montmorency began his speech by saying
that the members of this House ought
to raise their views above all paltry considerations of a personal or party character,
and discuss the question of Confederation
upon its own merits, that thereby its advantages or disadvantages might be made apparent.
And yet the honorable member has
devoted at least one-third of his speech to
calling to mind and discussing what I may
or may not have said in past times. I have
already said, and I repeat it, that I defy any
member of this House to cite a single passage
from any one of my speeches, or one single
line of anything I may have ever written, to
prove that I have ever been in favor of a
Confederation of the British North American
Provinces. In order to produce a semblance
of proof, and with the view of making me
contradict myself, it has been necessary to
torture my words, to falsify my speeches, to
make false translations of them ; and even
then with all the skill that has been used, the
attempt has been unsuccessful. The speech
which has been quoted with the greatest
complacency, to shew that I was in favor of
the Confederation of all the provinces, is
that which I delivered on the 3rd May,
1860. This speech, which occupied nearly
two hours in its delivery, was reported in
about twenty-five lines of the
Morning
Chronicle, and only occupied a column in
the
Mirror of Parliament. These two reports are completely at variance one with
the other, and neither of them is exact ; but
they are sufficient, nevertheless, to establish the contrary of what it has been
tried to prove. When it was desired to
shew that I was in favor of representation
based upon population, a part of the report
in the
Mirror has been cited, and when it is
sought to establish that I was in favor of
Confederation, the report of the
Chronicle
is triumphantly brought forward. But the
portion of the
Mirror report, which is cited
in relation to representation, is so absurd
that it suffices to read it to be convinced that
I could never have made use of the expressions which it contains. For instance, on
the occasion of a discussion which has but
an incidental relation to representation based
on population, but which relates to a Confederation of the two provinces, I am made
to say that I have always been opposed to
representation by population, but that if
Upper Canada desired to have it, that I was
ready to concede it. This is nearly the
contrary of what I said on that occasion, for
I invariably make my speeches coincide with
my votes ; and as I have invariably voted
against every proposition tending to the
concession of representation based upon
population, so I have never declared that I
was in favor of that measure, but on the
contrary, I have always declared that Lower
Canada could never consent to such a
proposition, because it offered no guarantee
for her institutions. (Hear, hear.) But
now that the question of Confederation is
under discussion, the
Mirror report is set
aside and that of the
Chronicle is quoted.
This report made me say, in substance, that
I looks upon the Federal union of Upper
and Lower Canada as the nucleus of the
great Confederation of the British North
American Provinces, that every one foresaw
must sooner or later be effected. The
expression used in the report is " to which
all looked forward." The hen. member for
Montmorency, who has brought this report
to light, although he could not be ignorant
that an entirely different one was contained
in the
Mirror of Parliament, has given the
text of it by substituting the word " he "
for the word " all," and as translated it so
as to make me say, in speaking of the
Confederation of all the provinces, "
que je
l'appelais de tous mes vœux," and in translating this last expression into English, in
the pamphlet written by him in 1865, he
makes me say, " which (Confederation) I
strongly desire to see." It is enough to
read the report in the
Mirror, imperfect
though it be, to shew that I never said
anything of the kind. This is what I said
in speaking of Confederation :—
He urged that the principle of the double majority could only be applied by giving
to each
section of the province the contral of its local
affairs, and that when populations differed so
683
much as did those of Upper and Lower Canada,
it was the only way to govern them in a satisfactory manner. He hoped, however, that
a time
might come when it would be desirable to effect
a Confederation with the Lower Provinces, but
the time had not yet arrived for a measure of this
kind.  Â
But those who were in favor of a Federal union of all the provinces ought to bear
in
mind that a Federal union between Upper and
Lower Canada was the best means of establishing
a nucleus around which the great Confederation
might be formed when the proper time arrived.
If in this citation the word "believed" were
substituted for the word " hoped," my idea
would be correctly given, in very nearly the
language I made use of in May, 1860. As
is quite clear, there is a great difference between what I said and the report given
by
the Chronicle, which the hon. member for
Montmorency has been obliged to disguise in
citing it, and which he has translated in the
most absurd manner, and all to make it
appear that I had expressed myself in a
manner favorable to Confederation, and
thereby shew that I have contradicted myself. That I may have declared that at some
future period, when the population of the
different provinces should have so increased
as to render the settlements contiguous, when
the means of communication should have
been improved, and when, by commercial intercourse, our interests should have become
identical, and the different populations
should constitute, so to speak, one united
people, it might be of advantage to have a
Confederation of all the provinces, this I am
quite willing to admit; but there is a great
difference between this anticipation and the
expression of a desire for a Confederation to
which I have always been opposed, because
I did not consider it advisable under present
circumstances. I find no change in the circumstances of the country to lead me now
to desire what I expressed my disapproval of in 1860. I again assert that
I no more pronounced myself in favor
of Confederation then than I have since ;
only speaking of a proposition for establishing a Confederation of the two Canadas,
and after several members had spoken in
favor of a Confederation of all the provinces,
I made use of the very natural argument, "That for those who desired the great
Confederation, there could be no objection
to the proposition then under consideration,
because that Confederation would be the
nucleus around which the other provinces
Â
might gather when the proper time arrived."
The hon. member for Montmorency has spoken
of the contradictions which he has imagined to
exist between the opinions which I expressed
in 1856, 1858 and 1860, and those which I
entertain at the present time on the
subject of the Confederation of the provinces.
But these contradictions do not really exist.
I have never expressed an opinion in favor
of a Confederation of all the provinces, but of
the two Canadas only, and that Confederation
to which I would have agreed as a remedy
for the difficulties created by the question of
the representation, had no resemblance whatever to that which is now proposed to us.
By that plan Lower Canada would have had
complete control of all her local affairs ;
under the present scheme her control is
surrounded by so many restrictions, that in
fact it is the central government which has
the control, not only of what relates to all
the provinces, but also of what may relate
to one of the provinces only. (Hear, hear.)
Before speaking of contradictions, the hon.
member for Montmorency ought to bear in
mind that he is more vulnerable on this
head than any one else. He ought to
remember his two pamphlets—one published
in 1858, and the other in 1865 ; one going
to prove the absurdity of a Confederation of
all the British North American Provinces,
and the other pointing out the advantages
we should derive from such a Confederation.
In the first of these pamphlets the hon. member, after having proposed 27 questions
with a
view to examine under all its different aspects
the question of a Federal union of the two
Canadas and that of a Federal or Legislative
union of all the provinces, rejects alike both
these projects, because he only saw in them
the annihilation of Lower Canada. The hon.
member was so thoroughly convinced of
that, that of all the propositions he gave the
preference to a legislative union, because it
would come to an end all the sooner. He
found it more logical, looking at the immediate results of the union. "In fact, if
we
must have a union of some kind of all the
provinces, and if Lower Canada is destined
to lose the little influence which she yet exercises on legislation under the existing
union,
it would be better to attain our object by a
machinery more simple, less complicated
and less costly." An a little further on he
adds, " As far as we are concerned, we are
opposed to it. We want no union under
any form, as it is certain to attain the same
684
end, no matter under what form it may be
imposed upon us." That is the conclusion
at which the hon. member arrived in 1858,
after a careful examination of the whole
question. In 1865, matters are completely
changed, and the hon. member has discovered that the only possible safety for Lower
Canada is to be found in that very Confederation of all the provinces which he
rejected with all his might in 1858. This
is the conclusion at which he arrived in his
latest pamphlet. "After having carefully
considered the various schemes of union
with their various conditions of existence we,
have proved that Confederation was, in our
present circumstances, the system best calculated for our protection and for securing
our
prosperity in the future." The hon. member
for Montmorency explains this complete
change in his views since 1858, as follows :—
Until lately we admit we were more in favor
of a Confederation of the two Canadas than of
the grander scheme, because then we had no
national aspirations, and we believed that we
should find in it more protection for the interests
of Lower Canada. We acted as though we had
to deal with present or probable enemies, and
like a good tactician we desired to have as few
enemies arrayed against us as possible ; but since
our constant communications during the sittings of
the Convention with the eminent statesmen of the
Atlantic Provinces, many of these apprehensions,
and indeed the motives of opposition, have been
dispelled from our mind.
So that the mere contact which the hon.
member enjoyed with the political men of
the Maritime Provinces, during the fifteen
days they were here, has been sufficient to
dispel all his apprehensions for the fate of the
institutions of Lower Canada in the Confederation of all the provinces. It is the
confidence with which these gentlemen have
inspired him, and not the guarantees offered
by the plan of Confederation, which have
changed his opinions of 1858. I find in the
Journal de Québec, a newspaper edited by
the honorable member for Montmorency, a
few very amusing passages upon the question
of the confidence which ought to be reposed
in political friends. These articles also date
from 1858. The honorable member was
then in opposition. It is true that he did
not look at the honorable member for South
Oxford and myself in such an unfavorable light
as he has since done. At that time he was
laying the whip pretty severely upon the
shoulders of his present friends. But the
doctrines he then held appear to be still
applicable. On the 26th of August, 1858,
the honorable member wrote an article under
the heading "Les Amis les Ennemis," in
which he said :—
The friends, the ministerial supporters from
Upper Canada, have endeavored. during the
resent session, to impose upon us representation
based upon population, and the abolition of separate schools. A minister, Mr. Smith,
even voted
for representation based on population! The
enemies— the members of the Opposition—
have left the initiative of these odious matters
to be taken by our friends the ministerialists ; and
moreover, to prove that though they were enemies, they would treat us better than
our friends
the ministerialists, the were willing to pay the
seigniors all the casual rights due by the censitaires (ÂŁ500,000). After that we do
not ask too
much when we ask that our enemies may have
justice
And a little further on he adds :—
Mr. CARTIER galvanises a corpse, which starts
up in its hideousness only to fall back never to
rise again. The lamp in going out casts some
few pale and feeble rays, and soon we shall have
the darkness of night. The days of the very
worst government which has ever weighed down
the destinies of Canada are numbered. There are
not many of them, and all the re-constructions
that are possible will not add one to their number.
