702
TUESDAY, 7th March, 1865.
The Order of the Day being read for resuming the adjourned debate on Confederation,—
703
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said—
Before the debate is resumed, I wish to say a
few words. I would call the attention of the
House to the telegram received to-day—which
is rather confused in its terms—with reference
to a debate in the House of Lords on the
subject of the defences of Canada. According
to this telegram, "Earl DE GREY, Secretary of
State for War, admitted the importance of the
question, but regretted that any doubt should
be expressed of the conciliatory intentions of
the Americans. The Government would ask
a vote of ÂŁ50,000 for the Quebec defences,
while the Canadians would undertake the defences of Montreal and westward." The
amount, according to another statement, is
ÂŁ30,000. The figures are apparently a mistake for ÂŁ300,000. My object in rising was
to state that so far as we could gather from
this confused summary of the debate, the
Imperial Government were about to ask a
a certain amount for the defences of Quebec,
while the Canadians would undertake the
defence of Montreal and the country westward. I may state it is quite true that
the Imperial Government made a proposition
some time ago to the effect that they were
willing and prepared to recommend to Parliament a vote for the defence of Quebec,
as is
here stated, provided this province undertook
the defence of Montreal and points westward.
Negotiations have been going on on this question between the Imperial Government and
the Canadian Government ever since, and I
think that there is every reason to believe
that these negotiations will result most favorably, and that arrangements will be
made in a
manner such as to secure the defence of
Canada, both east and west—in a manner
such as to ensure the fullest protection to the
country, and as at the same time will not press
unduly on the energies of the people. (Hear.)
Sir, these negotiations are still proceeding
—they have not yet concluded—and it must
be obvious to every honorable member who
has read this short synopsis of the debate in
the Imperial Parliament, that it is of the
greatest possible importance that Canada
should not be unrepresented in England at
the present time. (Cheers.) It must be
evident to all that some of the leading members of the Administration should be in
England at this juncture, for the purpose of
attending to Canadian interests, and of concluding these negotiations without any
loss of
time whatever. (Hear, hear.) It is desirable,
as I stated yesterday, that the two questions
of Federation and Defence should be discussed
at the same moment, and that the opportunity
should be taken of exactly ascertaining
the position of British North America with
respect to her degree of reliance on the Imperial Government in a political sense,
as well
as with regard to the question of defence.
Therefore, there should not be any loss of
time whatever, and with that view the Government would ask this House—as the discussion
has already gone on to a considerable
length, and a great many honorable gentlemen
have spoken on the subject—that it will offer
no undue delay in coming to a conclusion in
this matter. Of course the Government would
not attempt to shut down the floodgates against
all discussion; but they would merely ask
and invite the House to consider the importance of as early a vote as the house can
properly allow to be taken upon this question.
It is for the House to determine whether the
Federation scheme which has been proposed
by the Government and laid before the House
is one which, with all its faults, should be
adopted, or whether we shall be thrown upon
an uncertain future. In order that the House
may at once come to an understanding in the
matter, I shall, as I stated yesterday, take
every possible step known to parliamentary
usage to get a vote as soon as it can conveniently be got, and I have therefore now
to
move the previous question. (Ironical Opposition cheers and counter cheering.) I move,
sir, that the main question be now put.
(More cheering.) Honorable gentlemen opposite know very well that my making this
motion does not in any way stop the debate.
(Hear, hear.) The House will be gratified
to hear, and will still have an opportunity of
hearing, from the honorable member from
Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON), who cries
"Hear, hear," an expression of opinion
whether this scheme is so objectionable that
the House would be wise in rejecting it, with
nothing now offered as a substitute, and no
future to look to. It will afford us all great
pleasure to hear the honorable gentleman say
whether we should adept this scheme. There
is an independent motion on the paper of my
honorable friend from Peel (Hon. J. H.
CAMERON). My motion does not interfere
with that. But if the House should consider
that this scheme ought to be adopted, my
honorable friend will then have an opportunity
of proposing his motion. (Hear, hear.)
THE SPEAKER—If honorable gentlemen
desire it, I will read the rule of the House as
to the previous question. The 35th rule of
the House is as follows:—" The previous
704
question, until it is decided, shall preclude all
amendments to the main question" —(ironical
Opposition cheers)—" and shall be in the
following word:—' That this question be now
put.' It the previous question be resolved in
the affirmative, the original question is put
forthwith, without amendment or debate."
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. CARTIER—Mr. SPEAKER, I
second the motion. (Derisive Opposition
cheers.)
THE SPEAKER—The motion is that
this question be now put.
HON. MR. HOLTON—I shall not on this
occasion, sir, make any remarks as to the
mode of proceeding adopted by the Honorable
Attorney General West, further than this,
that a friend, an honorable member of this
House, intimated to me yesterday that this
course was likely to be pursued by the Government in order to crowd this measure
through the House. I scouted the idea. I
thought it was impossible that a government,
numbering in its ranks public men who have
played a prominent part in the parliamentary
history of this country for some years, could
resort to so base a trick—(cheers and counter cheers)— after having introduced this
measure in the manner they have done—after
having introduced it in a most unparliamentary and unconstitutional manner—and seeing
that amendments would be made to several
of the propositions contained in the resolutions adopted by the Conference which assembled
in Quebec, they shut off all opportunity
to amend the measure by moving the previous
question. (Hear, hear.) Why was it not
stated by the Honorable Attorney General
West himself that we would be able to get
at the sense of the House upon every one of
the propositions, by moving amendments?
(Hear, hear.) In full confidence that that
pledge would be kept, when my honorable
friend who sits near me told me he had reason
to believe that this very course was in contemplation, I repeat I scouted the idea.
(Hear, hear.) I shall not offer any further
observations on this point at the present moment, beyond remarking that if the object
be
to curtail debate, as the honorable gentleman
says it is—if his real motive be in truth to arrive at an early vote upon this question—his
own statement shows how utterly futile his
motion is to accomplish that end. It was
not at all necessary that the honorable gentleman should have told us that we may
discuss the previous question. We are now,
by a compact which I presume will not be
violated—although I do not know what attempt will be made next—we are practically
in Committee of the Whole, with liberty to
speak as often as we please on this question.
Therefore, the object stated by the honorable
gentleman cannot be attained, but another
object can be and will be attained—they will
take their followers, whom they have already
led on to do things of which they will bitterly
repent when they come face to face with
their constituents, and drag them still
further through the mire—(cheers and counter cheers)—by depriving them of the opportunity
of putting on record their views, even
in the inconvenient form of amendments, upon
the various propositions which are proposed
to be embodied in this Address to the Crown.
(Hear, hear.) Sir, the honorable gentleman
says that the information received by telegraph in reference to the defences renders
it
necessary that an early decision should be
come to in the matter of Federation. But
what has been the course of the honorable
gentlemen opposite, throughout this debate,
when the subject of the defences has been referred to? When we have said—" Put us
in
possession of the necessary information to
consider the subject of the defences, which
must be discussed in connection with the
scheme of Confederation," what has been the
reply? Why, that there was no natural or
necessary connection between the two subjects. (Hear, hear.) Thus, when the honorable
gentlemen were asked to bring down the
information in regard to the defences, they
have maintained that there is no connection
between the two questions; but when they
have a purpose to serve by so doing, they reverse their position and say, "By all
means
rush this thing through with all possible speed,
in order that the country may be placed in a position of defence." I think, sir, we
are entitled
at this stage of the debate, and under these
circumstances, to demand that all the information in possession of the Government
in
regard to the defences, should be laid before
the House. I believe there is no better recognized parliamentary rule than this, that
when a Minister of the Crown rises in his
place in Parliament and refers to despatches
on matters of public importance, these despatches must be laid before the House. It
is founded on the same rule which prevails in
our courts, which requires that any paper referred to in evidence or argument, in
order
to be of use, must be in the possession of the
court. I should like to ask the Hon. Attorney
General West the question—and I pause for
705
an answer—whether it is the intention of the
Government, before pressing this resolution
to a vote, to place the House in possession of
the information for which I am now seeking?
HON. MR. HOLTON—The honorable
gentleman says it certainly is not. And
yet he asks us to give a vote, in view of
information which he withholds, not merely on the question of the defences, but of
Confederation as well. If the honorable
gentleman had used the arguments for
withholding information which he has
put forth, if the proposition were simply
a money vote to place the country in a
state of defence, there might be some reason
in it, but he is using them to induce us
to vote for a political scheme embracing all
sorts of things other than the question of
defence. The position the hon. gentleman
now assumes is unconstitutional; but being
unconstitutional, it is in perfect keeping with
the whole course of this Administration
since its formation in June last, when it
initiated its existence by pledging the Crown,
in a written document, not to exercise the
prerogative of dissolution until another
session of this Parliament should have been
held. (Hear, hear.) I say that their course
in this instance is in keeping with every
step they have taken since their formation.
Well, sir, I have put one question to the Hon.
Attorney General West, and I propose now,
with the leave of my hon. friend the
member for North Wellington, who is
entitled to the floor, to put another question.
He may answer it or not, as he thinks
proper; but the country will draw its own
inference from his reply. Yesterday, he
stated that in consequence of the result of
the New Brunswick elections, it had become
tolerably apparent that this scheme had
received its first check. In other words, he
admitted plainly that the result of the New
Brunswick elections was adverse to the
scheme. I may add, that he knows very
well a majority of the present Parliament of
Nova Scotia is adverse to it.
HON. MR. HOLTON—I say, yes; and in
the Island of Prince Edward, there is no
probability whatever of the scheme being
accepted. Well, notwithstanding this, he
says that he shall press this measure to a
vote. A. question was put yesterday, which
was answered; but there is some misapprehension as to the purport of the answer,
and I think it will be admitted to be a
question in regard to which there should
not be any misapprehension whatever.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Well, I admit the
obtuseness of my understanding. The
question I desire to ask the leader of the
Government is this—Is it the intention of
the Government to press for Imperial legislation, under the Address which they are
now inviting the House to adopt, affecting
the Lower Provinces, or any of them, without the concurrence of those provinces?
That is the question I desire to ask the hon.
gentleman.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—It is
not the intention of the Canadian Government to press the Imperial Government to
pass any act whatever.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Then clearly the
hon. gentleman was misunderstood yesterday. He then stated that it was of the
highest possible importance this measure
should pass without delay, in order that the
Ministry might go home and consult with
the Imperial Government in respect to the
bill to be introduced to give effect to this
Address.
MR. RANKIN—The Government do not
intend to "press" for Imperial legislation.
HON. MR. HOLTON—I do not want to
quibble about mere words. What I want to
know is—whether, in pursuance of this
Address, hon. gentlemen intend to ask, or
have any reason to expect that the Imperial
Government—(Hon. Mr. BROWN—" Oh!
oh!")—or have any reason to expect that
the Imperial Government will legislate without the concurrence of the Lower Provinces?
Whether, in point of fact, if the concurrence
of the Lower Provinces be withheld from
the scheme of the Conference, he has reason
to believe that legislation can be had thereon?
I desire to know, first, whether he intends to
ask for such legislation; and, second, whether
he thinks it can be had?
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I
think the House, and even the hon. gentleman himself, must see the unreasonableness
of the question he asks, which is, whether
I have any expectation that the British
Government will enact some compulsory
law against the will of the Lower Pro
706
vinces on the question of Federation. All
that I can say is, that I have no better means
of forming an opinion on the subject than the
hon. gentleman himself. What I stated
yesterday I repeat to-day, that the Canadian
Government, knowing that the opinion of
the people of New Brunswick has been
expressed against Federation, would embrace the earliest opportunity of discussing
with the Imperial Government the
position of British North America, especially
with reference to the present state of affairs
in Canada, containing a population of four-
fifths of the people of British North America,
in favor of Federation, as against New
Brunswick, with a population of two hundred odd thousand against it. In discussing
the question with Her Majesty's Imperial
advisers, we shall probably enter into the
consideration of the whole matter; but
what the nature of these discussions may be,
or what they will lead to or will not lead to,
I cannot possibly say. They may lead to
conclusions, but what those conclusions may
be no mortal man can tell. We cannot say
to what conclusions the Imperial Government may come. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—I am obliged to
the honorable gentleman for his courteous
answer. I think it is, on the whole, a satisfactory answer, because the answer plainly
implies this, that without the concurrence
of the Lower Provinces this measure cannot
go on. That is the plain implication. We
know well that we shall not have the concurrence of the Lower Provinces, and therefore
it is absurd to ask this House to vote a
measure which the honorable gentlemen
themselves, as they have risen one after
another in the course of this debate, have
declared to be an imperfect measure—a
measure of compromise—not such a measure
as they, in many respects, desired and advocated, but a measure which they had concurred
in for the purpose of inducing the
Lower Provinces to become parties to it.
Why, I ask, should this House be called
upon to vote for the objectionable features
of a scheme, when there is no longer any
reason for such a vote—when it is admitted
that the Lower Provinces, for whose sake
these objectionable features were introduced,
will not consent and cannot be coerced into
it? (Hear, hear.) The Hon. President of the
Council told the people of Toronto, at the
banquet recently held there, that he was
entirely opposed to the new constitution of
the Legislative Council, and that he op
posed it in the Conference. We know also
that that feature of the scheme is very objectionable to the whole of what might once
have been called the Liberal party, but the
Hon. President of the Council has destroyed
that party, and it is not, perhaps, right to
speak of it as the Liberal party any longer—
they are only now to be known as those who
once ranged themselves together, in Upper
and Lower Canada, under the Liberal banner.
The Hon. President of the Council stated, that
as representing in the Conference the Liberal
party of Upper Canada—the Liberal party of
Lower Canada having no representation in
the Conference at all—as representing the
Liberal party of Upper Canada, the party
from that section which is in a large majority in this House, the honorable gentleman
stated that he was opposed to this
feature of the scheme—a feature which is
known to be as unpalatable to a large
majority of this House as it is to the hon.
gentleman himself. I merely mention this
to illustrate my argument. Why should
hon. gentlemen, who were disposed to accept
this scheme as a whole, notwithstanding
these objectionable features—who were disposed to accept it, on the grounds set forth
by their leaders, as a measure of compromise
—why, I ask, should they now be called
upon to vote in opposition to their convictions, merely to gratify the
amour-propre
of the hon. gentlemen on the Treasury
benches, whose desire it is to carry through
the House an Address which, by their own
admission made to this House, must be of
non-effect? (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—The hon. gentleman boasts that it will be the Constitution of
this country?
HON. MR. HOLTON—The hon. gentleman said "of this country." The hon.
gentleman, therefore, admits that if he fails
in procuring the concurrence of the Lower
Provinces to the measure—that, if they
cannot be brought into the scheme for reconstructing their Governments—they are
going to ask the Imperial Government to
found a Constitution for the two Canadas
upon these resolutions.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—The
707
hon. gentleman has drawn erroneous inferences from what I stated. When I said
I had no doubt that the resolutions now
before the House would be the Constitution
of this country, I meant to say I had no
more doubt than that I stand here that it
would be adopted not only by Canada, but
by the other provinces.
HON. MR. HOLTON—I have not had
the same training as the honorable gentleman
in the way of word twisting. I take his
words in their plain and literal sense. He
says he has no doubt that these resolutions
will form the Constitution of this country.