On the 28th August, in an article on
representation based on population, the hon.
member for Montmorency expressed himself
as follows :—
But friends may do anything they like; whatever they do is well done! Mr. FERGUSON,
a
ministerialist, will demand the abolition of separate
schools; he is a friend; one must have confidence
in him and kiss the Orange hand which strikes
the blow. Mr. MALCOLM CAMERON will ask for
representation by population; he is another friend,
and Mr. BROWN is the criminal, Mr. BROWN is the
enemy. The Administration, for the First time in
our parliamentary annals, makes the question of
the representation an open question. The Ministry
is composed of ten of our most ardent and
loyal friends; will they deceive and betray us?
Mr. SMITH, the First among them, votes in the face
of astonished Lower Canada for representation by
population. He is an Orangeman, one of our
kindest friends, and of course in his extreme
friendship it is his duty so to vote. The members from Lower Canada ought to accept
all this,
and they have accepted it with gratitude! But
for a rouge—an enemy—to seek even the tenth part
of all this, is odious, it is immoral, it is to sap the
foundation of the country, it is to deserve the
shame and death of Calvary. And would you
believe it ?—all this indignation is expended for
the benefit of a power which has soiled blemish
685
ed and corrupted everything in the order of
morality and political integrity.
The hon. member for Montmorency then
proceeded to speak of his present friends,
and of the excuses offered by the Ministerial supporters for blindly voting for and
approving whatever their friends desired
them to vote for. Did an Orangeman demand anything at which their Catholic consciences
might take alarm, their consciences
were soon quieted by the fact that " it was
a friend," and the Orangeman obtained at
once what he sought; and the hon. member
for Montmorency declared that all this had
been done by a power which had soiled and
corrupted everything in the order of morality
and political integrity. Now, he heartily
approves of all that he then held to be abominable and atrocious, so long as it was
proposed by his friends. Then he was opposed
to Confederation of any kind, because it was
a certain means of obliterating the influence
of Lower Canada, and he preferred a legislative union to a Confederation. But now
his friends propose a Confederation of all
the provinces, and he heartily approves of
it. I quote again from what he said on the
28th August, 1858 :—
During this session Confederation was found to
be so unpopular, that Mr. GALT did not dare to
ask a vote on his informal resolutions. But
hardly had he obtained power and his views
were triumphant, and Canada is to bow her head
to a new order of things which an instant before had been considered replete with
danger and
ruin. The policy of the Government as regards
Confederation is not more defined or tangible than
that of Mr. GALT on the same subject, and yet the
men who, two days before, furiously demanded
that Messrs. BROWN and DORION should give
explicit explanations, accept it with confidence
and with closed eyes, doubtless because it came
from their friends and friend GALT. Friendship
has the power of transforming principles and
things, good into evil and evil into good, immorality into morality, injustice into
justice, and
consciences into inert machines, bending to the
movement given to it by the firm hand of
friends. Â
I quote from the paper of the hon. member for Montmorency.—I do not say this
myself :—
More than this, the Ministry take upon themselves to make a Constitution for the people,
and
to change the condition of Canada without consulting them, without taking the trouble
even of
telling them what they are going to do for
them. Not less than four membrs of the
Government, they say, are going to negotiate
our destinies either in Downing-street or in Lombard-street, but most probably in
the latter. If
Confederation suits the ideas of the Grand Trunk,
depend upon it we shall have it, even though the
whole of Canada should reject it. The Journal
asks what will become of the French element in
the Confederation. Eh! grand Dieu, you may
see its fate already in the fact that out of four
Ministers sent to negotiate the transformation,
not a single one is French, the happy individuals
being Messrs. GALT, ROSS, MACDONALD and ROSE.
At that time the enemies, that is to say the
present friends of the hon. member, were
desirous of changing the Constitution without consulting the people, and he considered
that an atrocity; but now they propose to
effect a revolution in our political institutions without giving the people an opportunity
of pronouncing on their scheme, and
the hon. member for Montmorency warmly
approves. It seems, when the other day I
asserted that this scheme of Confederation
was planned by the Grand Trunk Company,
that I did but express the opinion of the
hon. member for Montmorency. It was he
who first made this assertion, and not I.
"If the Grand Trunk," said he, " wants
Confederation, we are sure to have it." In
those days his friends the enemies desired to
sell the country; now he seeks to save it by
exactly the same means that they took to
ruin it. Now he no longer seeks to ascertain whether the plan of Confederation is
good or bad; he only looks to see that it comes
from his friends, and that is sufficient to secure
for it his hearty approval. This scheme being proposed by the friends and supporters of
good principles, it cannot contain anything
that may endanger the institutions of Lower
Canada. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But
formerly it was quite a different matter, when
the same scheme was proposed by enemies, the
present friends of the honorable member for
Montmorency. What constitutes the excellence of this scheme in the eyes of the honorable
member, is that it is not submitted by
rouges or annexationists, but by the representatives of good principles, the guardians of
the interests of Lower Canada. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) Besides, the delegates from the
Lower Provinces, whom he had looked upon as
enemies to Lower Canada, inspired him with
such confidence during the dinners and balls of
the Conference, as to have removed any apprehensions under which the honorable member
might before have labored. He told us so
himself. For my part I do not believe that
the communication which the honorable member enjoyed with the delegates from the Lower
686
Provinces during their sojourn here had the
effect of changing his opinion on this question.
He looked to see from what side the proposition came, and seeing that it came from
the
side on which his friends sat, he was at once
convinced that it contained nothing that could
endanger the institutions of Lower Canada.
It is evident that he votes for it with certainty. In 1858 he reproached those members
who, like the honorable member for Montcalm (Mr. Jos. DUFRESNE), look quietly to see
from which side measures come before pronouncing upon them, with only thinking
and acting according to word of command
given by the present Ministers. Has not
he also been obliged to write a pamphlet
of 150 pages in 1865 to refute the one
of forty pages which he then wrote? Then
he held to be absurd all that was connected,
either nearly or remotely, with Confederation ;
now he holds everything to be right and perfect ; he is quite satisfied, and gets
the promise
of all his members to vote for the scheme before us without amendment. He throws his
hat in the air and exclaims—" Let us vote for
Confederation and for our friends." (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) That honorable member
may be able to discover contradictions in my
conduct. He sees a mote in his neighbor's
eyes and seeth not the beam in his own. But
let us continue our examination of that pamphlet of 1858. It contains most precious
information. At page 15 I find the following passage :—
The best possible condition under which Confederation could exist, would be that in
which
the two chambers would be elected and would
both have population as the basis of their number, for no other system excepting that
of having
but one chamber only with the number of its
members based on population, would give us absolutely one vote in three in the Federal
Legislation.
So in 1858 he found that the best we could
hope for, under Confederation, was that we
might have two elective chambers, with a number of members proportioned to the population
in each province, which would have given
us one vote in three. It was the elective
system, with representation based on population in each chamber. In view of the Confederation
of all the provinces, that plan was
decidedly better than the one now proposed
to us, in which Lower Canada is only to have
65 out of 194 in the Lower House, and 24
out of 76 in the Legislative Council, less
than the proportion which we should have
had under the elective system, without taking
into account, that as the legislative councillors are to be appointed by the General
Government, Lower Canada will exercise but
little influence as regards the appointment of
her councillors. But let us see what the honorable member for Montmorency now thinks
of the elective system. After having, in 1856,
himself brought in the bill to render the
Legislative Council elective, and having thus
done more than anyone else to effect the
change which then took place in the constitution of that body, and after having, in
1858, declared in writing that " the best possible terms that could be obtained in
Confederation would be the making of the two
chambers elective," in 1865 he says, at
page 65 of his second pamphlet :—
It was in obedience to the general sentiment,
and not by conviction, that he who now writes
gave up, in 1856, an opinion which he had always
held, and himself drafted the present constitution
of the Legislative Council, and it is with genuine
satisfaction, and a conviction strengthened by
experience, that we greet the revival of the
principle of Crown nomination to theLegislative
Council under conditions superior to those of
former times.
It would seem, then, that in 1856 the honorable member altered the Constitution, not
as
the result of conviction, and because he considered it was defective, but in obedience
to
the general sentiment ; that is to say, that
being a Minister, he did not wish to displease
his friends, who demanded that this change
should be made, and that, rather than sacrifice
his portfolio as a Minister, he preferred to
sacrifice his principles and convictions. (Hear,
hear, and aughter.) Now, the honorable
member has no other sacrifice to make than
that of his personal dignity ; this is but a
trifling one ; and he returns to his old opinions,
so as not to displease his present friends.
He clung to power in 1856 ; to-day he pays
homage to it ; that is the whole difference.
When the wind blew in the direction of reform, the honorable member was a Reformer,
not from conviction but from interest ; and
when it blows in the direction of absolutism,
the honorable member becomes by instinct a
Conservative and a Tory. So he who, in
1856, obtained the passing of an act to render
the Council elective ; who, in 1858, again pronounced himself in favor of the elective
principle as applied to the Council, tells us in 1865
that he greets with genuine satisfaction the
revival of the principle of Crown nomination
of the Legislative Councillors. (Hear, hear.)
Ministers went on their knees to the Lower
687
Provinces beseeching them to come to an
understanding as regarded a change of the
Constitution, and with respect to a scheme of
Confederation. Explanations were the result,
which have only been given on a few important points ; the delegates of the Lower
Provinces, after having obtained the most favorable financial stipulations for those
whom they
represented, have still further imposed their
views and have modified the scheme of Confederation in a manner at variance with the
views of our Ministers; and yet, after the Maritime Provinces have repudiated the
action of
their delegates, the Government still obstinately persists in obtaining the adoption
of the
scheme without any amendment whatsoever.
If that resolution passes, we shall ask England
to change our Constitution, and to give us
one which will not be in accordance with the
views of our ministers, and still less with those
of the people of this province. But let us see
what the honorable member for Montmorency
said in 1858 on this subject. I cite from
page 12:—
To ask England to change the Constitution
is to give her an opportunity of changing it to
suit her own views or those of our enemies. Nay,
more, to ask that we should take the first step is
to claim it for all the provinces, it is to call upon
them too to say upon what conditions they will
accept the Federal union.