Then, sir, why do not honorable gentlemen
keep faith? Why does not the Hon. President
of the Council, in an especial manner, keep
faith with his party, by giving us the scheme
which he pledged himself, in the event of
such a contingency as this, should be
brought down during this session of Parliament? The honorable gentleman does not
find it convenient to answer. I confess I
did not expect an answer; but nevertheless
I thought it desirable to put the question to
him. I, equally with other members of the
House, can draw my inferences from his
silence. He knows very well it is a violation of the programme under which he
entered the Government; and well he knows
that it is a departure from the avowal which
constituted, I will not say his justification,
but his sole excuse for occupying the seat
which he now fills. The question is now
asked whether it is intended by the Government to go to England and ask the Imperial
Parliament to establish a Constitution for
this country, the principles of which have
never been considered, because we are considering now the scheme of Federation for
the whole country ?
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I
stated that the first thing to be done by the
Government, in the summer session, would
be to submit a measure for fully carrying
out the programme First, carry Confederation, and when we met again we would
bring in a scheme for the local governments of Upper and Lower Canada.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Yes, local governments. I am obliged to the honorable
gentleman for reminding me of the local
governments; but I was speaking of the
General Government of Canada. (Hear,
hear.) I think it follows irresistibly from
the admission of the hon. gentleman to-day,
that it is their intention to seek a general
Constitution for Canada under these resolutions, without ever having submitted that
question to the House. Well, sir, there is
another reason perhaps for the course taken
by hon. gentlemen yesterday and pursued
to-day. It has always been a theory of my
own—perhaps it has not yet been demonstrated by facts—
HON. MR. HOLTON—I say it has always
been a theory of my own, and facts are
rapidly demonstrating the truth of that
theory, that this Government was formed in
consequence of the emergencies of certain
gentlemen who were in office, and desired to
retain ofiice, and of certain other gentlemen
who were out of office and who desired to
come in. I believe that the whole constitutional difficulties, or alleged constitutional
difficulties, of this country arose from the
personal or rather the political emergencies
into which certain hon. gentlemen found
themselves, from causes to which I shall not
now advert. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, feeling
that this scheme has failed—feeling that the
pretext upon which they have held office
for six or nine months is about to fail them,
they devise other means, as a sort of lure to
the country, whereby office may be kept for
a further period. I admit the dexterity with
which the thing is done—a dexterity for
which the Hon. Attorney General West has
long been famous in this country. His
theory is: "Take care of to-day—when
to-morrow comes we will see what can be
done"—and by adhering to this maxim he
has managed to lengthen out the term of his
political existence. That, I believe, will be
acknowledged to be the theory upon which
the hon. gentleman acts.
HON. MR. HOLTON—A sensible theory
no doubt it is. I am glad to hear that the
hon. gentleman does not deny the fact; but
while admitting that he has achieved a considerable measure of success in this way,
whether, after all that success, he has earned
the highest kind of reward of a public life—
whether there is anybody who speaks or
thinks of the hon. gentleman as a statesman,
may perhaps be doubted. It is admitted
708
that he is an adroit manager—his management being based on the theory of doing
to-day what must be done to-day, and of
leaving till to-morrow whatever can be deferred. I doubt, however, after all, whether,
when the hon. gentleman comes to review his
career, he will be satisfied that that sort of
policy brings with it the highest rewards of
public life.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I
shall be quite satisfied to allow the hon.
member for Chateauguay to be my biographer. (Laughter.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—But while that
has been his theory and his practice, and a
certain degree of success has attended it, I
would like to ask the Hon. President of the
Council whether he has heretofore acted upon
that theory, and whether he can quite afford to
act upon it now? Most of us remember—
those of us who have been for a few years in
public life in this country, must remember a
very striking speech delivered by the hon.
member for South Oxford (Honorable Mr.
BROWN), in Toronto, in the session of 1856
or 1857—he has delivered many striking
speeches in his time, but this was one of the
most striking—in which he described the
path of the Hon. Attorney General West as
being studded all along by the grave-stones
of his slaughtered colleagues. (Hear, hear.)
Well, there are not wanting those who think
they descry in the not very remote distance,
a yawning grave waiting for the noblest
victim of them all. (Laughter) And I
very much fear, that unless the hon. gentleman has the courage to assert his own original
strength—and he has great strength—
and to discard the blandishments and the
sweets of office, and to plant himself where
he stood formerly, in the affections and confidence of the people of this country,
as the
foremost defender of the rights of the people,
as the foremost champion of the privileges of
a free Parliament—unless he hastens to do
that, I very much fear that he too may fall
a victim—as I have said, the noblest victim
of them all—to the arts, if not the arms, of
the fell destroyer. (Laughter.) I desire,
as I am on my feet—and am not at all
certain that I shall, under the new phase of
things, trouble the House with any lengthened observations—I desire to say a few
words on the merits of this question of
defence. Of course I hold, as I resume
every man in this country holds, that the
people that will not defend themselves are
unworthy of free institutions. I hold
that we must defend ourselves against all
aggressors, in the best way we can. I think
the policy we have been pursuing for some
years past, of enrolling our people and training them to the use of arms and in military
exercise, and in the instructing of officers
who might lead them, should necessity require—I think all that is sound policy. I
would even go somewhat further in that
direction than we have gone heretofore. But
if honorable gentlemen propose that we
should establish a standing army—that we
should equip a navy—that we should go
into a costly system of permanent fortifications, they are proposing what is beyond
the strength of the country—they are proposing what will speedily bring financial
ruin on the country—and by bringing financial ruin on the country, and by creating
thereby dissatisfaction among the people,
they will prepare the way to that very event
which they profess so strongly to deprecate.
I believe, if it has not that effect, it will
certainly result in depopulating our country.
Already the work of depopulation is going
on.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Throughout the
whole of the western counties of Canada, at
the present moment, there is a greater
amount of financial distress and of
malaise
than I have known for twenty-five years. I
challenge the honorable gentlemen around me
to contradict the statement. And I say we
are not in a position to stand very great additional burdens on our resources. (Hear,
hear.) Then what is the condition of our
finances? The honorable gentleman who
presides over our finances did not venture
the other day to dispute the statement I
made, that every branch of the revenue was
falling off, and that we had an inevitable
deficit for this current year staring us in the
face. Is it not so?
HON. MR. GALT—The hon. gentleman
may repeat his own statement, but he must
not put it in my mouth.
HON. MR. HOLTON—The hon. gentleman did not venture to deny it, and I
thought the gravity of the statement was
such that he would have denied it, if he
could.
HON. MR. GALT—Make your statement
on your own responsibility, not mine.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Then, I say, on
my own responsibility, that every branch of
the revenue has been falling off since the
709
begînning of this year, except the comparatively small amount from bill stamps.
HON. MR. GALT —Do you say every
branch of the revenue, with the exception
you mention?
HON. MR. GALT—Then you will be
shewn that it is not so, when you sit down.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—Of course I shall
be glad to hear it. That is the sort of information we want before we give hon. gentlemen
a vote of credit, and allow them to go
to England to do as they please for the next six
months. It may be that the revenue has been
brought up within the last few weeks from
accidental causes. A rumor got abroad that
the Hon. Finance Minister intended to make
a change in the duties, and in two or three
of our large cities a rush was made to the
bonding warehouses, in order to save the
additional amount that would be exacted by
the change in duties. This, no doubt, increased the receipts for the time being, and
it is just possible that from that cause the
revenue may have regained something of
what it had lost during the earlier weeks of
the present year. Then, too, the state of
our securities in England—which was so
much improved, according to the statement
of the Hon. President of the Council, by the
action of the Quebec Conference,—is now
anything indeed but satisfactory. I believe
that with the exception of the point they
touched at one time in October, or early in
November, and which they touched then for
a very brief space—they are lower now and
have been lower for a longer time than they
have been at any period before since the
union. I think, therefore, we are not in a
position to impose heavy and unmeasured
burdens upon our people, for the purpose of
establishing a standing army, or for the purpose of constructing permanent fortifications.
(Hear, hear.) But I have said more than
I intended when I rose, and shall no longer
deprive my hon. friend from North Wellington (Dr. PARKER) of the floor.
HON. MR. BROWN—I shall detain the
House but a very few minutes in replying
to the hon. gentleman who has just taken
his seat. As regards his statement that the
revenue has fallen off to the extent of which
he speaks, in every branch, it is entirely
erroneous. It will be shewn when the proper time comes, when the House is asked to
grant supplies, that the revenue is very far
from being in the hopeless position which
the hon. gentleman has stated. And I apprehend his assertion with regard to the
condition of the province is as greatly exaggerated as his other statement. It is
very
true that many portions of our country unfortunately labor at this moment under
considerable depression ; but no intelligent
person, who considers the circumstances, will
think that this is at all extraordinary. We
are alongside a country engaged in a fearful
war. Our commercial relations with that
country, with which we usually have immense transactions, are very greatly disturbed.
Then we have had short crops for
several years, and our banks are all very
properly under close-reefed topsails. These
and other causes have contributed to produce
the stagnation that now exists, and a general
disposition to curtail business operations.
(Hear, hear.) But with all this—notwithstanding the scarcity of money, and a good
deal of embarrassment and suffering from its
scarcity—I venture to affirm that the great
branches of our national industry were never
on a sounder basis; that business men have
not for years owed less debt than at- this
moment ; and when a better state of things
sets in, the evils of which the hon. gentleman
speaks will not be found to have been very
deep-seated. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman is exceedingly anxious that I should
fulfil the promises I made to the country at
the time I entered this Administration.
The hon. gentleman, I think, would show a
little more discretion if he allowed me to
judge for myself of the best way in which I
should fulfil those promises. When, in the
short space of six months, the Government
have come down with a matured scheme, involving such important changes, and placed
it
before Parliament in the candid way in which
they have submitted it, I think the country has
no good cause to complain, either of time
having been lost in the fulfilment of my
promises, or in the manner of fulfilling them
(Hear, hear.) And I think it ill-becomes
the hon. gentleman—when he has heard it
declared that, notwithstanding what has
occurred in New Brunswick, we still adhere
to the basis on which the Government was
formed—that all we ask is time to ascertain
how our scheme can best be carried into
effect—and that in the brief period of a very
few weeks we will be prepared to meet Parliament again, and declare the result
of our enquiries—I do say it ill becomes
an honorable gentleman, professing to be
in favor of constitutional changes, to get up
710
here and endeavor to create an unfounded
prejudice against those who are thus
shewing in every way their determination to
discharge fully and promptly their duty to
the country. The honorable gentleman says
I have broken up the Liberal party. He says
there was a Liberal party in Upper Canada
and a Liberal party in Lower Canada, who
were acting cordially together, and that I
have destroyed the harmony which existed
between them. I shall not enter into that
discussion now. The time will come when
it can be fully gone into without danger to
public interests, and I promise the honorable
gentleman to give him his answer. But I
have this to state in the meantime to the honorable gentleman, that I think it is
not for
him at least to throw such taunts across the
table, when he recollects that in a speech he
made in this House only last session, on the
announcement of this Coalition, he stated
that he could make no complaint as to the
course I had taken ; that under the circumstances I could only act as I had done.
(Hear,
hear.) If he can find any act of mine in
contradiction of the course I took then, he
has a right to blame me. But so long as I
am carrying out in good faith the pledges I
gave to the country, to my supporters, and to
this House, it is not from that honorable gentleman at all events that any charge
against
me should come. (Hear, hear.) The honorable gentleman says that the proposal for a
union of all the colonies has failed. I totally
deny it. (Hear, hear.) I am not prepared
to admit—I do not believe—that the representatives of New Brunswick, when the subject
is fairly discussed in Parliament, and the
proposition has been presented in all its lights,
will reject it. When they do so, it will be
time enough for the honorable gentleman to
assert that the scheme has failed. Strange
indeed would it have been had so large a
scheme suffered no check in its progress—but
stranger still would it be were the promoters
of the measure to abandon it from such a
check as this. (Cheers.) The honorable
member for Chateauguay is mistaken also
when he asserts that the majority of the
members of the Nova Scotia Legislature are
against this measure of Confederation.
HON. MR. BROWN—Having heard that
the honorable member for Hochelaga had
made such a statement to this House—
HON. MR. BROWN—I think it better not
to ask for the honorable gentleman's authority,
or to use any names in such a matter as this.
But I wish to say that the moment I heard
that the statement had been made, I telegraphed to a friend in the Nova Scotia Legislature,
and received an answer entirely
contradicting the statement which had been
made.
HON. MR. BROWN—I apprehend it is
for them to decide when they shall go on—
what is the right moment for them to go on—
and not for the honorable member for Chateauguay, who is entirely opposed to this
measure.
HON. MR. DORION—There is strong
presumptive evidence in favor of my authority
against yours.
HON. MR. BROWN—That I must leave
to the House to judge. The honorable member for Chateauguay says the motion made by
the Hon. Attorney General West does not meet
the point at which it is aimed, namely, to bring
this debate to a speedy conclusion. He says
it may cut off amendments, but that it will
not stop debate. But that is an entire mistake. It is the only mode by which the debate
can speedily be brought to an end.
HON. MR. DORION—Honorable gentlemen opposite want to stop the debate, besides
stopping the amendments. That is the object.
HON. MR. BROWN—If the honorable
member for Hochelaga had waited till he had
heard me out, he would have found I had no
such meaning. With regard to the main
proposition, honorable gentlemen may speak
as long as they like. So long as the House
does not come to the conclusion that the time
has arrived for getting a vote upon that, they
can talk.
HON. MR. BROWN—Of course, no one
can prevent them. And, so far as I am concerned, I can assure the honorable member
for Cornwall that I have no desire to prevent
him or any one else from being heard to the
fullest extent they desire. But, since the
beginning of this debate, we have constantly
seen incidental questions raised and the
same members getting up night after night to
make long speeches upon them and kill time,
to a degree never witnessed before, I venture
to assert, in this or in any other legislative
body. And it is evident that if this motion
were not put, we should have these debates
continued on a variety of amendments, and
711
that this discussion would be kept up to an
extent which would utterly frustrate the
prompt accomplishment of those great purposes for which this Government was formed.
(Hear, hear)
HON. MR. EVANTUREL—As one of the
friends of the present Administration, I must
say that I am surprised by the conduct of the
Government and the extreme position in which
they choose to place themselves. For my part,
I am in favour of the principle of Confederation, and one of those who maintain that
by
means of that principle the rights and liberties of each of the contracting parties
may be
preserved; but, on the other hand, I am of
opinion, and I do not disguise it from myself,
that it may be so applied as to endanger and
even destroy, or nearly so, the rights and
privileges of a state which is a party to this
Confederation. Everything, therefore, depends
on the conditions of the contract. As a friend
of the Administration I can understand, as
well as any one, that any Confederation and
particularly such a one as this which is now
laid before us, can only be brought about by
means of a compromise; and, on this account,
Mr. SPEAKER—and it is probably needless to
proclaim it here—I am ready and disposed
to go to as great a length as it is possible for
any man to go. I am also one of those who,
when we are called upon to unite, under the
aegis of a strong government, the different
provinces of British North America, and
when I see that the general interest calls for
such a union, will give my cordial support to
all who seek to establish such a government.