But in the conflict of all these voices one only
will never be heard from the Imperial Throne,
because it would be in the French language. It
is no prejudice, it is but the history of our fifty
years of trial and sorrow.
Have circumstances so greatly changed since
1858 ? What has occurred since that period
to give the honorable member for Montmorency
more confidence now in the justice of England,
or in the efficacy of our petitions than he then
had ? Is not the history of our fifty years of
sufferings vivid in the memories of all ? When
we asked the Imperial Government to change
the constitution of the Legislative Council,
did they not unnecessarily, and without our
having sought it, repeal the clause which rendered necessary a two-thirds vote to
change
the basis of the representation ? That safeguard of the interests of Lower Canada
was
taken away from us without our knowing,
and at the present moment we do not know
at whose instance that clause of the Union Act
was expunged. Have we not similar reason
to fear that they may impose on Lower Canada a new Constitution, with conditions which
will encroach upon the rights solemnly guaranteed to us by treaty? And this is the
more
probable from the fact that, this scheme having
been rejected by the Lower Provinces, England
will not be desirous of enforcing it upon
them, and that if it is adopted by the Imperial
Parliament, it can only be so adopted with
such modifications as will make it applicable
to Canada alone, leaving to the Lower Provinces the right of accepting it hereafter
; and
Heaven alone knows what these modifications
will be, and how they may affect our institutions. (Hear. hear.) If the Imperial Parliament
thinks proper to take up this Constitution without the acceptance of it by the
Maritime Provinces, it will come back to us,
as did the answer to the Address in relation
to the Legislative Council, entirely different
from the Address we are about to vote.
HON. MR. EVANTUREL—I thought I
understood, when explanations were given
to-day by the Hon. Atty. Gen. West, that
the Government intended to lay before Her
Majesty the Address to be passed by this
House, then to ask the advice of the
Imperial Government as to what they had
better do under the circumstances, and then
return and report to the House.
HON. MR. DORION—I enquired, in language as explicit as it was possible to use,
of the Hon. Atty. Gen. West, whether the
Government would submit a new Constitution
for ratification by the Legislature, and he
only replied that the Government would submit the whole matter to the Imperial Government,
that is to say, the Address to be passed
by this House, and an explanation of the
present state of matters in view of the defeat
of the scheme of Confederation in the Lower
Provinces. He refused to say that the Government would come back to the House with
the measure.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—The honorable member for Hochelaga would like to
make the House believe that it is the intention of the Government to cause a measure
to be passed by the Imperial Government
against the wishes of this House ; but no such
conclusion can be drawn from the explanations given by my honorable friend the Hon.
Atty. Gen. West. He stated that a deputation would go to England, and that they would
submit to the Imperial Government the addresses of the two Houses, containing the
plan
of Confederation adopted by the delegates of
all the provinces, and that they would urge
upon the Imperial Government to bring down
a measure that should apply to all the provinces.
HON. MR. LAFRAMBOISE—That is
688
not saying, however, that the new Constitution will be submitted to the House on the
return of the deputation. (Hear, hear.)
HON. Mr. DORION—What I wish to say
is, that it is perfectly clear that the House will
not be called upon to pronounce upon the
new Constitution which is to be given to us,
no matter what changes may be introduced
into the resolutions on which we are now
called upon to vote. (Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Atty. Gen. East cannot say that the
Government will submit to the House the
result of the advice which they may receive
from the Imperial Government. (Hear,
hear. All that we can understand from
the Government is, that they will press the
adoption of the measure by this House,
and that, if they can pass it, they will
ask the Imperial Government to give us a
Constitution based on these resolutions, and
that this Constitution will be imposed on
the country without either the House or
the people being called upon to ratify it,
even although it be altogether different from
the resolutions now submitted to us. (Hear,
hear.) As in 1856 we saw the clause of
the Union Act, which required the concurrence
of two-thirds of the members of the House to
authorize a change in the basis of the representation, repealed without any application
on
our part for its repeal, so we shall perhaps see
in this new Constitution which is to be given
to us, that the principle of Confederation
will have been sacrificed in order that a legislative union, pure and simple, may
be imposed
upon us. (Hear, hear.) And this is the
more probable now, that itis well known that
the Maritime Provinces have repudiated the
plan of Confederation in its present shape.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—We shall
make a small Confederation by dividing Canada into four parts. (Laughter) That is
what the honorable member for Hochelaga
promised the honorable member for South
Oxford when he formed his Government.
There should be little men, little provinces,
and a little Confederation. (Laughter.)
A VOICE—Now-a-days the Government
has only great projects.
HON. Mr. DORION—Yet the Honorable
Attorney General has undertaken to grant a
little Confederation, and to divide us into
little provinces if the grander scheme does not
pass, and he has a very fair chance to come
back to little matters. (Hear, hear.) The
honorable member for Montmorency, after
having expressed his opinion with respect to
the constitution which ought to be provided
for the Legislative Council, in order to
the protection of our interests, said in that
pamphlet of 1858, on the subject of Confederation :—
The object of Confederation is external protection ; it can defend itself from enemies
from
without, but it could not defend itself against
itself. It was not with a view to social improvement, not to attain a more perfect
and complete
internal political organization, that the American
colonies and the small states of Germany, who
wished to remain independent, had recourse to
Confederation ; it was for mutual protection
against enemies from without, and for that only.
Now we have England to protect us, the political
Confederation of the provinces is therefore absurd.
But if it be at once absurd and fatal, why
should we persist in demanding it?
These are the opinions of the honorable
member for Montmorency :—
Were we to have a Confederation of the
provinces, they would soon range themselves into
two distinct camps ; and if we are to judge of the
past by the present, it is needless to say to what
dangers Lower Canada would be exposed. [And
a little further on, he adds] : When once we
have admitted a principle, not only we have to
admit the consequences, but even to suffer them
to our ruiu. The consequences of Confederation
would be the ruin of Lower Canada.
The honorable member for Montmorency was
convinced that the Confederation of the provinces could not be effected without having
recourse to direct taxation, which loomed up
constantly before his eyes—(hear, hear) :—
Direct taxation for the maintenance and to
carry out the objects of the local legislatures, are
a necessity of the Federal system; and if Lower
Canada was to refuse to tax herself to pay the
expenses of its Government and Legislature, it
would be forced into doing it; bearing in mind the
refusal in days past of its House of Assembly to
vote the supplies, they would treat her as they
did in 1840.
Thus the great Confederation, so fatal and
absurd, would be the ruin of Lower Canada.
Now for a little description of our new friends
in the Maritime Provinces :—
What advantage can Canada hope to obtain in
the consolidation of the revenues of all the provinces ? Â Â
Whilst the united revenues of the four Atlantic
provinces hardly reach the sum of four hundred
689
thousand pounds, and whilst not one of these
provinces has much in the future with the exception of New Brunswick, Newfoundland
with its
cold climate, its barren soil, like that of the north
shore of our Lower St. Lawrence, will never be
more than a fishing station, to which, besides, we
have access in common with all the other nations
of the world. Nova Scotia is another fishing station, to which also we have access
in common with
everyone else. It has no soil fit for cultivation.
Its revenue remains stationary, or diminishes like
the population of its capital, Halifax (although
situated at the extremity of one of the most magnificent harbors in the world), which,
in 1840, had
25,000 inhabitants in its wooden houses, and
which now affords shelter to fifteen thousand human beings only. . . .
They are poor, and seek an alliance with the rich.
They have good reason; were we in their place,
we would do the same.
That is his account of the new allies he now
proposes to give us. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) And now passing to the question of
religion, this is what we find :—
In the existing union the Protestants are
slightly the most numerous, at least according to
the census of 1850. The proposed union would
increase the Protestant strength, for the very
great majority of the populations of Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick is Protestant, and Newfoundland, in which Catholicism prevails,
is too
poor, both at present and in prospective, with its
barren soil, to give any strength, or even hope, to
Catholicism. Protestantism would thus be more
powerful in a union of all the provinces than it
is now in the existing union of the Canadas.
I think I need say no more. I think that
the reasons adduced by the honorable member for Montmorency from the French-Canadian
point of view, against the union of the
provinces in 1858, exist at the present day,
and that they have greater force now than
they had then ; and this is the more evident
when we see all the members from Upper
Canada declare that Confederation is not
what they want, but that they would prefer
a legislative union. This fact ought to add
to our alarm, and convince us of the danger to
which we should be exposed by this union.
The honorable member for Montmorency now
encourages his friends to proceed to England
and obtain its adoption by the Imperial Government, and its imposition on the Maritime
Provinces as well as upon Canada. It is an
appeal to Great Britain to pass a measure
upon the application of the Canadian Government, and to impose it upon the Lower Provinces,
after making such modifications to it
as would satisfy them. The honorable member for Montmorency, animadverting upon a
letter which I wrote last autumn to my constituents, in which I asserted that no precedent
existed for a Federal union between
mere colonies, has cited, in refutation of my
statement, the case of New Zealand. New
Zealand is composed of three islands, divided
into eleven provinces, each of which possesses
a sort of municipal council which is called
a government, just as the municipalities are
called provinces. Each province has a head
or executive officer, elected by the people,
and charged with the carrying out of the
laws. The municipal councils have the power
of legislating, but their powers are restricted
within very narrow limits. They cannot interfere even with the laws relating to wills
and successions, whilst, on the other hand, the
Central Government has the right to legislate
on all matters affecting the colony. The political system of New Zealand is exactly
like
our county and parish municipal system.
Our county municipalities represent the central power, and our parish municipalities
represent the local governments. Had the hon.
member for Montmorency examined the Constitution of Belgium, he would have seen that
there, there are provinces which each have a
Governor and a Local Parliament, and these
parliaments have much greater powers than
the local councils in New Zealand, and are
much more important; yet no one has ever
ventured to assert that Belgium was a Confederation, although it was divided into
provinces. Neither is the French Empire a Confederation, although its departments
are governed by Préfets. ( Hear, hear.) The hon.
member for Montmorency has told us that
our interests would be perfectly protected by
the proposed Constitution. I find that the
powers assigned to the General Parliament
enable it to legislate on all subjects whatsoever. It is an error to imagine that
these
powers are defined and limited by the 29th
clause of the resolutions. Were it desirous
of legislating on subjects placed under the
jurisdiction of the local legislatures, there is
not a word in these resolutions which can be
construed to prevent it, and if the local legislatures complain, Parliament may turn
away
and refuse to hear their complaints, because
all the sovereignty is vested in the General
Government, and there is no authority to define its functions and attributes and those
of
the local governments.
HON. MR. DORION—I will tell you in a
690
moment. I say that the Federal Parliament
will exercise sovereign power, inasmuch as it
can always trespass upon the rights of the
local governments without there being any
authority to prevent it. What authority have
you constituted which can come forward and
say to the Federal Parliament—" You shall
not do such and such a thing, you shall
not legislate upon such and such a subject,
because these matters are reserved to the local
governments." There will be no such authority, and consequently it will have sovereign
power, and can do all that it pleases, and may
encroach upon all the rights and attributes of
the local governments whenever it may think
proper. We shall be—I speak as a Lower
Canadian—we shall be at its mercy, because
it may exercise its right of veto on all the
legislation of the local parliaments, and there
again we shall have no remedy. In case of
difference between the Federal power and the
local governments, what authority will intervene for its settlement?
HON. MR. DORION—In effect there will
be no other authority than that of the Imperial Government, and we know too well the
value assigned to the complaints of Lower
Canadians by the Imperial Government.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—The delegates understood the matter better than that.
Neither the Imperial Government nor the
General Government will interfere, but the
courts of justice will decide all questions in
relation to which there may be differences
between the two powers.
A VOICE—The Commissioners' courts.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. DORION—Undoubtedly. One
magistrate will decide that a law passed by
the Federal Legislature is not law, whilst
another will decide that it is law, and thus
the difference, instead of being between
the legislatures, will be between the several
courts of justice.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Should
the General Legislature pass a law beyond
the limits of its functions, it will be null and
void
pleno jure.
HON. MR. DORION—Yes, I understand
that, and it is doubtless to decide questions
of this kind that it is proposed to establish
Federal courts.
HON. MR. DORION—In Great Britain,
Parliament is all-powerful, every one admits
it—and I would like to know whether it is
proposed to give to the Federal Parliament the
omnipotence enjoyed by the Imperial Parliament. Without that, the system proposed
to
be established is no longer a political monarchical system, but rather a vast municipality.
If all the courts of justice are to have the
right of deciding as to the legality of the
laws, the Federal Parliament will not be able
to make them without a justice of the peace
or commissioner of small causes setting them
aside, under the pretext that they are not
within the jurisdiction of the central power,
as is now done in the case of a
procès-verbal
of road work. That is not the monarchical
system; it is the republican system. In England, as it is here at the present moment,
the
Legislature is all-powerful, and I believe that
that was the principle which it was sought to
adopt. If the differences between the Federal and the Local Parliaments are not to
be
submitted to the decision of a Supreme Federal Court, I do not see who can possibly
decide them. (Hear, hear.) We are told
that the Federal Court of Appeals will not be
charged with the decision of matters in dispute between the legislatures, but they
will
only have to give final judgments in cases decided by the local inferior courts. Well,
for
my part I cannot approve of the creation of
this court. The great inconveniences of it
to us Lower Canadians may easily be seen.
Thus, when a cause shall have been argued
and decided in all our courts, we shall still
have to go before a Federal Court of Appeal
composed of judges of all the provinces, and
in which we shall probably have only one
judge, who may be selected out of the English population. And this is the protection
afforded to us. I repeat that I see no protection whatever for our interests, as Lower
Canadians, in the constitution of the political and
judicial powers, for the Federal Parliament
can encroach upon our rights without any
authority having the power to interfere, and
then we shall have a Federal Court of Appeal
in which we shall only be represented by one
judge against six or seven of other origins.
(Hear, hear.) There is another and very
important question to be considered, and that
is as to what is meant by paragraph 30 of the
29th resolution, in relation to marriage and
divorce. I see, not without apprehension
that it is left to the General Parliament to
legislate on all matters relating to marriage
and divorce. The question of marriage is intimately connected with a large portion
of our
691
code and civil rights, for upon marriage depends the settlement of family interests
and
successions, and the civil condition of the
population. If the right of legislating on all
matters connected with marriage is left to
the Federal Parliament, it will have the
right to declare that a marriage contracted elsewhere will be valid in the Confedacy,
provided it has been contracted in
accordance with the laws of the country
in which it took place, as stated by the
Honorable Solicitor General East, for it is a
principle of international law perfectly understood in every country of the civilized
Wurld,
and which it would be impossible to alter,
and it was of no use whatever to insert it in
the Constitution. I say, then, that not only
will the Federal Government have this power,
but they will also be able to change the civil
conditions of marriage which now constitute
apart of our code. But if it is sought to
remove from the local legislatures the right of
legislating respecting the conditions under
which a marriage may be contracted, the age
at which marriage is to be allowed, the degree
of relationship which shall be an impediment to
marriage, the consent of the relations, and the
requisite dispensations which are now required
to be obtained from the ecclesiastical authorities, then I can understand why this
article
has been inserted in the resolutions, and that
the right to do all this is to be : vested in the
Federal Parliament. If it is desired that a
minor should be allowed to marry, as he can
in countries in which the laws of England
prevail, without the consent of his relations,
I can conceive the reason for placing the right
to legislate respecting marriage in the hands
of the Federal power ; but if that was not the
object in view, I see no reason why the right
to legislate on this subjct has not been left
to the local governments. (Hear, hear.) I
should see with considerable apprehension and
alarm this power given to the General Parliament, because it will be composed of men
who
have ideas entirely at variance with ours in
relation to marriage. As regards the question of divorce, we have had every kind of
explanation as to the meaning of the resolution
of the Conference. The Honorable Solicitor
General of Lower Canada (Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN), who last year made so great a fuss
because a divorce suit came before the House,
and who even moved the rejection of the bill
at its first reading, has been brought to terms
on the subject. and has discovred that it
would be a good thing to have an authority
for the settlement of this matter. Last year
he said that it was impossible for a Catholic
to sanction even the first reading of a divorce
bill, and he made us a long speech on the
subject, but he has found out his mistake,
and he is unwilling that the local legislature
should legislate on divorce, but he vests this
right in the Federal Parliament, and authorizes it to do so. He cannot himself legislate,
but he allows another to do so for him. Well,
I do not think that this is any improvement
on the existing state of things, and I think
that divorce is more likely to be prevented by
leaving the subject among the functions of
the local legislatures, at all events as far as
Lower Canada is concerned, than by leaving
it to the Federal Parliament. But I go
further, and I say that the leaving of this
question to the Federal Legislature is to introduce divorce among the Catholics. It
is
certain that at present no Catholic could
obtain a divorce either in the present House
or lrom the Local Legislature of Lower Canada under Confederation. But suppose that
the Federal Parliament were to enact that
there shall be divorce courts in each section
of the province, the Catholics will have the
same access to them as the Protestants. And
who is to prevent the Federal Legislature
from establishing a tribunal of this kind in
Lowu' Canada, if they are established elsewhere? In that case—if tribunals of this
kind are established—will not the Honorable
Solicitor General, if he votes for this resolution, have voted for the establishment
of
divorce courts over the whole country, to
which Catholics and Protestants can have
recourse tor obtaining a divorce ? That is
the only conclusion it is possible to arrive at,
and the legitimate consequence of the votes
of those Catholics who will vote to vest this
power in the Federal Parliament. (Hear,
hear.) It is evident that a Catholic who
thinks that he cannot vote for a Divorce bill
ought not to vote indirectly for the establishment of Divorce courts, any more than
to vote
directly for it. The Honorable Solicitor
General East told us the other day that he
had recently obtained the annulment of a marriage, because the parties, being relations,
had
married without dispensation.
HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—I never
pretended that that was a divorce. I said
that if the case of annulment of marriage to
which I referred had arisen in Upper Canada,
the Ecclesiastical courts might have declared
the marriage null as far as the canon law was
concerned, but not as regarded the civil laws,
for the law of Upper Canada does not recog
692
nize the impediments to marriage provided by
the Canon law, and that the husband and wife
would have been obliged to apply to Parliament to obtain their separation. And I stated
that this separation could not be looked upon
as a divorce from a Catholic point of view,
although the Act of Parliament might be
called a Divorce bill.
MR. GEOFFRION—Would Parliament
grant a divorce on the ground of relationship ?
HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—I can cite
other cases, as, for instance, that of a Catholic
married to an infidel who had not been baptized, without being aware at the time of
the
marriage that this impediment existed. If
he discovers the fact afterwards, he is not
married as far as the Canon law is concerned.
If the wife is not willing to consent to the
obtaining of the necessary dispensations to
render her marriage valid, she may, in Lower
Canada, apply to the Ecclesiastical court to
have it annulled, but in Upper Canada she
would also have to apply to Parliament.
MR. GEOFFRION—Could a divorce be
obtained from Parliament on the ground of
relationship ?
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—It would
be proved before Parliament that the marriage contracted under these circumstances
is
null as regards the Canon law and the law of
Lower Canada. There are ecclesiastical authorities in Upper Canada just as there are
in
Lower Canada, but as the Civil law there is
not the same as it is here, the couple whose
marriage would be void under the Canon law
but not under the Civil law—for in the eyes
of the law the marriage would be valid and
binding, and neither husband nor wife could
remarry without having obtained a divorce—
the couple, I say, would have the right of applying to Parliament, who might legally
declare that marriage null which had been so
declared by the ecclesiastical authorities.
But the nullity of the marriage must first be
proved to the satisfaction of the ecclesiastical
authorities and under the Canon law, and
then Parliament might annul it on that evidence, for it would be omnipotent.
HON. MR. DORION—But even supposing
that the Federal Parliament would interfere
in such a case, which is a matter of doubt,
the Local Government would also have had
the right to interfere if the power so to do
had been given to it. Moreover, this would
not be a case of divorce; it would simply be
the declaration that no marriage had ever
taken place, which is quite a different matter.