I shall always be prepared to meet them halfway; but when the question assumes a different
shape, as it now does, and when, in consequence of the events announced to this
House yesterday, the Constitution proposed to
us seems to concern none but the provinces of
Upper and Lower Canada, I say, Mr. SPEAKER, that the compromise between the different
provinces no longer existing, we are no
longer called upon to be so generous. I say
that if we admit that New Brunswick, by its
recent repudiation, and Nova Scotia and Prince
Edward Island are no longer parties to the
contracts agreed on between the provinces,
and we have new to ask of England to
modify the Constitution only in relation to
the two Canadas, I say that the conditions
are no longer the same as they concern us—
(hear, hear) —and that I am on that account
much less disposed to allow the Government
to proceed to present in England, as the basis
of our future Constitution, the resolutions
which we have been compelled to accept in
very unfavorable circumstances. I do not
hesitate in saying that the position assumed
by the Government is a very dangerous one
for themselves, and for those who would gladly assist them to pass a good scheme of
Confederation. If I understand aright, the intention of the Government, in moving
the
previous question, is to place their friends in
the awkward position of not being able to
move any modification of the plan. In our
altered position we are going, therefore, to
say to England that we were obliged to submit to such and such concessions in order
to
come to an understanding; that the other
provinces have backed out of the bargain,
notwithstanding these onerous concessions and
the compromise which we were obliged to
make, and which have not been accepted by
the other parties; and that, in the face of all
this, we come to pray that our Constitution
may be altered so as to accord with those
very same onerous conditions which we had
accepted at the Quebec Conference. Why
tie us down so strictly now? Why should
we not avail ourselves of the retrogression of
the provinces to make alterations in the
scheme which will be less onerous for us? I
think it my duty to declare that the Government, in acting as they have done, place
their
friends in a very awkward position. For my
part, Mr. SPEAKER, I am strongly in favor
of Confederation, and am ready to support the
Government in their efforts to release the
chariot of the state from the position in
which it now lies; but I wish, on the other
hand—and I think it is but bare justice to say
it—I wish that Ministers should place us in
such a position before the country, that I and
all others may be able to say that we have
done our best to improve the situation. This is
why I so deeply regret that the Government
have thought fit to take their present arbitrary
attitude. (Hear, hear.) I acknowledge, with
the Administration, that time is precious;
but we ought not, in avoiding one danger, to
risk falling into another. I acknowledge
also that the course of events which has
taken place within a few days gives reason
to apprehend that British rule in the provinces of British North America may cease
altogether in a few years. I admit all these
dangers, Mr. SPEAKER; but on the other
hand I do not conceal from myself that the
extreme position in which we are placed does
not tend to diminish them. On the contrary, I
am greatly afraid that if public opinion be
too deeply stirred by the imposition of a new
712
Constitution, without liberty on our part to
amend it, the danger will be increased rather
than diminished. So far, Lower Canada has
sufficiently showed, by the voice of her leaders,
that she is prepared to make all possible concessions; but after that, would it be
prudent
to render her dissatisfied by denying us the
right of modifying the proposed plan in some
degree. We have been obliged, in order to
satisfy the public mind, to allege, and truly,
that the Ministry had been compelled to make
some concessions to the provinces for the general
satisfaction; but now that the contracting
parties to the plan of Confederation retreat
from their engagements, after having imposed
on us compromises and exacted concessions,
why should we, at a critical time like the
present, proceed to submit our position to the
Imperial Parliament, exactly as if the Provinces had been true to their pledges? I
am
of opinion, Mr. SPEAKER, that this is asking
too much of us, and that as the Lower provinces are evidently no longer in the mind
to
be united with us, we French-Canadians should
be greatly in the wrong if we presented our
case with the same conditions as we were led
to accept, in compliance with the requirements of the sister colonies. I think that
both Upper and Lower Canada are now
entitled to present themselves much more
favorably before the Imperial Parliament, and that they may say—" These are
concessions which we had made, it is true, for
the sake of the common good; but the Maritime Provinces have now gone back from their
engagements, and their present desire is
either to remain independent or to enter the
American Republic! We have done our duty,
and we are still ready to remain faithful
to our engagements, which we had entered
into with the contracting parties; but as they
gave us up, and the concessions which we
made are not now held by them to be sufficient, we are come to plead our own cause
before you, and to tell you that the interests
of Lower Canada now require better guarantees than we had been obliged to accept from
the Maritime Provinces, for the sake of coming to an amicable conclusion. We now come
to request that England will be more favourable to us, and relieve us from our difficulties
by making constitutional changes less disadvantageous to us." In such a case, I believe
that the Imperial Government would not
venture to impose a Constitution on us without our consent, but would be favourable
to
our wishes. That the French-Canadians are
all loyal subjects of Her Britannic Majesty,
no one will doubt; but it would be an act of
folly on the part of English statesmen to
impose on them a Constitution which they
would reject or very strongly resist. I say
this out of a feeling of loyalty, for I know
that there are statesmen in England who
understand that the loyalty of Upper and
Lower Canadians most depend on their being
satisfied with their new Constitution. How
would it benefit England to give us a Constitution which might suit her, as tending
to
perpetuate her rule in Lower Canada, but
which would not be at the same time satisfactory to the majority in both Upper and
Lower Canada? A spirit of discontent
would be soon aroused which would cool our
zeal in defending our country. This is a
self-evident truth, intelligible to all the world.
I trust, therefore, Mr. SPEAKER, that if the
measure of Confederation is passed, it will
not be forced upon us, without the present
House having an opportunity of weighing
its merits, and amending it. I am prepared, I confess, to go as far as any man,
and to make the greatest concessions, to extricate the country from its difficulties,
and
come to a good understanding, that we may
make sure of a Confederation with the immense
advantages which it might bring with it; but
I am bound to confess, when am told, in
presence of the events which have just passed,
that we must submit to the conditions imposed
on us by the contracting parties, who have,
so soon after making it, refused to ratify it—I
say that I think it wrong to tie down Lower
Canada absolutely to the first conditions. I
wish the extreme position which the Government have taken up in the face of the country
may be productive of the greatest amount of
good to it; but, for my part, Mr. SPEAKER, I
cannot help thinking and confessing that I
have very strong fears on that subject. It
seems to me that in the present circumstances,
the Government ought to have granted the
fullest opportunity, both to Upper and to
Lower Canada, to make such suggestions as
they might think fit, and not to insist on the
adoption of the scheme in its present form.
By such a proceeding they would have afforded
members who have amendments to move a
fair and constitutional way of setting themselves right in the opinion of their fellow-
countrymen, by recording them at least on the
Journals of the House. The position in which
we are placed is tantamount in its effects to
the cry of "all or nothing." But, Mr.
SPEAKER, I have always been averse to such a
system; and if we look back to our past
713
history, we shall find that it has never produced aught but lamentable dissension.
(Hear, hear.) What is the present cry of
the Opposition as regards the scheme of Confederation? It is this: you refuse an appeal
to the people; you most unjustly hurry on
the debate; you deny us all opportunity of
moving amendments to the plan, or recording
them on the journals of the House; and you
are bent on imposing on us, without our consent,
a Constitution no detail of which is made known
to us, and of the general tenor of which our
knowledge is also very imperfect. Now, Mr.
SPEAKER, I beg to ask Ministers whether it
would not be infinitely better for them to quiet
all these apprehensions, and silence all complaints? Why should they hurry on the
debate, I do not say unconstitutionally, but I
do say with dangerous precipitancy? Why
should they bar the moving of any amendment to the scheme, particularly as there
is nothing pressing in the occasion, and as the
aspect of the question is in many respects altered from what it was previous to these
late
events? I shall probably be told that I am
wrong in saying there is nothing pressing in
the occasion; that, on the contrary, events
render the immediate passing of the measure
absolutely necessary; that the defence of our
frontier is a question which must be settled at
once—that there is not a moment to be lost.
Well, Mr. SPEAKER, I acknowledge, for my
part, that if I vote in favor of the scheme of
Confederation, it is not out of a feeling of the
necessity of setting about our defence; for
hitherto I have never had a thought that the
Confederation of the provinces afforded any
better means of defending the frontier than
that which we have at present—(hear, hear)—
inasmuch as we have already all opportunity
of combined action to the fullest extent under
the protecting arm of England; but this seems
not to have entered the minds of the authors
of the scheme. But I go further than this,
and assert that the discussion which is daily
going on on the subject of the proposed constitutional changes is agitating the public
mind
very strongly. As at a former epoch of our
history, such changes necessarily tend to disturb the minds of the many; and this
very
natural agitation is attended with its dangers,
and affords another proof that constitutions are
not the work of a day—that time, and even a
great deal of time, is necessary to settle the
foundation of the social and constitutional
edifice of the best disposed of the nations.
The present Constitution of Great Britain is a
proof of this. That is certainly well established,
but it has taken ages to bring it to what it now
is. I say, then, that we should not be in too
great a hurry, so as to raise discontent among
the people, but that we ought to proceed with
the more care and deliberation now that, as the
Ministers themselves acknowledge, we are in
imminent danger of war. If we are so liable
to have war, I say that we are not in the
best condition to undergo a sudden change of
our Constitution, and that far from placing
ourselves in a good attitude of defence to meet
the imminent danger, we are perhaps weakening our position, by acting too strongly
or
prematurely on public opinion. I say then
again, that those who would force our representatives to accept the measure without
amendments, for the bare reason that we must
prepare to defend ourselves in arms without
loss of time, are acting without justifiable or
sufficient reason. I regret deeply that the
previous question has been moved, so as to
reduce the friends of the Government to the
necessity of voting on the measure before us
without being able to move any amendment,
and that in the face of a total change of circumstances. I pray for the forgiveness
of
the House for having spoken on the subject,
but I considered it a duty to protest at once
against the proceeding of the Government
which I had not foreseen. I shall vote therefore against the motion before us, because
I
am in favor of amending the scheme of the
Constitution, laying on the Government the
whole responsibility for their conduct if they
persist in denying us an opportunity of making
some modifications in the present plan of
Confederation.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—I am glad
that the hon. member for the county of
Quebec has, with his customary candor,
communicated to us his apprehensions. I
have listened to him with great attention,
and I am certain that there is no difference
between his views and ours. We are perfectly agreed. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
I knew perfectly well, Mr. SPEAKER, before
I rose to give explanations to the hon.
member for the county of Quebec and to
the House, that the few words I have just
uttered would excite the laughter of the
Opposition; for the moment these hon.
gentlemen see a member who is usually a
supporter of the Government, rise in this
House and speak with some degree of animation on any measure of the Government,
they are ready to conclude, from his
animation, that the hon. member is opposed
to the measure. I say again, Mr. SPEAKER,
714
the Government is, in the present case,
perfectly of the same mind as the hon.
member for the county of Quebec. If they
now request that the House would hasten
their decision on the grand question of a
Confederation of all the British Provinces
of this continent (not of the two Canadas,
as the hon. member for the county of Quebec
terms it), it is because they are desirous, as
the Hon. Attorney General for Upper
Canada observed yesterday, to despatch
delegates to England, to lay before the
Imperial Parliament the resolutions adopted
at the Conference. The Government wish
to give effect to the compromise entered into
between the Maritime Provinces and Canada,
to enable the Imperial Government to offer
their counsel to the governments of the
provinces, who have backed out from
their agreement, and show them that the
document to which they would have their
sanction is a compromise. They would
prove to Great Britain that if one of the
Maritime Provinces, or all of them, refuse
to carry out the terms of the compromise
after their solemn engagement with the
Canadian Government to observe it—if, in
short, they have failed to fulfil the terms of
the treaty—Canada has been true to them,
and desires its fulfilment. The Constitution
prayed for is not a Constitution for the two
Canadas only, as the hon. member for
Chateauguay said it was, putting a false
construction on the explanations of my hon.
colleague the Attorney General for Upper
Canada, but, on the contrary, a Constitution
for all British North America. (Hear,
hear.) If the Government now press the
House for a decision, it is not to enable
them to go to England and ask for a Constitution for the Canadas, under a pretext
that
the other contracting provinces have failed
to fulfil the treaty into which they had entered.
By no means, Mr. SPEAKER. I have always
had the interests of Lower Canada at heart,
and have guarded them more sedulously than
the hon. member for Hochelaga and his
partisans have ever done.
A MEMBER—A proof of that is your
sending the seat of government to Ottawa!
HON. ATTY GEN. CARTIER—Well,
Mr. SPEAKER, I do not hesitate to maintain
that that question of the seat of government
was decided favorably for Lower Canada. I
have always maintained this, and I will
maintain it always and against all comers.
I now come to the observations of the hon.
member for the county of Quebec. This is
what the Government propose to do: We
shall represent to the Imperial Government
that Canada consented to compromises and
sacrifices, and that the Lower Provinces
failed in the fulfilment of their part of the
treaty at the last moment. We shall entreat
the Imperial Government to offer their advice to the governments of those provinces,
and we entertain a hope that the influence
which England necessarily exercises over
those colonies will have the effect of inducing
them to reflect on their proceeding with
reference to us. I pray the honorable
member for the county of Quebec to lay
aside his fears. I assure him that not a
single member of the Government has the
slightest intention of asking Great Britain
to legislate on the Address which we are to
present, and to pass a Constitution for the
two Canadas. Our whole intention is to lay
before the Government of the Mother Country our position, as it now is, in consequence
of the breaking of the treaty by the
Maritime Provinces, in order that they
may bring some pressure to bear on
them to bring about the Federal union
which was designed. Even though the
legislatures of those provinces should rue
the part they took in the plan of Confederation, the adoption of it would be
only a question of time; for probably within
twelve months they will amend their decision and accept the compromise. We say
that as far as we are concerned, we can do
neither more nor less than carry out the
compromise ; that we are desirous of acquitting ourselves of the duty we owe to the
Imperial Government, as they thought fit to
sanction it in the despatch laid before this
House, as well as by the honorable mention
made of it in Her Most Gracious Majesty's
Speech from the Throne. It is of consequence, I say, that we should show the
Imperial Government that Canada, which
contains more than three-fourths of the
population of all the provinces on this continent, has not failed to fulfil her part
in
the compromise, but that the Maritime
Provinces it is which have broken their
sworn engagement, and that if the compromise is not to be carried into effect, English
supremacy over the American colonies may
at no distant day be endangered. We trust
that all these considerations may have a
salutary effect, that they will dissipate the
unfounded apprehensions of the Maritime
Provinces, and that hereafter the Constitution, based on the compromise which we
715
shall submit to the Imperial Government,
will bear sway over the several English provinces on this continent, united in one
great
Confederation. (Hear, hear.) I can assure
the hon. member for the county of Quebec,
therefore, that the only purpose of the Government of which I am a member, in urging
forward the adoption of the scheme submitted to the House, is to despatch it to England
in order that the Imperial Parliament may
merely sanction the letter of the measure.
The Government never had a thought of
taking the House and the people by surprise.
If we were to go to England and pray for a
Constitution different from that which is
mentioned in the Address, we should be
branded with disgrace, and deservedly so,
and should render ourselves unworthy of the
position which we now fill. These reasons
are sufficient, I think, to shew that there is
not so much difference between the opinion
of the Government and that of the hon.
member for the county of Quebec, as that
hon. gentleman supposes. We are agreed
on the point to which he takes exception;
and as he has declared that he would vote in
favor of the new Constitution if the Maritime
Provinces continued to be parties to it, I
have reason to trust that he will do so, as the
Government will be in no way bound to abide
by that Constitution, unless the other contracting parties shall accept it.