In Lower Canada the Canon law forms part
of our Civil law, but in Upper Canada it is
not so, and the law there does not recognize
the right of the ecclesiastical authorities to
declare a marriage null. (Hear, hear.) I
think, then, that the explanation of the Hon.
Solicitor General is not of more value than
that which he gave us on the subject of marriage, for it does not in the least prove
that
the Federal Parliament have not the power
to establish Divorce courts in all the provinces, and the resolution does not admit
of
the construction that the Federal Parliament
will only have the right of declaring void
marriages declared to be so by the Catholic
ecclesiastical authorities. (Hear, hear.) I
perceive that the subject of immigration is
left to the General Government, concurrently
with the local governments. I think that
danger lies in the provision that the General
Government is to appoint all our judges. It
is said, as the Honorable Attorney General
East stated the other day, that there will be
French-Canadians in the Executive of the
Federal Government, but their number will
be limited, and if the Executive is composed
of fifteen members for instance, there will
only be one or two French-Canadians at the
most. Well, suppose the French-Canadian
Ministers recommend the appointment of a
person as judge, and that all their colleagues
oppose it, the former will have the right to
protest, but the majority will carry the day,
and all that the minority can do will be to
retire from the Government. But in that
case they will be replaced, and things will go
on as before. That is all. The same argument applies to the appointment of legislative
councillors; and when I call to mind all the
injustices committed by the Legislative Council of Lower Canada, which was nominated
by the Crown, and in a spirit hostile to the
great mass of the population, I cannot conceive that French-Canadians can be found
who are willing to return to that system.
Will they not remember that it was that system which closed our common schools, by
refusing to vote the supplies granted by the
Legislative Assembly, and thereby delayed,
for years and years, the progress of education
in Lower Canada. The honorable member
for Montmorency says that we must have a
conservative chamber, and that our Legislative Council. under Confederation, will
be
less conservative than the Belgian Senate, be
693
cause the elective qualification of the Belgian
senators is higher than that of our legislative
councillors. The Belgian Senate is elected
for eight years, and is renewed by one-fourth
at a time.
HON. MR. DORION—Yes; the honorable
member is right. The term for which each
senator is elected is eight years, and the
elections take place for one-half of them every
four years, and another change in the composition of the Senate can also take place,
because
it may be dissolved like the Lower House.
Now, under these circumstances, there can be
no clashing of any duration between the two
Belgian Chambers, and the Senate cannot
obstruct, for an indefinite period, the action of
the Lower House. If a difference should
arise between the two bodies, the Government
can remedy it by new elections, by which
senators would be returned favorable to the
views of the people. Thus the Senate is not
conservative, from the sole fact of the
electoral qualification of the senators being
very high. What I consider excessive and of
a too conservative character in the constitution of the Legislative Council of the
Confederation, is that no power exists which can
change its composition in the case of a collision between it and the House of Commons.
The councillors will be appointed for
life, and their number is fixed. By what
means shall we be able to prevent the Legislative Council from stopping the progress
of
business if a difference should arise with the
Lower House? The honorable member for
Montmorency says that the obstacle will be
broken down; but if no other remedy than
that is provided, I say that the principle is
faulty. It does not do, when we frame a
Constitution, to open the door to obstacles
which can only be surmounted by breaking
them down. (Hear, hear.) In England,
where the House of Lords is very conservative, the Crown has power to name new peers,
and it is precisely the possession of that
power of creating new peers which has prevented the breaking down of the obstacle—
which prevented a revolution in 1832. The
honorable member for Montmorency himself
admits that at that period England was on
the eve of a revolution, and that it would
have happened if the House had any longer
refused to sanction the measures of reform
passed by the House of Commons and demanded by the people; and that revolution
was only avoide because the King, having
declared that he would create new peers, a
certain number of the lords, to escape this
danger, absented themselves and permitted
the passing of the Parliamentary Reform
Bill. (Hear, hear.) There are two or three
other matters which are left to the joint jurisdiction of the Federal and Local Legislatures,
such as agriculture, emigration, and the
fisheries; but the laws of the Federal Parliament will always prevail in these matters
over those of the local parliaments; thus, for
instance, a Local Legislature may pass a law
in relation to agriculture, but it may be overridden the next day by a law of the
Federal
Legislature. (Hear, hear.) I shall not
touch upon the question of the finances, but I
must say that the figures given by the Hon.
Solicitor General East do not agree with
those in the Public Accounts. I do not know
where he obtained them, but for my part I
have been unable to find them. When I
enquired whether Lower Canada was to
pay the Municipal Loan Fund debt, he
did not think proper to answer. When I
asked the Hon. Minister of Finance whether
Lower Canada would be charged with the
debt contracted for the redemption of the
Seigniorial dues, with the Common School
Fund, the Municipal Loan Fund, and the indemnity payable to the townships, amounting
in the whole to $4,500,000, he replied that he would bring down a proposition at some
future period for the
settlement of these questions, but he has not
thought proper to give any explanations.
Well, I have stated that besides the debt of
$67,000,000 due by the province, there are
more than $3,000,000 due to Upper Canada
as compensation for the Seigniorial indemnity,
and that in fixing at $62,500,000 the debt
to be assumed by the Federal Government,
there will remain about $9,000,000 to divide
between Upper and Lower Canada. With
the amount of the Municipal Loan Fund
debt and of the other items which I have
mentioned, Lower Canada will find herself
charged with a local debt of $4,500,000.
(Hear, hear.) When we entered the union
we had a debt of $500,000; we have expended since the union, on public works in Lower
Canada, about $13,000,000, and we go out of
the union with a debt of $27,500,000 as our
proportion of the Federal debt, besides our
own special debt of $4,500,000, whilst Upper
Canada will go out of it without any local
debt on giving up the indemnity to which
she is entitled under the Seigniorial Act of
1859. Well, I assert that it is an unjust
694
treaty, and that it is also unfair that the
Ministry should refuse us all explanations on
this point, before we are called upon to give
our votes on the resolutions. (Hear.) The
Hon. Solicitor General East told us the other
day that in the plan of Confederation which
I had proposed for the two Canadas, I intended to leave the administration and ownership
of the Crown lands to the General Government, and he said that under Confederation
the Crown lands would belong to the local
governments, and this, in his opinion, was a
great improvement on the plan which I proposed. Well, it must be observed that a very
large amount is due on sales of Crown lands;
there is about $1,000,000 due in Lower Canada, and $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 in Upper
Canada. If these lands had remained in the
union there would have been about one million
from Lower Canada, and five or six millions
from Upper Canada towards the payment of
the general debt. We should have benefited to
that amount by the extinction of so much of
the public debt; instead of that, under the
plan of the Government, Upper Canada is to
have the benefit of the five or six millions
due on the lands sold in Upper Canada, whilst
Lower Canada will only have one million of
dollars at the outside. If it were only the
public lands, there would be no injustice in
caving them to the local governments, but
the difference in the amounts due on the lands
sold gives a considerable advantage to Upper
Canada. There is another very serious objection to the Constitution of the Legislative
Council. The honorable member for Montmorency said that the Legislative Council
would serve as a protection and safeguard to
the interests of the French-Canadians, because in it we would have an equality of
members with the other provinces. A curious equality that will be! That of which
the honorable member for Montmorency spoke
when he pronounced himself in favor of two
elective chambers, because in that case we
should have one member in three, was infinitely preferable. In the Lower House we
shall not have one member in three, nor shall
we in the Upper House either, for we shall
only have twenty-four councillors out of seventy-six. Thus we shall have equality
neither
in the Lower House nor in the Council.
(Hear, hear.) But then the General Government will nominate the councillors, and
we shall be in a great minority in the Executive Council. Another objection is that
the nomination of the legislative councillors
on the recommendation of the Executive Coun
cil of the General Government, and this offers
no guarantee for the institutions of Lower
Canada, because the predominating influence in that Council will not be that of
the majority of Lower Canada. To offer
an effectual guarantee, it would be necessary that they should be elected by the people,
or, at all events, only appointed on the
recommendation of the local governments.
These resolutions, we are told, are only as it
were the headings to the chapters of the new
Constitution, and the new Constitution may
be anything else than what is now under consideration. It will come back to us in
the
form of an Imperial Act, to which we shall
have
nolentes volentes to submit. (Hear,
hear) Supposing even that the scheme
should not be modified, I could not approve
it. I cannot with a joyful heart give up the
imprescriptible rights of the people who have
sent me here to represent them. I cannot
consent to a change which is neither more nor
less than a revolution, a political revolution it
is true, but which does not the less, on that
account, affect the rights and interests of a
million of inhabitants, the descendants of the
first settlers in America, of those who have
given their names to the vast regions which
they discovered, and whose careers have been
rendered famous by so many heroic traits.
(Hear, hear.) I am opposed to this Confederation in which the militia, the appointment
of the judges, the administration of justice
and our most important civil rights, will be
under the control of a General Government
the majority of which will be hostile to Lower
Canada, of a General Government invested
with the most ample powers, whilst the
powers of the local governments will be
restricted, first, by the limitation of the
powers delegated to it, by the
veto reserved
to the central authority, and further, by the
concurrent jurisdiction of the general authority or government. Petitions, with more
than
20,000 signatures attached to them, have already been presented to this House against
the scheme of Confederation. Numerous public meetings have been held in nineteen
counties in Lower Canada, and one in the
city of Montreal. Everywhere this scheme
has been protested against, and an appeal to
the people dcmanded; and yet, in defiance of
the expressed opinions of our constituents, we
are about to giye them a Constitution, the
effect of which will be to snatch from them
the little influence which they still enjoy
under the existing union. We are about, on
their behalf, m surrender all the rights and
695
privileges which are dearest to them, and that
without consulting them. It would be madness—it would be more, it would be a crime.
On these grounds I shall oppose this scheme
with all the power at my command, and insist
that under any circumstances it shall be submitted to the people before its final
adoption.
(Cheers.)
HON. MR. CAUCHON —Mr. SPEAKER,
I received intelligence this evening that the
Hon. member for Hochelaga was about to
reply to my speech of the 2nd of March, and
that is why I came here. Otherwise, as I have
not yet quite recovered, I should have remained at home ; but I frankly acknowledge
that if I had foreseen that I should have
had to listen to such a speech as that which
we have just heard, I should not have put
myself out of the way for so little. Any one
hearing him speak must have said: " Either
he is not a very powerful reasoner, or this
hon. member has but a poor idea of the
intelligence of this House and but little
respect for his colleagues." But for my two
pamphlets and for the speech of the Hon.
Solicitor General, which he read and com
mented upon as he knows how to do, he
would very speedily have found himself
aground ; but by deriving assistance in the
way I have mentioned, he contrived to find
the means of speaking for three hours.
(Hear, hear.) Is it necessary for me to
repeat that I have never denied the opinions
which I held in former days ? Nor will I
deny them to-night. I acknowledge freely
that my opinions on certain matters have
changed. Of what advantage, then, can it be
to him to spend his time in repeating what
I admit myself ? If I proved to him that
he had changed several times himself, I did
not do so to lay blame upon him, but to
reproach him with denying his past career,
in order that he might be more at his ease
in that which he is at present following.
(Hear, hear.) But, for that matter, what
does it signify to the country that he or I
held one opinion yesterday and that we hold
another to-day ? What the country requires
to know is whether the scheme of Confederation which is submitted to us by the Government
is good or bad. (Hear, hear.) The
man who declares that he has never changed
his opinion on any subject whatever is, to
my thinking, a simpleton. The public requirements change with circumstances, and
necessarily bring with them other ideas.
(Hear, hear.) We do not eat when we are
no longer hungry, nor drink when our thirst
is satisfied. Did the hon. member, for instance, put in practice, when in power, the
doctrine which he enunciated respecting the
double majority, when he was seated on the
Opposition benches ? When the House was
engaged in debating a resolution, the object
of which was to affirm the principle of the
double majority, the present Hon. President
of the Council having got up to say that he
would never have governed Upper Canada
by means of a Lower Canada majority, the
hon. member for Hochelaga rose in his turn
to declare that he also would never consent
to govern in opposition to the will of Lower
Canada. And yet, in 1858, did he not enter
a Cabinet which was refused by nearly all
the members from Lower Canada ?
HON. MR. DORION—I said that at the
time of the formation of the BROWN-DORION
Ministry. I told the Hon. President of the
Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN) that I would
not undertake to carry through the Legislature the four great measures which were
then in question, without the consent of the
majority of the representatives from Lower
Canada.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—Ah, yes ! An
excellent reason can always be found for
retaining power when we have it, in spite
of our own declarations. In 1862, did he
not form part of a Government situated in
the same position ? And from 1863 to 1864
did he not govern Lower Canada with a rod
of iron, supported only by a weak Lower
Canadian minority ?
HON. MR. DORION—The only measure
passed in 1863, that relating to Separate
Schools in Upper Canada, was carried by a
majority in both provinces.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—That is not so,
as the Upper Canadian majority voted
against that bill, which owed its safety to
Lower Canadians only. But it is the principle which is in question here, and the hon.
member cannot divert the attention of the
House from that fact. If the double majority was good in one case, it must be so in
all cases, in legislation as in administration,
but more especially in administration, which
cannot and ought not to be based on anything except publie opinion. Now, the hon.
member for Hochelaga certainly governed
his country despite the majority of its
representatives. (Hear, hear.) He has
spoken to us of the petitions presented to
this House against the scheme of Confeder
696
ation, but what do those petitions amount
to ? The way in which they were covered
with signatures is well known. (Hear, hear.)
I shall here cite an anecdote relating to
the parliamentary history of Upper Canada,
at a period shortly before the Union. A
member was talking a great deal about petitions in a debate upon a bill. " Petitions
!"
said his opponent, " I will undertake within
a fortnight to present a petition to this House
praying that you may be hanged, and which
shall be covered with good and valid signatures !" The challenge was accepted, and
at the end of three weeks the petition arrived, praying for the hanging of the man
who
had so much faith in the virtue of petitions !
How had it been obtained ? By posting at
a tavern situated at four cross-roads a skilful
and knowing agent, who incessantly said to
the frequenters of the tavern—" Do you like
good roads ?" " Yes." " Well, then, sign
this petition." All signed, without reading
it. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Exactly
in this manner were obtained most of the
signatures against Confederation. At Montreal, agents went from tavern to tavern and
induced all who were there to sign, or signed
for those who resided in the vicinity without
even consulting them. (Hear, hear.) Have
we not also seen petitions coming from counties in which the Opposition were not even
able to find candidates ? They may easily
obtain signatures of this description, and by
this means; but that does not constitute an
expression of the opinion of Lower Canada,
and those petitions will not carry elections.
The hon. member ought to know something
about it, he who was in power at the time of
the last general election. (Hear, hear.)
He endeavored to explain away his contradictions by saying that he had never been
in favor of the Confederation of all the provinces. I did not state that he was in
favor
of this Confederation of all the provinces ; I
only said that he was willing, as a member
of the BROWN–DORION Government, in
1858, to have representation based on population, with checks, guarantees and assurances
; that then, in 1859, he proposed as an
alternative to that measure, in his Montreal
manifesto, Confederation of the two Canadas ;
and then, in 1860-'61 he was ready to
accept any possible change, even Confederation of all British North America. (Hear,
hear.) To prove that he was in favor of
Confederation of all the provinces, I quoted
one of his speeches, in which he said, on the
6th July, 1858 :—
The repeal of the union, a Federal union,
representation based on population, or some other
great change, must of necessity take place, and
for my part I am disposed to examine the question
of representation based on population, with the
view of ascertaining whether it might not be conceded wlth guarantees for the protection
of the
religion, the language and the laws of the Lower
Canadians. I am likewise prepared to take into
consideration the scheme for a Confederation of
the provinces, &c., &c.
Then another, of the 3rd May, 1860, of
which I gave two versions—the first from
the Mirror of Parliament, and the second
from the Morning Chronicle, to which I was
referred as being more authentic and more
orthodox by the organ of the hon. member
for Hochelaga :—
I hope, however, that the day will come in
which it will be desirable for Canada to federate
with the Lower Provinces, &c.
Those in favor of a Federal union of the provinces must see that this proposed Federation
of
Upper and Lower Canada is the best means to
form a nucleus around which the great Confederation of all the provinces could be
formed in the
course of time.—Mirror of Parliament.
I look upon the Federal union of Upper and
Lower Canada as the nucleus of the great Confederation of the Provinces of North America
to
which all look forward. I believe that time will
bring about the union of all the provinces—
Morning Chronicle.
Could anything be more explicit ?
HON. MR. CAUCHON—No ; and I corrected that error the other night ; but I
maintained with reason that the words " to
which all look forward" meant that all
persons directed their attention towards
Confederation. Now, if all persons expect
Confederation, if all persons direct their
attention towards it as towards the promised
land, the hon. member for Hochelaga must
be included to a small extent in this term
" all persons." (Hear, hear.) Did he not,
moreover, declare that the Confederation of
the two Canadas, which he proposed, was to
be but the nucleus of the great Confederation, the necessary nucleus for the Confederation
of all the American Provinces,
which we are considering at present ?
HON. MR. CAUCHON—The hon. member always seeks loop-holes by which to
escape from his speeches and to evade the
consequences of his past opinions ; but as I
697
did not interrupt him, I hope that he will
not interrupt me either. Did he not say
the other day :—
Of course I do not say that I shall be opposed
to their Confederation for all time to come. Population may extend over the wilderness
that
now lies between the Maritime Provinces and
ourselves, and commercial intercourse may increase sufficiently to render Confederation
desirable.
Is not this admitting everything ? Is it not
saying that there is nothing between us but
a question of time and of expediency ? Why
then should he make the opinions of us, the majority, such a crime, when he himself
arrives,
at the end of a four hours' speech, at the conclusion that Confederation will be good
or
necessary at a time which is more or less near ?
In his manifesto against the scheme of Confederation he adheres so far to his previous
opinions as to consider the scheme which is
submitted to us as merely premature. There
again, then, it was only a question of time,
and in declaring himself to-day opposed to
Confederation, he therefore changes his
opinion as to the very basis of the question.
I do not cast it up to him as a reproach ; for,
as I said but a minute ago, he who maintains that he has never changed, conveys but
a poor opinion of his judgment and of his
aptitude for public affairs. Events, in
changing, absolutely compel men to change
also. (Hear.) A general was once boasting
to the great TURENNE that he had never
committed an error of strategy. " He who
boasts that he has never been mistaken,"
returned TURENNE, " proves thereby that he
knows nothing of the art of war." These
words, which are full of wisdom, may be
applied to the hon. member for Hochelaga,
who, by his persistence in maintaining that
be has never contradicted himself nor been
mistaken, proves that he is no statesman.
(Hear, hear.) But, I say it again, it would
have been better tor him to lay aside personal questions. (Hear, hear.) On the 6th
July, 1858, he said :—
Before long it will become impossible to resist
the demand of Upper Canada. If representation
based on population is not granted to her now,
she will infallibly obtain it hereafter, but then
without any guarantee for the protection of the
French-Canadians.