MR. POWELL—I must express my deep
regret, Mr. SPEAKER, that the leader of
the House should have been induced to
submit to the House a motion of the
character of that which you hold in your
hands. (Hear, hear.) I distinctly avow
myself a friend of the Administration, and
as one anxious to assist them in carrying out
the important scheme they have undertaken;
and while according to them the fullest
confidence, I must express my regret that
their course in relation to this question, in
this House, has certainly not been what I
would have advised or been inclined to
support. They selected their own mode, in
the first place, as regards the manner in
which this debate should be conducted, and
from that mode they have departed. I did
feel that when, as between the Opposition
and the Government, there was something
in the nature of a compact, that compact
should be carried out. (Hear, hear.) I
think the Opposition has its rights and
privileges, and is especially entitled to have
these respected by the Government, who have
so powerful a majority at their back. (Hear,
hear.) When the Government departed
from the understanding originally come to,
as to the way in which the debate should be
conducted, I believed that that departure
was in the interests of the House and in the
interests of the public. I do not hesitate
to say it had my approbation, as far as my
individual opinion was concerned. But,
notwithstanding that it had my approbation,
as tending to the convenience of the House
and the advantage of the public, I did not
feel that the Government were justified, so
long as the Opposition were dissenting
parties, in departing from the original
understanding. That was my first ground
of objection; and I think, in the present
instance, the Government are taking a still
more extraordinary course. I do not know
whether a case can be found in the records
of our own House, or of the English House
of Commons, where the leader of the House
has availed himself of technical rules to
prevent a question being fairly presented.
MR. POWELL—I do not know if such a
thing is usual, or if a precedent can be cited
for it. All I can say is, that if a precedent
can be cited, I regret extremely that such a
course should be adopted on the present
occasion. We are here engaged in the
discussion of a great constitutional question,
with regard to which the Administration
have submitted to us the resolutions of the
Conference—I do not say of self-constituted
delegates, or that they acted without the
sanction of the people—but certainly
they have taken upon themselves a great
responsibility, which I readily admit they
have well fulfilled, and I am quite prepared
to endorse their course, in the framing of
this scheme, from beginning to end. They
first of all adopt those resolutions at the
Conference, and they then come down to
this House and say: " Accept them in their
entirety, without amendment, without variation, or the scheme falls to the ground."
That may be all very well. It may be all
very well to deny the right of an appeal to
to the people. It may be all very well for
us as a Legislature to arrogate to ourselves
the right to change our whole constitutional
system. That may be all very well. But,
by this motion of the Hon. Attorney General West, they stop any gentlemen who
dissent from their views from putting their
716
opinions on record. (Hear, hear.) I think
that is going a little too far, and it is as a
friend of the Administration that I express
that opinion.
MR. POWELL—The hon. gentleman
may accept it or not, as he pleases.
MR. POWELL—Then he may take the
other alternative. I think the House and
the country have extended an enormous
degree of consideration to this Government,
but I tell the hon. gentlemen that if they
continue the course they are now pursuing,
a reaction will take place in the House and
the country. (Hear, hear.) I hope that
this House is not to drop down into being
the mere echo of the Executive—so that we
shall not have opinions of our own at all, or
be allowed to offer any advice whatever to
the Executive. If the hon. gentleman
accepts these remarks in a hostile spirit, he
may do so. All I can say is that I do not
mean them to be so received. But I consider the course taken by the Government
this afternoon is a most extraordinary one.
The reason assigned is, that hon. gentlemen
opposite have been offering a factious opposition, and that they intend to continue
it
by moving motion after motion. But even
it they do, I ask, can that involve above a
couple of weeks more of discussion? And
I say that it is not for the credit or the
character of the Government, that to shorten
the discussion they should take such a
course as this. I believe they have undertaken the great work they have in hand in
a most patriotic spirit. I believe that my
hon. friend—though he rejects my advice-
is animated in the course he is taking by a
purely patriotic spirit. But, while I believe
that, I think he ought to accord to me the
right of expressing my opinion as to the
mode in which this debate should be conducted. I do not know whether the friends
of the Administration are to be gagged as
well as its opponents—(laughter)—whether
it is intended that we shall all be prevented
from expressing our views. But I do trust the
leader of the Government will withdraw this
motion— (hear, hear)— which is unworthy
of him, when he has in hand this grand and
magnificent project. He has all the advantages he can wish on his side, and I would
advise him to avail himself of those advantages, and not to give—by pursuing a course
that is certainly unusual, extraordinary, and
unprecedented—the enemies of this great
scheme the opportunity of saying that it was
forced down the throats of this Legislature
and of the people of this country. (Hear,
hear.) I believe that he has the people at
his back—that they endorse his scheme—
that they are fully with him—and that the
large majority of this House truly represent
the feelings and wishes of the people in
endorsing the scheme. (Hear, hear.) I
say, therefore, that he can well afford to be
magnanimous and liberal to the Opposition—
who are feeble in numbers, though energetic
in the stand they take—and that he can carry
out this scheme without having to call to his
aid the technical rules of the House. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. J. H. CAMERON—I desire to
inquire whether the motion for the "previous
question" made by the Government, if carried,
will throw any impediment in the way of the
resolution of which I have given notice? Of
course I know that it can be moved; but if a
discussion arises upon it, I am afraid we
shall not reach a vote upon it until the session
is closed. I hope the word of promise is not
to be kept to the ear and broken to the hope.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I have
no desire to choke off the honorable gentleman's
resolution in any way. He will have _an
opportunity of moving and pressing his motion
after the resolutions have been adopted.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD— But it is
quite clear that the moving of the previous
question shuts off all amendments.
HON. J. H. CAMERON—My motion is
not proposed as an amendment. I propose to
move it after a decision has been come to on
the question now before the House. It is for
the purpose of having an expression of the
people's will upon the Address, before it is
sent to the Imperial authorities.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I do not know
that I can claim, like my honorable fnend
from Carleton (Mr. POWELL), to be a friend
of the Government, and so any advice that
I may offer will not be considered as coming
from a warm friend of theirs; but I apprehend that I do entertain that kind of friendly
feeling for the Hon. Attorney General West
that would induce me to advise him most
strongly against the course he has been induced to adopt, had my advice been asked.
I can scarcely think that that honorable
717
gentleman would have adopted the policy
which he has become a party to, unless he had
been urged on to it by his colleagues in the
Government. I am very well aware that
those who are in the habit of talking most
loudly of the rights and liberties of the people,
when they find themselves in places of position and power, may frequently forget those
rights. (Hear, hear.) 1 am quite satisfied
that if the Honorable President of the Council
had been in opposition just now, we would
have heard the course that is now adopted by
the Government called the grossest tyranny
and worst kind of outrage that could have
been perpetrated upon a free Parliament such
as ours. (Hear, hear.) And not only would
we have heard such language on the floor of
this House, but through that engine in
Toronto which he moves with so much power,
we should have had it sent throughout the
whole country. There would not have been
a man who voted for it who would not have
been held up as the greatest foe to the rights
and liberties of the people that could be
imagined. (Hear, hear.) And now we find
that hon. gentleman endeavoring to stifle, not
exactly the discussion of the question, for we
cannot be deprived of the right of speech, but
to stifle the expression of the opinion of the
House with reference to the merits of this
scheme in the only way it could be effective
and valuable, and in a proper parliamentary
manner. The motion now made prevents our
taking the sense of the House as to whether
some modification of the scheme might not
be adopted, or some other plan of union agreed
upon that would prove more advantageous.
I have given notice of an amendment that I
intended proposing in favor of a legislative
union of the provinces, with provisions that
the laws, the language, and the religion of
Lower Canada should not be interfered with;
that no legislation should take place for that
section, unless that legislation was originated
by a member from Lower Canada, and should
not become law unless carried by a majority
of the representatives from that section of the
country. I propose those provisions in order
that the rights of Lower Canadians might
be fully protected, and that their institutions should not be in danger of destruction,
and that they might have no opportunity
of saying that a change of this kind was
desired for their injury rather than for their
benefit, as well as for the best interests of the
provinces at large. I had intended to take
the sense of the House upon this proposition,
mainly tor the reason that a legislative union
would be more economical and more stable.
The commissioners who were sent out to
Canada by the Imperial Government to
ascertain what defences were required, and
what they would cost, reported that ÂŁ1,300,000 sterling would be suflicient for the
purpose. I find the local governments to be
created under this Federal scheme are to
receive for their working expenses no less a
sum than $3,981,914; so that in two years,
if the expenses of these local governments
were saved to the country, they would amount
to a suflicient sum to construct all the defences
that are said to be necessary for the protection
of the country against attack from any
quarter. But we are not to have the opportunity, it seems, of takin the sense of this
House as to whether that would be better
than the scheme submitted for our adoption.
And we are also prevented from ascertaining
whether the people of Canada approve of the
scheme or not. It would seem that the
Honorable Attorney General West, for whose
ability I entertain a very high degree of
respect, has forgotten the conservative character that he has heretofore so nobly
maintained upon the floor of this House, and in
forgetting that character, that he has also
forgotten the rights and liberties of the people.
I am not surprised that those rights and
liberties should have been forgotten and
trampled upon by the Honorable President
of the Council and the Honorable Provincial
Secretary. They have been too loud-mouthed
in their pretended championship of those
rights in times past to render them above
suspicion of forsaking them now; but I am
surprised that the Honorable Attorney General
West should go with them in stifling the
voice of the people. (Hear, hear.) And
I am very sorry to hear it stated that members
of the Government are to go to England,
there to appear carrying as it were from
the people of this country to the Imperial
Government, opinions favorable to Confederation. Now in truth they will not do so.
They cannot do so in point of fact, because
they have not taken the sense of the peeple,
and have refused even to allow Parliament to
say whether or not the scheme shall be referred
to the people, or whether some other scheme
would not be more acceptable, and much
better in every way, than the one now under
consideration. They find that the people of
the Lower Provinces are strongly opposed to
the scheme, and yet they propose to go home
and ask the Imperial Government to carry out
the measure, though they well know it cannot
718
be enforced upon the people of the Lower
Provinces. If the great urgency which they
profess to see for the carrying out of this
scheme arises from a desire to have the
defences made secure, why do not they ask
Parliament for power to place the country in a
proper position of defence? Why do not they
ask for that if it is so urgently demanded,
and leave this great Confederation question
in abeyance until the people in all parts of the
country have had fair opportunity of understanding it in every point of view. They
have not yet had that opportunity, and I
think the honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches, in depriving them of that
opportunity, and especially in doing it in the
manner in which they are now doing, have
taken a course which will redound to their
own and to the country's disadvantage. The
people only require to be awakened to the
course that is being pursued, to understand
that these opinions and views are to be disregarded, or are of no consequence, to
call forth
that sentence of condemnation which will
hurl honorable gentlemen on the Treasury
benches from place and power, and cause
names honored in the past, to sink into dishonored oblivion. If the proper steps had
been taken, gentlemen from Lower Canada
would never have been able to say that representation by population could not be safely
given to Upper Canada, and would have no
grounds for fearing that their rights would not
be protected, and that therefore they must
reject it. If they refused to grant representation according to population when full
provision is offered them for the protection of their
institutions, it would be without other reason
than that of the sulky woman or the spoiled
child, and I do not believe that the representatives of the people of Lower Canada
are made
up of that kind of stuff. They only wish to be
assured that their rights are not to be interfered with. If they desired more, let
them
reflect that the hon. member for Montmorency
(Hon. Mr. CAUCHON) in addressing the House
the other evening, instanced the position in
which the English House of Lords stood when
the country was in danger of being plunged
into a revolution by their resistance to a just
popular demand. He gave us to understand
that that body might have been swept away
before the indignation of the people, if it had
not yielded to the pressure and allowed the
Reform Bill to pass. If that was the case in
reference to so strong and highly respected a
body as the English House of Lords, let them
reflect upon what might be the result of
resisting a legislative union and forcing a
scheme so expensive as the present one, so full
of elements of contention and dissolution,
upon the people of Canada. If the people of
Lower Canada, comparatively few in numbers,
with the Government to aid them, continue to
persist in refusing to give the people of Upper
Canada that which is their right, and which
can do no wrong to any other portion of the
country, perhaps they will find that the people
of these provinces will take the same stand that
endangered the House of Lords, in England,
and the same results follow, and then it will be
too late to ask or offer terms. The Honorable
Attorney General West ought not to have
allowed a free expression of the views of the
members of this House to be stifled in the
way that it is now being done. The Government ought to have allowed the amendment
to
be put respecting which I have given notice,
and also that providing for taking the sense of
the people. Perhaps it was thought that the
motion to be made b the honorable member
for Peel (Hon. Mr. CAMERON) would answer
the purpose as well; but it cannot do so, because it is not to be preposed until after
this
scheme has been carried. That amendment,
to be of any service to the purpose I had in
view, ought to be made before these resolutions are voted upon. After the House has
expressed itself in favor of the resolutions,
the representatives become leaders to the
people. They should lead us, but we should
then be leading them by seeming to pronounce our opinion on the subject beforehand
in favor of Federal union, although
I am satisfied that a majority, or at all events
a very respectable minority of this House, is
not in favor of the scheme now presented, and
most of the honorable gentlemen who have
spoken have declared a preference for legislative union. If the scheme is forced through
the House under this motion for the previous
question, no amendments being allowed to be
placed on record, it will not appear to the Imperial authorities that there is that
great
amount of dissatisfaction with the scheme
which is well known to exist, nor will it appear
to them that any other scheme might have
proved more satisfactory to the people, giving,
in their opinion, greater stability of government, economy in management, and a means
of
maintaining our connection with the British
Crown by better and stronger bonds, than is
likely to be the case with a Federal Government.
For these reasons Mr. SPEAKER, I repeat that
I sincere] regret that the Honorable Attorney
General West has beenled to make the motion
719
which has been placed in your hands. (Cheers.)
HON. MR. McDOUGALL—I am not surprised, Mr. SPEAKER, that honorable gentlemen who are opposed to the
policy of the
Government on this question, and desirous of
overthrowing it, should feel a little disappointment at the course that has been announced
to-day. But I cannot understand how honorable gentlemen who are friendly to that
policy, and desire that it should prevail, should,
at this stage of the discussion, find fault with
the course of proceeding which we have felt it
our duty to propose. Sir, we have been discussing this question now for nearly four
weeks, and I am sure no honorable member
will venture to deny that the discussion has,
for the last ten days, dragged very heavily;
that there has been a marked disinclination
on the part of honorable gentlemen opposite
to go on with it.
HON. MR. MCDOUGALL—The honorable gentleman says "No," but the fact is that
adjournments have been moved several times
as early as half-past nine o'clock, because no
honorable gentleman was ready or inclined to
speak against the measure.
HON. MR. DORION—Only once, and that
on account of the illness of the honorable
member for Brome.
HON. MR. McDOUGALL—The honorable gentleman is mistaken. On another occasion the honorable member for
Hochelaga
himself moved the adjournment at an early
hour, because his friends were not ready to
go on with the discussion, and hon. members
who were in favor of the scheme have several
times been obliged to speak, when they were
not disposed to do so, in order to fill up the
time and drag the discussion along. Well,
sir, the Honorable Attorney General West
stated to the House yesterday, in such terms
that no one could have misunderstood him,
that the Government felt it to be their duty
to avail themselves of every parliamentary
expedient for the purpose of ascertaining the
opinion of this House upon the question as
promptly as possible. To-day the announcement has been repeated, and good and sufficient
reasons given for the adoption of this
policy. The hon. members for Carleton and
for North Ontario complain that there has
been a departure from the usual practice of
this House in making this motion, and charge
us with stifling discussion; but these honorable gentlemen surely do not need to be
informed that this motion does not stop the
debate. The House can discuss the " pre
vious question " to any extent. Strictly,
perhaps, honorable members are limited to
giving reasons why the question should not
now be put, but among those reasons are all
the arguments yet to be adduced, pro and can-,
on the main motion.
HON. MR. McDOUGALL—The good it
will do is this: it will prevent factious and
irrelevant amendments, and enable us to get
a decisive expression of the opinion of the
House upon the real question before it.
(Hear, hear.) It is all very well for the
honorable member for North Ontario to
tell us that he wishes to propose his scheme
of a legislative union, with local legislation
controlled by the members of each province;
but sir, it happens that he occupies a seat on
that side of the House, and not on this. It
is the duty of the Government, who are responsible to Parliament and to the people,
to
propose their measures, and if the honorable
gentleman can convince the House that those
measures are not adapted to the circumstances
and interests of the country, we shall be
obliged to leave this side of the House, and
then the honorable gentleman from North
Ontario can come over here and submit his
scheme to Parliament. (Hear, hear.) But
as we are here, and have taken it upon us to
submit these resolutions, we are determined
to obtain as early as possible (without, however, preventing any honorable member
from
expressing his views upon them) a vote of
this House. The outcry raised by gentlemen
opposite against the propositions of the Government to facilitate the discussion by
giving
the whole time of the House to it, roves
that delay is their real object. If they have
any arguments to offer against the scheme,
they have had ample opportunity to present
them. They have thought proper to talk of
everything but the merits or demerits of the
scheme itself, until the patience of this House,
and I think also of the country, is exhausted.
I am happy to believe that a very considerable majority of the members of this House
are ready and willing to vote yea on the question, and they ought not to be any longer
detained from doing so, especially in view of
circumstances that have arisen on this as well
as on the other side of the Atlantic, to which
my colleague the Hon. Attorney General has
already directed the attention of the House.
HON. MR. EVANTUREL—I understood
that the Government had stated that the
question of Confederation was an open one.
720
I never understood that they had stated that
amendments could not be proposed. It was
to be treated not as a party question, but
the fullest latitude was to be allowed, as if
in committee of the whole; but now the
Government shuts down upon friends as well
as opponents. I think their course most illogical, and I would like to have the Hon.
Provincial Secretary explain it.
HON. MR. McDOUGALL—I apprehend
there are few honorable gentlemen in the
House whose impressions on the subject are
similar to those of the honorable gentleman.
(Hear, hear.) It was fully understood by the
House that the scheme was brought before
Parliament as the result of the Conference of
all the colonial governments, and as a Government measure. I think, sir, it was further
distinctly stated that being in the nature of a
treaty, it was absurd to suppose that it would
be competent for any of the legislatures to amend
the scheme, because the moment the door is
thrown open to amendments in one legislature,
the same privilege would be claimed by each
of the others. What kind of a scheme would
it be after each legislature had tinkered it to
suit its own views, and what length of time
does the honorable gentleman think it would
take to arrive at a common agreement if that
course were pursued? In the very nature
of things, whether this is the best or the worst
scheme that could have been devised, we cannot get around the fact that it is of the
nature
of a treaty, and, therefore, must be voted upon
by a simple yea and nay. (Hear, hear.) It
is in that view that the Government have submitted it to this House, and it is upon
that
view that the verdict of this House must be
pronounced. As I have already stated, the
determination to which the Government has
come is to press the main motion, pure and
simple, upon the attention of the House, and
to use every legitimate parliamentary means
to get a decision, and by that decision we are
prepared to stand or fall. I hope there will
be no misunderstanding on the part of honorable members. It is not the intention of
the
Government, in any manner, to deprive honorable gentlemen of the opportunity—the
fullest opportunity—of expressing their views
on this scheme. But what we do intend to
prevent, if we can, is the attempt to divert the
attention of the House from the resolutions of
the Conference to propositions like that of the
honorable member for North Ontario, who
desires to submit another and a totally different scheme, which he knows well must
be rejected by every member of the proposed Con
federation. This proposition must be discussed, if discussed at all, in some other
way
than as an amendment to, or substitute for, the
scheme of the Quebec Conference.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I think,
sir, that the large majority of the members
of this House will agree with me that the
proposition made by the leader of the Government to prevent amendments being submitted
by moving " the previous question,"
has taken us all by surprise. I think this
House should hold this step to be a gross
breach of the understanding which was entered into at the time it was agreed that
the House should be considered as in committee of the whole, with you, sir, in the
chair. For it was then fully understood that
though no amendment would be allowed to
be adopted, if the Government could prevent
it, yet there would be no objection to their
being moved in the ordinary way. It was
therefore understood that this House was,
for all practical purposes, in Committee of the
Whole, and as " the previous question" could
not be moved in Committee of the Whole, it
was consequently out of order to move it
now. I would ask hon. gentlemen on the
Treasury benches, if they did not solemnly
enter into a compact of that nature with this
House? If they committed an error in deciding to retain the SPEAKER in the chair on
the conditions referred to, they are now taking
advantage of their own wrong. Sir, the Opposition proper have abstained from placing
on the paper any notice of amendments.
They found that several amendments which
embraced their views were to be moved by
gentlemen who were friendly to the Administration. Those gentlemen could not suppose
for a moment that their motions were
to be choked off, whatever might be the
intention of the Government in relation to
similar amendments if proposed from this
side of the House. But " the previous question," thus moved, applies ruthlessly to
friends
and foes. To quote the language of the
honorable member for Carleton :—" It is
now quite clear that they (the Government)
are going to put the same gag on their
friends that they devised for their opponents."
(Hear, hear.) Let us enquire who are those
who compose the Administration, and who,
after violating their solemn agreement, now
venture to trample upon the rights and
privileges of the representatives of the people
in this House? I need only remark that
nine members of this Government, and who
were in the Administration before the Coali
721
tion was formed, had a vote of want of confidence recorded against them by this same
House, for acts of malfeasance, which
must be fresh in the memory of honorable
members, since which time they have
evaded an appeal to the country in order to
test whether their new and strange combination would be ratified by the people. And
these gentlemen who have hatched up a
coalition, by inviting three members of the
then Opposition to join them on the most
monstrous terms ever known in any country,
are at this moment proposingtoask this House
for a vote of credit, and for plonipotentiary
powers to authorise them in England to speak
for the people of Canada. My hon. friend from
West York (Hon. Mr. HOWLAND) stands in
a different position from his two reform colleagues. He came generously to the aid
of
his friends who first joined the Coalition, but
he stipulated that he must first go to his
constituents. On a reference to his speech
at the hustings, it will be found he said in
effect, that the scheme of Confederation was
now before the country—that he knew no
more about it than they did themselves, and
that he must say there were features in the
scheme which he did not like. I acquit him
of being in the same category with hon.
gentlemen who have been voted down by
this House, because he has obtained by his
election
a quasi authority to deal with this
grave subject. But what have the others
attempted to do, Mr. SPEAKER ? How different is their conduct and their practice
to-day from what they promised would be
their conduct towards the House at the commencement of the debate! And how widely
have they strayed from the programme laid
down at the time the Coalition was formed l I
shall read for the information of the House
what were the views of the hon. member for
South Oxford in 1864, when he stampeded
himself, and took with him a large portion
of the reform party to the enemy's camp so
unexpectedly, and upon so short a notice :—
Mr. BROWN asked what the Government proposed as a remedy for the injustice complained
of
by Upper Canada, and as a settlement of the sections trouble. Mr. MACDONALD and Mr.
GALT
replied that their remedy was a Federal union of
all the British North American Provinces, local
matters being committed to local bodies, and
matters common to all, to a general legislature
constituted on the well-understod principles of
Federal Government. Mr. BROWN rejoined that
this would not be acceptable to the people of
Upper Canada as a remedy for existing evils;
that he believed that Federation of all the Prov
inces ought to come, and would come about ere
long, but it had not yet been thoroughly considered by the people—(hear, hear)—and
even were this
otherwise, there were so many parties to be consulted, that its adoption was uncertain
and remote.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—The hon.
gentleman knows very well that it is found
in the ministerial explanations at the close of
last session, little more than six months ago.
Mark the words, Mr. SPEAKER. Mr. BROWN
then stated that Federation had not been considered by the people, and that its adoption
was therefore uncertain and remote. Is it
because he found a good opportunity of
getting into power, and because he visited
the Lower Provinces, and negotiated, and
got explanations from them, that the period
so remote six months age must now be considered immediate ? He substitutes the word.
" immediate"—for " remote" a most extraordinary perversion of words :—
Mr. BROWN was then asked what his remedy
was when he stated that the measure acceptable
to Upper Canada would be parliamentary reform
based on population without regard to a separating line between Upper and Lower Canada.
To this both Mr. MACDONALD and Mr. GALT stated
that it was impossible for them to accede, or for
any Government to carry such a measure, and that
unless a basis could be found on the Federation
principle suggested by the report of Mr. BROWN's
committee, it did not appear to them likely that
any thing could be settled.
Further on I read :—
Mr. BROWN accordingly waited on the Governor
General, and on his return the memorandum approved by Council and by the Governor
General
was handed to him, and another interview appointed for 6 P. M., Mr. BROWN stating
that he
did not feel at liberty either to accept or reject
the proposal without consulting with is friends.
In that memorandum I find the following
passages :—
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 a successful issue to such negotiations, they are prepared to pledge
themselves to
legislation during the next session of Parliament-
(hear, hear)—for the purpose of remedying existing dificulties by introduciu the Federal
principle for Canada alone, coupled with such provisions as will permit the Maritime
Provinces and
722
the North Western Territory to be hereafter
incorporated into the Canadian system.
Then the record proceeds :—
Shortly after six o'clock the parties met at the
same place, when Mr. BROWN stated, that without
communicating the contents of the confidential
paper entrusted to him, he had seen a sufficient
number of his friends to warrant him in expressing the belief that the bulk of his
friends would,
as a compromise, accept a measure for the Federative Union of Canada. with provision
for the
future admission of the Maritime Colonies and the
North West Territory. To this it was replied
that the Administration could not consent to
waive the larger question ; but after considerable discussion, an amendment to the
original proposal was agreed to in the following terms, subject to the approval, on
Monday, of the Cabinet
and of His Excellency :—
" The Government are prepared to pledge themselves to bring in a measure, next session,
for the
purpose of removing existing difficulties, by introducing the Federal principle into
Canada, coupled
with such provision as will permit the Maritime
Provinces and the North West Territory to be incorporated into the same system of
Government."
The language of these quotations cannot
be misunderstood ; for nothing can be clearer
than that the smaller scheme, that is, the
scheme for the Federation of Upper and
Lower Canada, was then promised and contemplated as the one which was to precede
that now under consideration. Again I
quote from a speech of the Premier made
in the other House on the introduction of
the resolutions now before us :—
The honorable member (Hon. Sir.E. P. TACHÉ)
here gave a history of the several changes until
the MACDONALD-DORION Administration died, as
he stated, of absolute weakness, falling under the
weight they were unable to carry. Their successors (the TACHÉ)-MACDONALD Government)
were
not more successful, and being defeated, were
thinking of appealing to the country, which they
might have done with more or less success, gaining a constituency here and perhaps
losing another
elsewhere. They had assumed the charge of affairs
with an understanding that they would have a right
to this appeal, and while they were consulting
about it, they received an intimation trom the
real chief of the Opposition (Mr. BROWN ), 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 honorable 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 dense 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 satety, and procure them the respect and confidence
of other na
tions. They arranged a large scheme and a
smaller one. 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.
Here is a recent declaration by the Premier that they had arranged a large scheme
and a smaller one. Is it not important to us
in Upper Canada to know what the nature
of the latter scheme is? Assuredly, it is not
too much to ask that the little scheme should
be left with us, while they run away to Downing-street with the large one. We might
be profitably employed in the meantime in
digesting the various details which promise
so much solace and contentment, and which
for ever is to settle all sectional dificulties
between Upper and Lower Canada. I hope
the supporters of the Administration will
insist at once upon the smaller bantling being
left with us,—this House agreeing to pay
all expense of its care and protection during
their absence. (Hear, hear, and langhter.)
Instead, therefore, of fulfilling their promise they boldly propose to their reform
followers the scheme which the hon. member
for South Oxford had declared to be premature, and which six months ago he insisted
must be postponed to a remote period. It is
scarcely possible to find words suficiently
strong to characterize in proper terms so flagrant a breach of a compact as the one
which
I have been describing. It was of course
well known, last summer, that the several
legislatures of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
and Prince Edward Island had contemplated
a legislative union of their provinces, and a
resolution was passed by each body authorizing delegates to be appointed from their
respective governments to meet for that
object. Charlottetown having been selected
as the place of meeting, the several delegates
assembled there. Instead of permitting that
Convention quietly to arrange a scheme such
as was contemplated by their legislatures, and
permit reasonable time for its promulgation,
or a declaration of its failure to be made, the
gentlemen on the Treasury benches bethought themselves of a plan by which to
scatter the Charlottetown delegates, caring
nothing for the disappointment which such
an attack must have necessarily created among
the people of the sister provinces. I blush
think that a fearful responsibility attaches
to this Government for their interference
with an arrangement which was to make the
Maritime Provinces one people. But not
satisfied with their visit to Charlottetown
and breaking up the scheme which was
723
being discussed there, they now coolly ask
us to give them authority to proceed to Downing-street to report the utter failure
of their
own grand scheme, which, as I remarked in
a former debate, they yet hope to manufacture
into a live constitution for these distracted
provinces, through Downing-street influence.
(Hear, hear.) It is well known that our financial condition is truly alarming, and
instead of
proceeding with the legislation of the several
measures now before the House, and submitting, according to custom, the Budget, so
that
the real condition of our affairs may be fully
exhibited to the people, the gentlemen on
the Treasury benches have suddenly come to
the conclusion, not only to withhold this important information, but, forsooth, we
are
asked to pass a vote of credit to be accounted
for at the next session. A prorogation is
shortly to follow, and the country will be left
in a state of uncertainty as to its future, until it shall please these gentlemen
to return
from their mission. When we consider the
effect which the blandishments of the Treasury benches but too frequently produce
upon members sent to this House to carry
out certain avowed principles and measures ;
when we see the class to which I allude violating the promises made to their constituents
and going over "body and bones" to
a Government they were elected specially to
oppose, we need not be astonished shortly to
learn that influences and blandishments in
higher quarters will have the like effect on
the gentlemen opposite when abroad, who will
ever be ready to find a plausible excuse for
any gross betrayal of the trusts reposed in
them by pliant and subservient followers.
The avowed object for the immediate prorogation of the session is the imminent danger
which threatens this province, and yet we
are kept in the dark as to the real cause for
alarm. We are told, however, that a large
outlay, but the amount is not stated, is to be
devoted to fortifying certain portions of
Canada by the Home Government ; and that
we are to be asked to contribute an unknown
sum of money towards the same object. But
when we ask for more definite information,
we are met by the assurance that it would
not be for the public interest to afford further
information just now. We are told to wait
patiently and to be content with the fact that
certain gentlemen on the Treasury benches
are to proceed to England with the view of
arranging the amount to be appropriated by
Canada for its defence, an towards the
maintenance of a more effective militia or
ganisation then we have heretofore been
called upon to make. I maintain, sir, that
the understanding in respect to such contributions could be as well arrived at by
means
of dispatches and correspondence between
this Government and the Colonial Office.
(Hear, hear.) I protest against the transference of the negotiations on these matters
to
Downing-street, before we obtain some more
satisfactory replies to the questions we have
addressed to the gentlemen on the Treasury
benches. The representatives of a people
overburdened with heavy taxes, have a
right to insist on knowing the limit beyond
which the gentlemen on the Treasury
benches should not consent to make this
province liable. We know that it is a difficult matter to obtain money in England
at
present, and we are not even informed of the
terms on which the Finance Minister is now
borrowing. We have had no information
upon this question. We are kept in ignorance of the position in which we are to be
placed. Now, I think that the policy of the
people of this country should be to vote what
they think they can bear, and no more. There
is no member of this House, there is no man
in this country, I believe, who is unwilling
to give his quota of taxes for the work of
defence ; but there must be a limit to everything. (Hear, hear.) The principle laid
down by three of the honorable gentlemen
on the Treasury Benches whom I now see
on the other side of the House, when with
myself they were members of a former administration, is as sound now as it was then
;
and if the force of the American army two
years ago was not such as to induce us to
recommend, by way of guarding against danger from that quarter, large outlays for
defence, I do not see why my old colleagues
should now consent to entertain a proposal
involving an enormous sum of money at the
present time. Now, I shall read extracts
from a Minute of Council, dated 28th October
1862, in reply to the Duke of NEWCASTLE's
suggestion that we should raise fifty thousand
volunteers :—
The proposal of His Grace to organise and
drill not less than 50,000 men is not now for the
first time presented to the province. The measure prepared by the late Government
and rejected
by the Legislature, contemplated the formation of
a force to that extent, and Your Excellency's advisers cannot disguise their opinion
that the province is averse to the maintenance of a force which
would seriously derange industry and tax its
resources to a degree justifiable only in periods
of imminent danger or actual war. The people
724
of Canada doing nothing to produce a rupture
with the United States, and having no knowledge
of any intention on the part of Her Majesty's
Government to pursue a policy from which so
dire a calamity would proceed, are unwilling to
impose upon themselves extraordinary burthens.
They fee that, should war occur, it will be produced by no act of theirs, and they
have no inclination to do anything that may seem to foreshadow, perhaps to provoke
a state of things
which would be disastrous to every interest of the
province.
This was the opinion of the honorable gentlemen only two years ago. (Hear, hear.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I have already said that there are three of those gentlemen there. (Hear, hear.)
Well, to go on
a little further, His Grace recommended
direct taxation, to which we replied :—
Without entering into a discussion of the relative merits of direct or indirect taxation,
Your
Excellency's advisers feel that it would not be
prudent, suddenly or to any large extent, to
impose direct taxation for military purposes. This
is not the occasion for adopting a principle
hitherto unknown in the fiscal policy of the province, and assuredly this is not the
time for plunging into an experiment for which the people of
the province are unprepared. No more serious
mistake can be committed than to conduct an
argument upon the supposition that the ability of
the Canadian people to sustain taxation is greater
than has hitherto been acknowledged in the fiscal
arrangements of the Government.
And I may remark that the condition of the
country at this moment is much more calamitous than when this report was made.
When the hon. member for South Oxford
(Hon. Mr. BROWN) was on his feet a few
minutes ago, he spoke of the prosperity of the
merchants in Upper Canada, and said the
condition of the country was not such as to
justify the remarks of the hon. member for
Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON). Sir, he
forgot to speak of the situation of the farmers,
of which I shall speak presently more at
length. This report goes on further to say :—
The wealth of the country is in its lands. If
the people are in the enjoyment of comparative
wealth, it is so invested as to be not readily available for the production of a large
money income.
Your Excellency's advisers believe that no government could exist that would attemt
to carry
out the suggestion of His Grace for the purpose
designed.
That was the language of our Government
when asked to train fifty thousand men and
to familiarise them to the use of arms
(Hear, hear.) I feel that the pressure which
has been brought to bear upon the Imperial
Government by the GOLDWIN SMITH politicians—by the Manchester School—to get
rid of the colonies, is having its effect. The
telegram received to-day indicates that the
burden of the defences is to be borne by the
colonies, as the telegram now before me
states :—
Earl RUSSELL regretted the discussion, and stated
that the Government declined to make any movement while the Canadians declined to
take measures themselves ; but as they now showed a
different disposition, the Government comes forward to assist them.
Mr. SPEAKER, I ask this House, if the
honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches
have made any proposals to the Home Government, whether we are not entitled to know
what they are? I say that we ought not to
leave this House till we have advised them
in this matter—till the opinion of this
House, representing the people of this
country, has been elicited. (Hear, hear.)
We are the persons who ought to advise
them in this matter; and without seeking
that advice, they are taking a step in advance of their legitimate duty. (Hear, hear.)
The Duke of NEWCASTLE asked us in the same
despatch to place the money required for
increased military organization in Canada
beyond the domain of Parliament! Such a
proposal was met in fitting terms, becoming a people enjoying British freedom.
We could not submit it to Parliament, and
we did not. It was said in the same despatch
that the credit of the country was endangered
in the markets of Europe, and that if we were
willing to show that we were prepared to
defend ourselves, if we went to this vast
outlay, we would materially assist in the
maintenance of our credit abroad. Our
reply to that was, that—
The maintenance of the provincial credit abroad
is undoubtedly an object which the administrators
of the affairs of the province should at any cost
accomplish. Your Excellency's advisers submit
that their various measures demonstrate the sincerity with which they are striving
to preserve
the public credit unimpaired. They contend,
however, that not the least important of the
agencies to be employed to this end is the exhibition of a due regard to the means
at the command
of the province. They hold that they are more
likely to retain the confidence of European capitalists by carefully adjusting expenditure
to in
come, than by embarking in schemes, however
725
laudable in themselves, beyond the available
resources of the Canadian people.
[It being six o' clock, the SPEAKER left the
chair before the honorable gentleman concluded his remarks]
After the recess,
HON. MR. HOLTON said—With the consent of my hon. friend from Cornwall, I desire, before the debate
is renewed, to call the
attention of the Hon. Attorney General West
to the matter of the previous question which
he has moved—to recall to his recollection
the statements that were made when the
agreement was come to that this debate
should be conducted in all respects as if the
House were in Committee of the Whole,
and to appeal to his sense of justice to adhere
to the letter and spirit of that agreement.
It will be remembered that, on behalf of hon.
gentlemen sitting on this side of the House,
I objected very strongly to the proposition
to consider these resolutions as a single resolution, and insisted that they were
of a
nature that required them to be considered
in Committee of the Whole House. The hon.
the leader of the Government objected to
that on this ground. He said that the resolutions were a treaty—I do not think the
position sound, but I am not combating that
just now—and that the Government were
bound to bring all their influence to bear to
pass them in their entirety ; and in reply
to some objection made by myself, he said
hon. gentlemen would have no dificulty in
putting their views upon record by amendments moved to the scheme. I thought at
the time that that was placing us at a very
great disadvantage, and that we.were entitled
to have the propositions considered separately
and a vote taken, yea or nay, on the several
resolutions ; but I was overruled and the
agreement was come to, which you, sir, declared, rising in your place, to be that
the
debate should be conducted in all respects
as in Committee of the Whole. Well, I have
two thin to urge—first, that in Committee
of the Whole the previous question cannot be
moved ; and second, that a distinct assurance
was given by the Government that amendments could be moved to the resolution.
These are the very words of the hon. gentleman as giyen in the oflicial report, which
has been this moment put into my hands :—
Hon. Atty. Gen. MACDONALD said "no."
The proposition submitted to this House is—That
an Address be submitted to Her Majesty, praying
that a bill should be passed based on these resolutions. All amendments might be moved
to that one resolution. It would be the same thing, in
fact, as to move them upon each resolution
separately.
Now, the hon. gentleman says that we may
not move amendments, and none can be
moved if he succeeds in getting the previous
question affirmed by the House. I state—
and I am sure I have only to state it to him
to convince him of the justice of it—that a
persistence in moving the previous question
will be simply a violation of the assurance
the hon. gentleman gave to the House, and
of the distinct understanding arrived at by
the House at the opening of the debate, and
stated by you, air, from the chair. (Hear,
hear.) Am I to understand that the hon.
gentleman adheres to his motion ?
HON. MR. HOLTON—And has the hon.
gentleman nothing to say to my objections ?
HON. MR. HOLTON—We relied upon
the assurance given by the hon. gentleman
that there would be no attempt to cut short
discussion, no attempt to prevent a full
and free expression of the opinion of
the House upon every feature of the scheme.
I ask him new again if he intends to adhere
to that declaration? (Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I
will, Mr. SPEAKER, on reflection, make a
few remarks in answer to the hon. gentleman. He speaks as if it was a great
concession to the majority of this House
and to the Government that the arrangement was made at the opening of the debate.
Why, sir, it was no concession whatever to
the Government or to the majority of the
House. (Hear, hear.) Acting on behalf
of the Government, and with the full
approbation of my colleagues, I made a
motion that an Address should be presented
to Her Majesty, praying Her sanction to the
resolutions adopted at the Quebec Conference.
That motion was quite parliamentary in its
character, and there was no parliamentary
reason whatever why it should be considered
in Committee of the Whole. The hon.
gentleman could not, by any rule known to
726
parliamentary practice, force us to go into
committee or require us to discuss any one
of these resolutions by itself. It was then
quite open to me, according to the usage
of the House, to make a motion for
an Address to Her Majesty for the purpose stated, and it was not as a favor to
the Government that the arrangement
was made to discuss it as if the House
were in Committee of the Whole. On the
contrary, it was a concession of the Government to the minority in the House ; for
I
stated, of my own mere motion, that although
I had a right to proceed in the ordinary
manner with the Speaker in the chair, and to
restrict honorable gentlemen to a single
speech in accordance with the rules that
govern debate—that although this was my
undoubted right according to parliamentary
practice, yet, for the purpose of allowing
the fullest and freest discussion, I suggested
that the same rule should obtain as if the
House were in Committee of the Whole, when
every member could speak twenty times if
he felt so disposed, and present his views
fully on all the points of the scheme. That
was the proposition made by the Government ; it was a fair, liberal, even generous
one. But how were we met by honorable
gentlemen opposite? We were ready to
proceed with the discussion at once, and to
present the subject to the House without
delay. But it was stated that that would
be unfair—that the members of the Government should first make a statement, and
allow it to go to the House and country,
so that neither should be taken by surprise in a matter of so much importance,
and that honorable gentlemen might have
the fullest information upon which to
make up their minds. We did make our
statement, and when asked for a week's
delay in order that these speeches might be
fully considered, we consented to it. Supposing that after this postponement the
debate would go on at once, we gave hon.
gentlemen opposed to the scheme a whole
week to consider our remarks, to prepare
themselves for debate, to work out objections
to our arguments, and pick out all the flaws
they could find in the scheme itself. We
did this because we thought it fair, and because we believed hon. gentlemen were sincere
in their professed desire to have the
fullest information upon the subject. Well,
the debate began, it has gone on now for
three weeks since that postponement, and
as my hon. colleague the Hon. Provincial
Secretary has said, it has dragged on
wearily, with no prospect of an early termination. And how have we been met
by hon. gentlemen opposite ? Has it
been in the same spirit that actuated the
Government throughout the debate? We
asked them to come forward, and honestly
and fairly, in the presence of the House and
country, to discuss the scheme ; but instead
of so doing, they have deliberately triiled
with the question and wasted the time of the
House. (Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—The
hon. gentleman as a man of honor cannot
deny it, as a man of candor he cannot deny
it ; and if he should deny it, his character
as a man of honor and candor would sink in
the estimation of this House. (Hear, hear.)
I say it distinctly that this was the plot of
hon. gentlemen opposite, to delay the consideration of this subject. Their policy
was
to wait, like MICAWBER, for "something to
turn up," to see what would happen favorable to them in New Brunswick, to learn
what would be done in Nova Scotia, and to
embrace every pretext of delay that presented itself. The hon. gentleman was
playing, deliberately playing, a trick. He
talked about a base trick having been played
upon the Opposition, but was it not a base
trick in him not to discuss this question, but
to put it off upon every possible excuse, to interrupt hon. gentlemen when they discussed
it, making inuendoes, suggesting motives for
delay, trying to disparage the scheme and
ourselves in the estimation of the House and
country, and getting others to say what he
would not dare to say himself. (Hear, hear.)
That was the plan of the hon. gentleman.
He complains of not being able to more an
amendment, but the Opposition attempted to
move none. It was friends of the Government who ofi'ered the only amendments yet
presented. The policy of the Opposition was
just this—they wished to s nd the whole
of March and the best part of April in the
general discussion upon my motion ; and
then, when they could do nothing more ; and
nauseate the House and disgust the country
with the subject, when they had wearied the
members and made the reporters sick with
their talk—(laughter)—they were to spend
the remainder of April, all May and June,
and run the debate well into summer, upon
the amendments they intended to propose.
727
one after another. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) It is because these honorable gentlemen
have not endeavored honestly and candidly to discuss the question, but have
played the game of prolonging the debate
to midsummer and preventing the House
coming to a final decision upon it, that the
Government have taken the step now proposed, and have said to these hon. gentlemen:
" Here, you have had a month to move amendments and make speeches. You have been
allowed to sit here discussing the question
every night during that time, and sometimes
till one or two o'clock in the morning. You
have not fairly discussed the scheme, nor
moved any amendments to it. You appear,
on the contrary, determined to obstruct the
measure by every means in your power. You
have deliberately laid a plot to throw it back
with the view of defeating it in this underhand manner. We are not going to allow
that, nor should be worthy of the position
we hold as a Government if we did allow it ;"
and, sir. I should be unworthy of the character the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. HOLTON)
gives me of being a good parliamentary
strategist, if I allowed this plot of preventing
the House coming to a vote to succeed.
(Hear, hear.) Now, in resorting to measures to prevent the success of this game
played by the Opposition, we have not taken
hon. gentlemen opposite or the House by
surprise. We gave them from the middle
of winter almost to the beginning of spring,
and the opening of navigation, to discuss
the question and propose amendments ; and
when we saw they were determined to waste
the time of the House and country indefinitely, I came down yesterday and, on behalf
of the Government and with the full approbation of my colleagues, stated fairly and
frankly that it was of the greatest consequence, the utmost consequence, to the best
interests of this country, that this question
should not be allowed to drag on before
Parliament, but that a vote should be taken
without delay, in order that we might be
able to tell the sister provinces and inform
Her Majesty that the contract we made with
them, the arrangement we entered into
with the governments of those provinces,
had met the full approbation and consent
Of the Parliament and people of Canada.
(Hear, hear.) And I gave fair notice
that the Government considered the recent
political events in New Brunswick, and the
state of afi'aira in that province, called not
only for action, but prompt action by this
House ; and that every proper and legitimate
means known to parliamentary practice
would be taken by the Government for the
purpose of getting this House to come to a
full and final decision upon the question.
(Hear, hear.) We have never taken hon.
gentlemen by surprise. On the contrary,
we have allowed them every latitude in this
debate, and have given them fair notice all
through of what we intended to do. But
how have we been met by them ? Have we
been met in the same spirit of frankness and
sincerity? No—and I say it without hesitation, we have been met throughout in a
spirit of obstruction and hostility ; and,
instead of discussing the question fairly on
its merits, hon. gentlemen opposite are
dragging on the debate slowly for months,
in order to tire out the patience of the
House and country. (Hear, hear.) I ask
the House whether they will permit
such a shabby, such a miserable game
to be played successfully? Will they
allow a question so closely identified with
the best interests of Canada to be thrown
across the floor of the House like a battledore between the hon. members for Cornwall
and Chateauguay? Will they allow
these hon. gentlemen to trifle with it, not so
much because they are opposed to the
scheme itself or disapprove of its general
principles, as because of those by whom it is
presented for the adoption of the House.
(Hear, hear.) Sir, there has been some
little misapprehension as to the effect of the
motion I have proposed to the House, which
it is as well should be removed. It has
simply and only this effect—that it does not
prevent hon. members expressing their
views fully and freely upon the subject, but
calls upon every hon gentleman to give— if
I may use an Americanism—a straight and
square vote upon the question, and to state
plainly whether or not he approves of the
scheme of Confederation as a whole. (Hear,
hear.) As I stated when I opened this
debate upon my motion, and as has been
over and over again stated by several of my
colleagues, we agreed with the governments
of the sister provinces upon a future Constitution for the whole of British North
America, and we ask this House to approve
or disapprove of that Constitution. We told
the House that we had made this treaty
with the sanction of Her Majesty and of the
Imperial Government.
728
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—No ;
we told the House that we had the previous
sanction of Her Majesty and of Her Majesty's
representative to our meeting. The Conference met and sat under this authority, and
we worked out a scheme for the Constitution
of the provinces. That scheme may be a
good or it may be a bad one ; but whether it
be good or bad, we have a right to ask this
House to approve or disapprove of it, to accept
or reject it. We had the sanction of Her
Majesty and the Imperial Government to our
meeting—because this House knows that the
union of these colonies is a matter of great
Imperial as well as of great local interest—
and under that sanction we have worked out
a Constitution and made a bargain with the
other provinces. We have pledged ourselves
as a Government to come down to the Canadian Parliament and say—" Here is a Constitution
which we have agreed upon for the
future government of these provinces. We
have agreed to submit it to this House, just
as the governments of the other provinces
have agreed to submit it to their respective
legislatures. We have a right to ask the
members of this House whether in their judgment it is a scheme that, with all the
faults
and imperfections it may have, ought to be
entered into by the Parliament of this country. We exercise this right, and ask you
to
declare by your votes, yes or no, whether we
were right in framing this measure, and
whether it is such an one as ought to be
adopted by this House." (Hear, hear.) This,
Mr. SPEAKER, is the position of the Government ; and what though amendments should
be carried—what though the amendment of
which the honorable member for North Ontario has given notice should succeed, and
the
House should declare in favor of a Legislative
instead of a Federal union (supposing the
honorable gentleman did present and carry
such a motion)—what good could it possibly
do ? The contract that we entered into with
the other provinces would be broken; this
Legislature would be violating the solemn
engagement under which we are to the other
colonies, and we would have a Constitution
drawn up which none of the other provinces
would adopt. We know that they would
reject it—we know that Lower Canada would
go as one man against it. (Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—At
all events the governments of the other provinces will submit the question to their
legislatures and take their opinion upon it, and
we have a right to ask this House—"Do you
or do you not approve of it ? If you disapprove of the scheme altogether because of
its
general principles, why vote it out. If you
think that it ought to be a Legislative and not
a Federal union, why vote it out. If you think
it wrong to create a life peerage instead
of an elective Legislative Council, why vote
it out. Vote it out for any or all of these
reasons if you like ; but give us at once an
honest, candid and fair vote one way or the
other, and let the sister colonies know without
delay whether you approve of the arrangement or not." (Hear, hear.) And, sir,
amendments are a mere matter of folly and
absurdity. (Hear, hear, and ironical cheers
from the Opposition.) Honorable gentlemen
opposite cry "Hear, hear." I do not of
course speak of the merits of any proposition
in amendment for a legislative union, or an
elective Legislative Council, or for any other
change in the provisions of the scheme ; but I
state this in all earnestness, that for all practical purposes the carrying of any
amendment
to this scheme is merely to lose the only
chance of union we can ever hope to have
with the Lower Provinces for the sake of
some fancied superior Constitution which we
cannot get any of the colonies to agree to.
(Hear, hear.) All we ask this House to do
is what the other branch of the Legislature
has already candidly done, to discuss the
matter fairly and honestly upon its merits,
and then to come to a vote upon it. Those
who think the Constitution likely to place
the country in a worse position than now
occupies, will vote against it. Those who
think, on the other hand, that it is may
proximation at any rate to what is right,
that it will bring the colonies together into
closer communication, that it will form the
basis of a powerful and enduring alliance with
England, will vote for it with all its faults
(Hear, hear.) Now, as to the consequences
of this motion which I have proposed, this
House ought to know that not a single speech
can be cut off or shorn of its dimensions by it,
and that every honorable gentleman can discuss the question of Confederation, giving,
as
fully as he desires, the reasons why he will
vote for or against the scheme proposed. All
the motion will do, all the Government wish
to do, is to keep the question before the
House; and the honorable member for North
Ontario can speak as well to it as if he had
729
his amendment in his hand, and can, as he
usually does, make as able a speech as if there
were half-a-dozen amendments proposed to it.
The whole scheme, in fact, is as much in the
hands of the House, and as fully before it and
open to discussion, as it was on the day I
moved its adoption. All this motion will do
is to prevent honorable gentlemen opposite
playing the trick which I have spoken of—
drawing the discussion away from the main
question before the House, getting up debates
upon the powers of the General Government
and of the local governments, upon an
elective or an appointed Legislative Council,
and upon all sorts of side issues upon which
the changes would be rung night after night
and week after week, through the spring and
summer, till the House became weary with
the surfeit of talk, and the country disgusted.
(Hear, hear.) That, sir, is the aim and
object of honorable gentlemen opposite, but I
hope this House will not be so foolish as to
fall into the trap they have laid, and I know
honorable members are fully aware of the
designs of these honorable gentlemen. They
cannot complain that they have not had an
opportunity of moving amendments. They
have had three weeks to do it, and they have
not yet moved one or given notice of one.
Then, sir, what will be the consequences, on
the other hand, if the previous question is not
carried? If it is rejected, and the main
question is not put, Confederation is defeated.
And I will at once inform the House that to
vote that the main question be not put, will
throw Confederation over forever, and forever
destroy the last hopes of a friendly junction
between the colonies of British North America. (Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—Because if we reject now the agreement come
to by all the governments of all the provinces,
we can never expect to get them to meet
again to make another.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—The
hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the
governments of all the provinces are pledged
to the scheme, but that the legislatures have
not yet expressed themselves upon it. If any
of them appear now to be hostile to it, that
feeling may disappear when it is fully explained to them. Even the Hon. Attorney General
PALMER, of Prince Edward Island, may
himself become convinced of its desirability,
and vote for it. We cannot say how those legislatures will vote, but what we repose
to do
is to lay our action before the Imperial Government, and ask it to exercise its influence
with the other colonies in securing the passage of the scheme. And I have no doubt
that if the Mother Country gives friendly advice to the sister colonies in that kindly
spirit
in which she always gives it, if she points out
that in her view this scheme is calculated to
serve, not onl our interests, but the general
interests, welfare and prosperity of the Empire, I am quite satisfied that the people
of
those colonies, whatever may be their local
feelings, will listen at all events with respect,
and perhaps with conviction, to the advice so
given by the Imperial Government. I have
no doubt, indeed I am satisfied, that if the
Imperial Government gives that advice, it will
be in the spirit of kindness and maternal love
and forbearance, and that if England points
out what is due to ourselves as well as to the
Empire, and shows what she, in her experience and wisdom, believes to be best for
the
future interests of British North America,
her advice will be accepted in the spirit in
which it is offered, and sooner or later with
conviction. (Cheers.) For all these reasons
I think the members of the Government
would be wanting in their duty in this great
strait, this great emergency in our affairs, if
they did not press for the decision of this
House as quickly as possible. (Hear, hear.)
Why, there is the question of defence, which
the honorable member for Cornwall admits to
be of the most pressing importance, that requires immediate attention and demands
that
further delay in dealing with this scheme
should not be allowed.
HON. MR. HOLTON—What has defence
to do with this scheme of Confederation ?
The honorable gentleman has stated, over and
over again, that it has nothing to do with it.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—Why, when we
asked for information the other day as to what
it is proposed to do in the matter of defence,
the honorable gentleman said that that was a
different subject from this altogether. (Hear,
hear.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—The
honorable member for Hochelaga certainly
did move a series of resolutions asking for information upon this subject, which we
refused,
because they were offered for the purpose of
730
obstructing and delaying the debate on this
scheme. (Hear, hear.) When I say that
there is an intimate connection between these
two questions of defence and Confederation, I
mean this : that the progress of recent events
—events which have occurred since the commencement of this debate—has increased the
necessity of immediate action, both with regard to defence and to this scheme. Honorable
gentlemen Opposite havebeen in the Government—they have been behind the scenes—
and they know that the question of the defence of British North America is of great
and pressing importance, and they know that
the question of the defence of Canada cannot
be separated from it. And honorable gentlemen avo been informed, and will find by
the
scheme itself, that the subject was considered
by the Conference, and that it was arranged
that there should be one organized system
of defence for the whole of the provinces and
at the cost of the whole. Well, it is now of
the greatest importance that some members
of the Government should go home immediately, in order that England may know what
the opinion of Canada is upon this question of
Confederation, as well as upon the question of
defence. (Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—Yes.
The season is fast approaching when it will be
necessary to commence these works—the only
season during which they can be carried out
at all ; and that man is not true to his country,
that man is not a true patriot, who, for the
sake of a petty parliamentary triumph, for the
sake of a little party annoyance—for the conduct of the Opposition amounts to nothing
more—would endeavor to postpone some definite arrangement on this important question
of defence. (Hear, hear.) Yes, Mr. SPEAKER,
this opposition is either one or the other of
two things—it is either for the sake of party
annoyance, or it is a deliberate desire to prevent anything being done to defend ourselves,
in order that we may easily fall a prey to annexation. (Cheers.) I do not like to
believe
that honorable gentlemen opposite entertain
any wish to become connected with the
neighboring republic, and therefore I am
forced to the conviction that they are actuated
by the miserable motive of gaining a little
parliamentary or party success. There are
only two alternatives of belief, and one or the
other of them must be correct. (Hear, hear.)
I believe the honorable member for Chateauguay is in his heart strongly in favor of
a
Federal union of these colonies ; but because
it is proposed by honorable gentlemen on this
side of the House, he cannot and will not
support it. (Hear, hear.) So long as my
honorable friend the Hon. Finance Minister sits
here on these benches, so long as MORDECAI
sits at the King's gate—(laughter)—and so
long as the honorable gentleman sits on the
opposite instead of this side of the House, so
long will he find fault and object. Hit high
or hit low, like the flogged soldier, nothing
will please him. (Renewed laughter.) But
I believe the House will not sanction such
pitiful conduct as honorable gentlemen opposite exhibit. I believe we will have a
large, an overwhelming majority, to sustain us
in the course we have adopted ; and that we
should be highly blameable were we to exhaust
the patience not only of ourselves, but. of our
supporters, by allowing this conduct to be
pursued much longer unchecked. These, sir,
are my answers to the questions of the honorable member for Chateauguay. (Cheers.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—I have the satisfaction of having provoked from the hon.
gentleman altogether the best speech he has
delivered during this debate. So much I
freely admit, and I think his own followers
will confess that this is the first time he has
spoken with anything like his usual spirit
and force during the whole debate. This
was perhaps inevitable, because in his other
speech, and notably in his introductory
speech, he labored under the consciousness
that the scheme was at variance with his
own antecedents, and was not approved of by
anybody. We had, therefore, at that time
none of that vivacity, none of that strength
of declamation, none of that humor with
which his brief speech this evening has
overflown. But, sir, to return to the point
to which I called your attention when you
resumed the chair. To that point the hon.
gentleman has not been pleased to speak.
He has gone off on all sorts of subjects He
has said he will not hold himself bound by
the arrangements which he himself entered
into at the opening of the debate. He
says he does not consider himself so
bound ; and I must be allowed to say a word
or two in reference to his excuse for his departure from that agreement. He says that
I and other hon. gentlemen on this side
have been instrumental in wasting the time
of the House. Emphatically I deny that
statement. (Hear, hear.) That we did resist the unfair attempts on the other side
of
the House to change the order of the debate
731
which was deliberately established, whereby
the debate was to be resumed every evening
at half-past seven, I do not deny. I frankly
admit it, and claim that we were justified in
so doing ; at all events I am prepared to
take the responsibility of having contributed
my share to that result. But as to the
debate on the main motion, I defy the Hon.
Attorney General to indicate one hon. gentleman on this side who has wasted a single
moment of the time of the House—who has spoken
beside the question—and who has spoken
in order to postpone the question and to
protract the debate. And for proof of this
assertion, I venture to say that when we get
the extended reports of this debate, it will
be found that the space occupied by the
speeches of honorable gentlemen who support
this measure is at least twice that which is
occupied by the speeches of hon. gentlemen
on this side of the House. (Hear, hear.)
HON MR. HOLTON—Oh, we are wasting
time by not speaking—that's the charge!
(Laughter.) It is quite obvious that the
honorable gentleman's leader would never
have made a blunder of that kind. We
have wasted the time of the House by not
speaking ! Well, sir, it is a very novel way
of talking against time, by holding our
tongues! (Laughter.) But, Mr. SPEAKER,
I am not going into the general debate. I
shall not proceed with this matter further.
I rose for the purpose of appealing to the
sense of justice and common fairness of hon.
gentlemen. That appeal has been disregarded. They adhere to that unfair step of
theirs, and of course we must meet it as we
can. (Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER — Mr.
SPEAKER, the hon. gentleman found fault
with what I stated just now. But what I
said was quite correct ; and that is, that we
wanted to give as free scope to the debate
as could be afiorded on both sides of the
House. When, however, hon. gentlemen
on the other side had their opportunity to
speak, they were never ready ; and we all
remember that on two occasions they actually
moved the adjournment of the House, one
night at nine o'clock, and again, when the
hon. member for Brome (Mr. DUNKIN) was
unable to continue his speech, at ten o'clock.
Some hon. gentlemen on this side had
promised to speak, and I well recollect that
the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. McGIVERIN) had to come to their relief, and
filled up the space in the debate, in order to
give the opportunity to the Opposition of
being ready on the following day. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. DORION—I cannot allow the
Hon. Attorney General West to run away
from the question by one of those "artful
dodges," for which he is so well known in
this House and the country. (Hear, hear.)
The question put to him by my honorable
friend the member for Chateauguay (Hon.
Mr. HOLTON) was, whether he did not agree
to the debate being continued on certain
terms, and in such a way as that full opportunity should be given to hon. members
to
move their amendments. It is very well for
the Attorney General West to say that that
arrangement was made, not for the benefit of
the House, not for the advantage of the
public, not for the convenience of honorable
members, but out of mere courtesy by the
Government. Sir, the proposition was his
own. The hon. gentleman himself came to
the House and stated the manner in which
the debate should be conducted, actually
proposing that the rule which prevented
honorable members speaking more than once
on the same question, with the Speaker
in the chair, should be suspended, in
order that every member should have the
same freedom of discussion as though we
were in Committee of the Whole. That was
the proposition ofthe Hon. Attorney General
West himself, thinking it the most proper
way to conduct the course ff the debate.
He went further, and stated it as his opinion
that after the debate commenced, it should
go on each day after half-past seven, leaving
the afternoon sitting for the other business
of the House. This was another of the hon.
gentleman's voluntary statements. Then,
going on, what do we find ? We find the Hon.
Attorney General West, immediately after,
in answer to my hon. friend on my right
(Hon. J. S. MACDONALD), saying :—
His idea was that after the debate commenced,
it should go on each day after half-past seven,
leaving the afternoon sitting for other business.
And again—
The suspension of the rules he proposed was
for the protection of the minority, by allowing
each member to speak and state his objections as
often as be pleased. • • • • • • • •
• • • • • He agreed that Mr. CAME RON's proposition was a reasonable one. The
732
Government would, in the first instance, lay their
case before the House, and through the press before the country, and then allow a
reasonable
time for the country to judge of the case as presented by the Government.
The Hon. President of the Council also
said :—
Although the Hon. Atty. Gen. had proposed that
the discussion should continue day after day, he had
not suggested for a moment that the vote should
be hurried on ; the debate at any period might be
adjourned, if deemed necessary, to allow time for
the expression of public opinion. There were
130 members, and almost every member would
desire to spealr on the question ; and he thought
clearly the preper course was to devote every
day, after half-past seven, to the discussion, to
allow all members on both sides to state their
views, that they might go to the country and be
fully considered.
This, then, was the manner in which the
Government brought the proposition before
the House—the matter was to be discussed
without hurry, and the whole of the 130
members on the floor of the House were to
be allowed to express their opinions fully,
and their views were to go to the country
to be fully weighed and considered. After
that we heard the Hon. Atty. Gen. West
saying :—
Of course it was competent to the House to
vote against the Address as a whole, or to adopt
amendments to it; but, if they did so, it would
then be for the Government to consider whether
they would press the scheme further on the attention of the House.
Still further, the Hon. Atty. Gen. West
said :—
All amendments might be moved to that one
resolution. It would be the same thing, in fact,
as to move them upon each resolution separately.
This, Mr. SPEAKER, occurred during the
preliminary discussion.
HON. MR. DORION—I was saying that
this occurred in the preliminary discussion which took place on the floor of the
House when the Hon. Atty. Gen. West
himself brought in the resolution upon
which the discussion of this measure should
be based. We proposed that, as the best
protection for the minority, we should go
into Committee of the Whole ; but the Hon.
Atty. Gen. West said that we should have
all the advantages, and more, too, than if we
went into committee. He promised that
we should be allowed to express our views
as often as we pleased, while we would have
the benefit of greater order being kept, with
the Speaker in the chair, than would be
possible in Committee of the Whole. We
relied upon this agreement being kept, and
believed that not only would members be
allowed to express their views without
check, but that the public would have time
to hold meetings and petition. We therefore consented at once to the eight days'
adjournment, which was suggested by the
honorable member for Peel (Hon. J. H.
CAMERON), and which was considered by
all a most reasonable proposition. Well, the
Government took eight days to send their
speeches to the country, and four days after
the debate was resumed, we find the honorable member for Montreal Centre (Hon.
Mr. ROSE) putting a notice on the paper to
do away with the solemn agreement which
was entered into on the floor of Parliament
between the honorable members on the ministerial side and the minority in opposition.
(Hear, hear.) The honorable gentlemen on
the Treasury benches closed the exposition
of their case on the 8th of February. On
the 16th the debate was resumed, and on
the 21st—Saturday and Sunday intervening
—just two nights' debating having taken
place in the meantime—the honorable member for Montreal Centre went to every member
to get a round robin signed for the purpose of breaking a solemn agreement, which
had been entered into in good faith, between
the Government and the minority. (Hear,
hear.) Having failed, after two nights' discussion, to carry the resolution of which
he
had given notice—after, I say, the honorable member for Montreal Centre had been
foiled in his attempt to carry that motion-
the Hon. Atty. Gen. West put a notice on
the paper to the same effect, thereby assuming the responsibility of all that had
been done
in this respect by the honorable member for
Montreal Centre. And in the absence of the
Hon. Atty. Gen. West, the Hon. Atty. Gen.
East moved that resolution for breaking the
agreement which he and his colleagues had
solemnly entered into. (Hear, hear.) And,
sir, not only did they attempt to break this
agreement, so as to prevent discussion on
the part of the minority, and to stifle the
expression of public opinion, which was
733
manifesting itself at public meetings, which
were being held everywhere throughout the
country, and making itself known to this
House through the right of petition ; but we
now find the hon. gentlemen taking advantage of every rule and technicality known
to parliamentary practice to accomplish the
same object. (Hear, hear.) And, forsooth,
the hon. gentleman rises in his place and
attempts to justify himself by calling the
Opposition a factious opposition, and by
charging it with wasting the time of the
House. They are anxious to strangle the
discussion after five or six days' debate,
when more time had been employed by hon.
members on that side than by hon. members
on our side, having already succeeded in
forcing on the discussion at half-past three
in the afternoon, instead of half-past seven,
according to the agreement. And now, sir,
we are witnessing the extraordinary spectacle of a Government moving the " previous
question" to their own motion. (Cheers.)
Well, indeed, might the hon. member for
Carleton (Mr. POWELL) ask if there could
be found a precedent for such a course !
Hon. gentlemen who can accomplish such a
thing as the " double shuffle" can never
be much embarrassed for the want of a
precedent. They who have so long, by
means of parliamentary tricks, succeeded in
maintaining their position, are now inventing
a new dodge in order to choke off discussion
on this question. Already, sir, have we
seen, on one celebrated occasion—in the
Corrigan case—the Hon. Attorney General
West rising in his place and moving a
resolution, and afterwards inviting his own
followers to vote against it. (Cheers.)
And now, following a similar course, he is
proposing the " previous question," the
object of which is, in ordinary parliamentary
practice, to prevent a vote being taken on
the main proposition. Whenever an hon.
gentleman does not want to vote in favor of
the question before the House, and dares
not vote against it, he moves or gets a
friend to move the " previous question,"
which is that the question he now put, and
votes against it. (Hear, hear.) Such is
the invariable practice in England, where
parliamentary usage is better known than in
this country, and we here find a government resorting to a similar dodge in reference
to a measure of their own, and the most
important measure that was ever brought
before the country.
HON. MR. DORION—Yes, and a strong
government, as my honorable friend says—
a government which boasts of having an
immense majority, and of having the power
to carry such measures as it pleases. It is
such a government as this, I say, which is
dragging its supporters still deeper through
the mire—which is saying to them : " You
shall vote for the scheme without putting
your views on record, and without giving
the people an opportunity of expressing their
opinion in the usual constitutional manner."
(Hear, hear.) But what do they gain by
such a course ? They acknowledge it will
not stop discussion. And thus they will not
gain a single hour or a single minute in point
of time. But this they will gain—if their
supporters are blind enough to follow them
—those who are pledged to their constituents
not to vote for the scheme without first
submitting it to the people, will be forced
into eating up all the promises that they
have made while in the presence of their
constituents. It may be possible that they
will find some who will thus, following the
example shown them by the Government,
give the denial to their solemn promises,
and turn their backs on the pledges they
have given—they may find, I say, a few
of their followers doing this ; but I shall
be much mistaken if the majority of the
members of this House who have gone
to public meetings in the country—who
have met their constituents face to face, and
who have faithfully pledged themselves to
vote for an appeal to the people, will be
dragged, as the honorable gentlemen on the
other side attempt to drag them, into doing
that which their own consciences and their
promises to their constituents alike forbid.
(Hear, hear.) It will be discreditable to
this House, should honorable members be
found in such a position—if, by a mere
dodge of this kind, Ministers themselves can
not only break their own promises, but
compel their supporters to break their promises as well. I hope, for the honor of
this
House and the country, there will not be
found one of those who have promised to
vote for an appeal to the people, recording
his vote for the question now before the
Chair. Let it be clearly understood, that
every honorable member who votes for the
previous question declares against any
amendment being moved to the main motion,
734
against any expression of opinion on the
part of the members of this House being
placed on record. In voting, too, for the
" previous question," he also votes to condone the breach of faith of which honorable
gentlemen have been guilty towards this
House. And, sir, honorable gentlemen
must have sunk very low in the estimation
of their own friends, when two or three of
their warmest supporters have to rise, one
after the other, to charge them, as was done
this afternoon, with a breach of faith, and
with not having kept their promises to this
House and to the country. (Hear, hear.)
In my opinion, the honorable gentlemen
would have shown a little more dignity and
self-respect had they not thus exposed themselves to the taunts of their own friends.
But I cannot believe that the House will
consent to be led away by the dexterous management of the Hon. Attorney General West
—by the fictitious indignation which he is
always ready to summon to his assistance,
and with which he has burst upon the House
to-day. In respect to the factiousness of
the Opposition, I repeat that I never witnessed in this House such a spectacle as
that which has just been displayed by hon.
gentlemen on the other side. Never, in my
life, did I hear a strong government rising
in its place, and upon a question of this magnitude, involving the dearest interests
of
the country, exclaiming—" You shall accept
the scheme as a whole ; you shall not even
have the opportunity of moving a single
amendment." The honorable gentleman,
sir, treated as an absurd proposition that of
the honorable member for North Ontario
—which is also the desire of the Lower
Provinces—for a legislative union, with
guarantees for the laws, language and religion of the inhabitants of Lower Canada,
instead of a Federal union. But, sir, is it
not the case that a great many members of
this House, nay, some in the Administration,
would prefer that to the proposed scheme of
Federation ? Is it not also the case that in
Nova Scotia, Hon. Mr. HOWE has set his face
against Federation, and is a strong advocate
of legislative union, which the honorable
gentlemen opposite treat as an absurdity.
Well, sir, whether it is an absurdity or not,
every honorable member of this House ought
to have an opportunity to put his views on
record, and of saying—" I want a legislative
union, and not a Federation ; I want an
elective, and not a nominative Council."
(Hear, Hear.) Sir, the honorable gentlemen say that a legislative union is an
absurdity, that an appeal to the people on
this question is also an absurdity ; but this
is only in keeping with their whole course of
conduct, which is to treat the peeple of this
country with contempt, and altogether to
disregard the wishes of their representatives
in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Not only do
they treat this side with contempt, but they
treat with even greater contempt their own
friends, whom they are trying to coerce into
approval of their unconstitutional course of
conduct. (Cheers)
His Grace proceeds to point out a course
which, if followed, would most assuredly
secure the accomplishment of the object he
had in view. He says :—
Whatever other steps may be taken for the improved organization of the militia, it
appears to
Her Majesty's Government to be of essential
importance that its administration and the supply
of funds for its support, should be exempt from
the disturbing action of ordinary politics. Unless
this be done, there can be no confidence that in
the appointment of officers and in other matters
of a purely military character, no other object
than the efficiency of the force is kept in view.
Were it not that it might fairly be considered too
great an interference with the privileges of the
representatives of the people, I should be inclined
to suggest that the charge for the militia, or a
certain fixed portion of it, should be defrayed
from the Consolidated Fund of Canada, or voted
for a period of three or five years.
I trust the House will bear with me while
I read the Opinion of the Canadian Government on this extraordinary proposition :—
Another suggestion embraced in His Grace's
despatch is well calculated to excite surprise.
Your Excellency's advisers allude to that portion
of the despatch in which His Grace proposes to
remove the control of funds required for militia
purposes from the domain of Parliament. His
Grace is evidently aware that the proposition
wears the aspect of " an interference with the privileges of the representatives of
the people," and it
is certain that any measure liable to this construction never will be, and ought not
to be entertained by a people inheriting the freedom guaranteed by British institutions.
The Imperial
Parliament guards with jealous care the means of
maintaining the military and naval forces of the
Empire. Its appropriations are annually voted.
and not the most powerful minister has dared to
propose to the House of Commons the abandonment of its controlling power for a period
of five
735
years. If the disturbing action " of ordinary
politics" is a reason for removing the final direction of military preparations from
Parliament, it
is in every sense as applicable in England as in
Canada. What the case of Commons would
not under any circumstances of danger entertain,
is not likely to be entertained by the Legislature
of Canada. Whatever evils are incident to representative institutions, the peOple
of a British province will not forget that the are trivial in
comparison with those which are inseparable from
arbitrary authority. Popular liberties are only
safe when the action of the people retains and
guides the policy of those who are invested with
the power of directing the affairs of the country.
They are safe against military despotism, wielded
by a corrupt government, only when they have in
their hands the means of controlling the supplies
required for the maintenance of a military organization
I will now quote one more extract from the
same report, which will exhibit the opinion
entertained at that time by us in relation to
the political union of the provinces. What
I am now about to read was written in answer
to a proposition made from the Colonial Office that a fund should be raised by the
British North American Colonies, and which
should be expended under the direction of
the Secretary of State for the common defence
of the whole country. The extract here cited
will place the House in a position to understand what was then intended to be done
:—
A union for defence is proposed by His Grace
the Secretary of State for the Colonies—a union
of the British North American Provinces, for the
formation and maintenance of one uniform system
of military organization and training, having a
common defensive fund, and approved by Her
Majesty's Government—a union, whose details
would emanate from the Secretary of State, and
whose management would be entirely independent
of the several local legislatures. Your Excellency's advisers have no hesitation in
expressing
the opinion that any alliance of this character
cannot at present be entertained. An Intercolonial Railway seems to be the first step
towards
any more intimate relations between the British
North American Provinces than those which now
exist. The construction even of this work is by
no means certain; although this Government,
looking at it mainly as a means of defence, has
entertained the preliminaries, in common with
delegates from the provinces of Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick. It is premature, just now, to
speculate upon the possible political consequences
which may never be consummated. Certain it is,
however, that the re can be no closer intercolonial
union of any kind until increased facilities for intercommunication are provided;
and equally
certain that the provinces, supposing them to be
hereafter united, will never contribute to an
expensive system of defence unless it be subject
to their own control. Speaking for Canada,
Your Excellency's advisers are sure that this province will continue to claim the
exclusive right
of directing the expenditure of the public
moneys.