But to-day he changes his opinion. Then
he was willing to grant representation by
population, or Confederation based on the
same principle. It had to be conceded in
order that we might not be carried away by
the tempest. But to-day, according to his
shewing, the storm no longer impends ; the
whole sky is calm and serene ; public opinion
in Upper Canada no longer threatens to
break asunder the frail bands of the union,
and changes are useless. Ah ! and yet we
have had as many as three ministerial crises
in one year. (Hear, hear.) He mistakes
then ; the difficulties have but increased,
and it is better to-day to provide against the
storm, than to be carried away by it at a
later period. The greatest wisdom directs
its efforts, not to cure the disease, but to
prevent it ; this truth is as applicable to
politics as it is to medicine. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member for Hochelaga talked to
us of conflicts between the Federal Parliament and the local Houses, and of the
sovereign power of the Central Government
over the legislatures of the provinces. But
what, then, is this sovereign power over the
attributes of the provincial legislatures ? If
it exists it must be in the Constitution. If
it is not to be found there, it is because it
does not exist. He says that the Federal
Legislature will always predominate ; and
why ? Who then will decide between the
one and the others ?—the judicial tribunals
being sworn to respect the laws and the
Constitution in their entirety, and charged
by the very nature of their functions to
declare whether such a law of the Federal
Parliament or of the local legislatures does
or does not affect the Constitution. (Hear,
hear.) There will be no absolute sovereign
power, each legislature having its distinct
and independent attributes, not proceeding
from one or the other by delegation, either
from above or from below. The Federal Parliament will have legislative sovereign power
in all questions submitted to its control in
the Constitution. So also the local legislatures will be sovereign in all matters
which
are specifically assigned to them. How is
the question of a conflict now settled in the
United States, when it arises between the
legislation of Congress and that of individual
states ? I do not speak of the present time
when nearly the whole of the territory of
that great country is under military rule,
and overrun in every direction by an army of
500,000 soldiers. I allude to what occurs in
their normal condition. (Hear) The sovereign
power is vested in the Federal Government
with respect to all Federal matters, and in
the states with respect to all matters connected with their special attributes. By
698
reading STOREY, or rather the Constitution,
the hon. member will ascertain that the
states are not paramount with respect to
questions of war and peace, the tariff, trade,
treaties and all relations with foreign countries. Their authority is void so far
as
relates to those questions, and the sovereign
power is vested exclusively in the Federal
Government. If any conflict arises between
the Federal Legislature and that of the
states, it is decided by the judicial tribunals.
I am not aware that any difficulty of this
nature has ever arisen, and so far as relates
to the legislative attributes of the states,
that Federal legislation has ever predominated over local legislation. (Hear, hear.)
Why then should the case be otherwise so
far as we are concerned? Is it because we
are differently constituted, and because our
nature is subservient to other laws? These
are wretched arguments, and he has even
been reduced to splitting hairs since he has
attended the school of the member for
Brome, whose place he almost fills since he
has been ill. (Laughter.) The honorable
member for Hochelaga considered my first
pamphlet much better written than my last,
doubtless for the same reason that he considered my speeches of 1858 greatly superior
to that which I delivered here the other day.
He thinks now as I thought in 1858; he
has therefore receded by six years. Alluding to my speech of the 2nd March, he
appears to impute it to me as a crime, that I
yielded to the influence of my relations with
the delegates from the Maritime Provinces,
and that under the action of that influence,
I changed my opinions respecting Confederation. I admit the fact of that influence
legitimately exercised. We lose nothing by
coming in contact with intelligent men.
The members of this House, who last autumn
visited those provinces, returned amazed at
what they had seen. They were convinced
that those provinces were possessed of great
resources. Contact with the most eminent
men of those countries could be productive
of no evil, and the hon. member would have
gained by it. Perhaps if he had experienced that contact, he would not to-day have
recourse to the means which he is employing
to cast discredit on the scheme of Confederation, and to cause it to be rejected.
(Hear,
hear.) Among those men there are some who
are endowed with magnificent abilities, and at
whose side I should be happy and proud to
sit in a deliberative assembly. (Hear, hear.)
Yes, we were gainers by coming in contact
with them, and I venture to believe that, on
their parts, they were divested of many
prejudices which they may possibly have
entertained against us, just as we had some
such against them. The hon. member quoted
certain articles from the Journal de Québec
of 1856 and 1858 to prove that I said that
then the Government was the worst I
had ever seen. Perhaps I was right at the
time, but I could not say the same thing
since it has been my lot to look upon the
hon. member's Government! (Hear, and
laughter.) If there was ever a tyrannical
and dishonest Government, it was certainly
that of 1863, and accordingly it succumbed
before the attacks of all honest men. Except for some accident, such as that which
occurred in 1862, who ventures to hope
to see the hon. member return to power?
(Hear, hear.) He told us that it was not
expedient to change the Constitution without
first having recourse to an appeal to the
people. But the first question to be decided
is the constitutional question, and the question of expediency and convenience comes
after. He talks to us without ceasing of
consulting the electors. His doing so may
be easily understood; on the elections rest
his only hopes. Always deceived in every
election, he hopes, but hopes in vain, that
the next will give him the victory. He
ought to know, however, that our Constitution
is constructed upon the model of the British
Constitution, and that members do not and
cannot receive an imperative order from their
electors. Each representative, although
elected by one particular county, represents
the whole country, and his legislative responsibility extends to the whole of it.
If,
therefore, I am convinced that any legislative
measure presented by the Government or by
a member of this House, is of a nature to
save Lower Canada, I must vote for that
measure, even though my constituents are
opposed to it. My electors might punish
me afterwards, but they could not impose
upon me duties which I consider to be entirely beyond their jurisdiction, and to relate
to the very Constitution of the country.
(Hear, hear.) If there are any members
who consider that the scheme of Confederation is a bad one and opposed to the interests
of Lower Canada, even if the majority
of our people think otherwise, it is their duty
to oppose it on precisely the same principle.
They may also, if they choose, demand an
appeal to the people. But would they be
justified in so doing, and ought this House
699
to demand it simply in order to compensate for
that absence of opposition which gives incessant trouble to the hon. member for Hochelaga?
(Hear, hear.) The honorable member
for Hochelaga spoke of public meetings
held in certain counties in the district
of Montreal; but those meetings are far
from possessing the importance which he
assigns to them. We all know how they
can be got up everywhere, and what they
amount to. However the case may be there,
there have been none such in the district of
Quebec, and even in the district of Three
Rivers, against Confederation, and it cannot
be said that the members who represent
those districts, and who vote for this measure, are acting in opposition to the wishes
of their constituents. Such meetings are
only found to occur in the district of Montreal, where the party of the honorable
member is most strongly represented; but an
opinion may be formed as to those meetings
from what is going on at Quebec at this
moment. While the whole body of citizens
are calling for the suspension of the present
municipal council, some individuals interested in keeping it in authority are calling
public meetings in the nooks and corners of
the suburbs. (Hear, hear.) The honorable
member made tremendous efforts to prove
that the interests of our religion, our nationality and our institutions would be
in a
position of much greater safety in his hands
than they would be in those of the majority.
For my part, I am willing to leave to public
opinion the care of deciding that question;
and as he declares himself to hold that
opinion in great respect, I must suppose
that he will agree with me on this point.
(Hear, hear.) I would not assert that the
honorable member is himself personally hostile to the religion and the institutions
of
Lower Canada; but I may say that all the
tendencies of the party which he represents
are adverse to those same institutions.
(Hear, hear.) There is sufficient proof of
this in the writings and the acts of that
party. As to my opinion respecting Confederation, I may repeat here what I have
already said on a former occasion, and that
is, that no one knew what that opinion was,
how I should write, and on what side I
should write, when I began my work. I
kept silence that I might not be annoyed
either by friends or by opponents, and in
order that I might be able to judge of the
question in the fulness of my liberty.
(Hear.) Mention has been made of the
dangers of Confederation. I know that
every question has its dangers, and it is
probable that this one presents some such in
the same way as all others do; but the
greatest danger that we could incur would
be the bringing on of a conflict between the
Catholics and Protestants, by appeals like
those which certain members on the left
have made to the religious passions of our
population. (Hear, hear.) In what position should we find ourselves, we Catholics,
if we provoked such a conflict? The
258,000 Catholics of Upper Canada are represented in this House by but two members,
those for Cornwall and Glengarry
(Hon. J. S. and Mr. D. A. MACDONALD),
whilst the Protestants of Lower Canada are
represented by fifteen or sixteen members;
and in case of a conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants, what would become
of us? (Hear, hear.) From the justice,
the wisdom and the liberality of our acts
alone have we hitherto found our strength
and our protection to proceed, and from
them shall we again find them to proceed
under Confederation. (Hear.) The honorable member for Hochelaga quoted a
garbled portion of my first pamphlet, to give
it a meaning which it does not convey; he
then accuses me of having changed my
opinion as to the Constitution of the Legislative Council. But I can tell him that
I
have never changed my opinion on that
question; I have never been in favor of the
elective principle being applied to the Legislative Council; and if in 1858 I prepared
and introduced the law which changed the
constitution of that body, it was only that I
might gratify the universal opinion which
desired an elective Legislative Council.
But, the honorable member for Hochelaga
will reply, did you not write in 1858 :—
The best possible condition under which Confederation could exist would be that in
which the
two chambers would be elective, and would both
have population as the basis of their number; for
no other system, excepting that of having but one
chamber only, with the number of its members
based on population, would give as absolutely
one vote in three in the Federal Legislature.
Was the question then whether the elective
principle was preferable to that of appointment? No; we were discussing a question
of much greater importance, that of ascertaining in what condition of constitutional
existence we should find the greatest protec
700
tion, and having to select from two alternatives, numbers or the State, I preferred
numbers, because it would have conferred
upon us a larger share of representation and
of influence. The words which follow, and
which I will give, clearly prove my thought
at that time :—
The Constitution of the United States, on
which, perhaps, ours would be modeled, would
not give to us Lower Canadians the same protection and the same guarantee of safety,
as
by it we should in reality enjoy a little protection only in the House of Representatives,
in
which we should be one to three.
Thus the protection would have been vested
in the Legislative Council itself, if it had
been created on the principle of the State
and not of numbers. To shew that my mind
was then filled with but one idea—that of
obtaining the greatest share of influence in
the Federal Legislature for Lower Canada,
by any constitutional system whatever, I
also wrote in the same pamphlet :—
Under the Federal principle, small and great
provinces will carry equal weight in the single
(general) legislature; the little island of Prince
Edward as much as the twelve hundred and fifty
thousand souls of Lower Canada.
Having no information to go upon, I then
thought that the American system would be
adopted, which gives in the Federal Senate
to the little states of Rhode Island, Jersey,
Maine, Vermont and Connecticut the same
representation as it gives to the large states
of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. But
the scheme that we have before us proves
that I was mistaken, as Prince Edward's
Island, instead of having as many representatives in the Legislative Council as we
shall
have, will only have one-sixth of the number.
For the purpose of representation in the
Legislative Council, the three Atlantic Provinces are grouped together, and are to
be
represented together by but twenty-four
votes, just the same as Lower Canada.
(Hear, hear.) As the question was as to
the establishment of equilibrium between
the provinces, if the scheme of the Quebec
Conference gives me the same result as an
elective Legislative Council, what contradiction is there in my returning to the nominative
principle, which I always preferred to
the elective principle? The conditions of
equilibrium being the same, I give the preference to the principle which confers on
legislation the best guarantee of wisdom and
mature judgment. (Hear, hear.) But supposing—what is non the case-that I had
contradicted myself, in what way could my
contradictions have affected the merits of the
question under discussion? If it can be
proved that my opinions of to-day are not
based on reasonable grounds, let it be proved.
If it cannot be proved, do not let anyone
imagine that he has answered me by saying:
"You thought differently six years ago."
Because I reasoned in 1858 on hypotheses
which are controverted by facts to-day, must
I then, in order to appear consistent, adhere
to those suppositions which substantive
truths so completely contradict? (Hear,
hear.) The hon. member for Hochelaga
told us that the Constitution of the Belgian
Senate is less conservative than that of the
Legislative Council which we propose to
establish under the Confederation, because
the members of the Belgian Senate are in
part changed every four years. To this I
reply, that the conservative principle may he
found elsewhere than in the manner of selecting the councillors or the senators, and
that
in Belgium it is found in the excessively
high standard of qualification which is required of candidates for the Senate; so
much
so that only men of large fortune, who are
everywhere few in number, can aspire to
enter it. In Belgium the Constitution requires that there shall be one man qualified
in every six thousand souls of population,
and that man must pay one thousand florins
of direct taxes. Will it be said that the
Belgian Senate, so constituted, is not more
conservative than our Legislative Council
will be—the Belgian Senate, in which none
can sit but very rich men and large landed
proprietors? (Hear, hear.) I am answered
that one-half this Senate is renewed every
four years, and that the Crown may dissolve
it at pleasure. But can the Crown prevent
men of large fortune and large landped proprietors from entering it? It is proved
that
it is with difficulty that there can be found
in the House of Lords any scions of the
great families who flourished there under
CHARLES II.; but that House is constantly
recruited from among the territorial nobility
and from among men who render great political or military services to the state. By
renewing it thus with the same elements, does
the Crown take away its conservative character? (Hear, hear.) The hon. member
stands in perpetual dread of conflicts and
disagreements. Supposing that the House
of Lords had persisted in its opposition to
701
the Reform Bill in 1832, what would have
happened if WILLIAM IV. had refused to
overwhelm it by numerous nominations to
the peerage? Does any one believe that it
would have persisted to the last? No;
after having long resisted, it would have
bent before the storm which threatened to
sweep it away. (Hear, hear.) In 1832 the
struggle was between the great proprietors
and the middle classes, who wished to make
their way; for the English people, properly
termed the populace, have no political privileges; they are of no account in the Constitution,
they hold no political position, and
have no energy for the struggle, which,
moreover, would not be productive of any
benefit to them. It resembles in no respect
the populations of the great towns in France,
which make and unmake governments by
insurrections or revolutions. In England it
is the middle classes who make revolutions
or who threaten to make them. Growing
richer daily, they advance slowly but surely
towards the securing of political privileges
and immunities. The Radical school of
Manchester at bottom wishes for nothing
more, although it asserts that it is desirous of obtaining privileges for the people.
If the great nobility, in 1832,
offered such determined opposition to the
Reform Bill, it was because they feared that
it would annihilate their influence and place
them at the mercy of the will of the masses.
But we have no caste here, and fortune, like
political honors, is the property of every man
who labors to attain it. Here every one, if
he chooses, can almost without an effort become a proprietor and possess the right
of
having a deliberative voice in the discussion
of national questions of the highest importance. To be a legislative councillor it
will
be sufficient to possess real estate of the value
of four thousand dollars. The legislative
councillors will form part of the people, will
live with the people and by their opinions,
and will know and appreciate their wants;
the only difference that there will be between
them and the members of the House of
Commons will be, that being appointed for
life, they will not be as directly brought
under external influence; that they will
have more freedom of action and of thought,
and that they will be able to judge with
greater calmness of the legislation which
will be submitted to them. For what reason
then would they provoke contests which
would neither be conducive to their interests
nor in accordance with their feelings; they
will not, like the House of Lords, have privileges to save from destruction. In the
Constitution they will have but one part to
play, that of maturing legislation in the
interests of the people. The hon. member
for Hochelaga said in his last manifesto, and
repeated here, that if we applied to England
to amend our Constitution, we should expose
ourselves to having alterations, for which we
do not ask, made by some mischievous hand.
The thing is possible I admit. It is possible, as it is also possible for the Imperial
Parliament to change our Constitution without even waiting for us to take the initiative,
as it did in 1840, but if there is any harm
now in asking Great Britain for the Confederation of all the provinces, because she
may subject us to something which is not
contained in the scheme, why did the member for Hochelaga wish for constitutional
changes in 1858? Did he hope to change
the Constitutional Act of 1840 without the
concurrence of the Imperial Parliament?
And will he be good enough to tell us by what
supernatural proceeding he hoped to succeed
in doing so? If there is danger in 1865,
there must also have been danger in 1858.
Why then should he, to day, impute to others
as a crime that which he wished to do himself then? Has he forgotten all that?
Does he wish to deny it? Differing slightly
from the Bourbons, he has learned nothing
and has forgotten everything. (Hear, and
laughter.) To frighten us, he also spoke of
direct taxation, to which we should have to
submit, if we had Confederation. Now, in
his constitutional scheme of 1858, with
which we are all acquainted, he gave to the
Federal Government the customs revenue.
We should, therefore, have had to have recourse to direct taxation to meet the expenditure
of the local governments. The plan of
Constitution which is submitted to us treats
us better than that, for it gives us enough,
and more than we require, to ensure the
easy working of the local organizations.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—The hon. member for Chateauguay, who cries "Hear,
hear," ought to be satisfied if he thinks
himself in the right; for when he was
Minister of Finance he told us that in order
to fill up the deficit left by his predecessors,
he must necessarily have recourse to direct
taxation. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member
for Hochelaga has long wept over the mis
702
fortunes of his country. He has long lamented, like JEREMIAH, over the thought
of the disasters which were overwhelming it.
And at last, in 1858, enlightened by the intelligence of his luminous friend the member
for Chateauguay, he thought he had discovered in direct taxation the remedy for the
evils which were bringing it to its grave.
(Hear, hear.) But to-day he rejects a
scheme which may save the country without
its being necessary to have recourse to this
extreme and objectionable remedy. (Hear,
hear.) If the scheme becomes law, not
only shall we have a sufficient revenue
to meet our local expenditure, but we
shall also have a surplus with which,
if we practise wise economy, to pay off
by degrees the residue of the debt which
will remain to us. The hon. member for
Hochelaga tells us that Lower Canada will
be burthened with a local debt of more than
$4,500,000; but we have clear and palpable
proof that the debt of Canada, deducting the
part of the Sinking Fund which has been
paid, amounts to only $67,500,000. Now
our share of the Federal debt is established
at $62,500,000. There will consequently
remain less than $5,000,000 to be divided
between the two Canadas, and all the arguments of the hon. member will not change
so incontestable a fact as this. (Hear, hear.)
We do not get these figures from the Hon.
Minister of Finance. They are given to us
by a man who is perfectly independent of all
Ministers and of all parties—a man whom I
myself formerly reproached with being too
much so; I allude to Mr. LANGTON, the
Auditor of Accounts. (Hear, hear.) We
do not yet know, it is true, how this debt of
four millions and some hundred thousand
dollars will be divided between the two
Canadas, but we do know, without any possibility of doubt, that the local revenues
will
belong to the local governments, and
that they will amply suffice for all their
requirements. (Hear, hear.) The honorable
member for Hochelaga complains that Upper
Canada retains her public lands and what is
owing to Government on those lands, and he
maintains that Lower Canada ought to have
her share of what those lands produce. But
did those lands beleng to us before the
union, and have we not our own public
lands, together with the revenue accruing
from them? Have we not more lands to
settle than Upper Canada? Since the
discovery of our gold and copper mines the
amount produced by the sale of our public
lands has increased fivefold, whilst Upper
Canada has hardly any land left to sell. Let
our mines be opened, and we shall find that
we have no reason to envy Upper Canada.
(Hear, hear.) Everything is well adjusted;
for if we have a less considerable revenue
than Upper Canada, our population is also less
numerous. Upper Canada possesses a more
considerable revenue, but one which must
diminish with the decrease of the quantity of
land to be sold, whilst we have a revenue
which is gradually increasing. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member would no doubt hand over
the public lands to the Confederation so as
to be in accordance with his plan of 1859,
as set forth in the Montreal manifesto; but
I am certain that Lower Canada does not
share his opinion. He talked to us also of
marriage and divorce. He said: " Now,
you will not vote directly for divorce, but
you vote to establish divorce courts." Well!
no one condemns divorce more than I do
myself, and I am convinced that the hon.
member for Hochelaga would accept it
sooner than I would. But if no mention
was made of divorce in the Constitution,
if it was not assigned to the Federal Parliament, it would of necessity belong to
the
local parliaments as it belongs to our Legislature now, although there is not one
word
respecting it in the Union Act. For my
part, I would rather see that power removed
to a distance from us, since it must exist
somewhere in spite of us. (Hear, hear.)
These reasonings on the question of marriage
are extraordinary to a degree, coming from
a man holding a position at the bar. They
are so extraordinary, and so inconsistent
with all logic and all law, that I shall not
take the trouble of controverting them. The
explanations of the Government have satisfied me on that point. The legislative power
of the Federal Parliament in relation to
marriage will only be that which is conferred
by the Constitution, notwithstanding the
singular assertions of the honorable member.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
On motion of
Dr. PARKER, the debate
was then adjourned.
This individual participated in:
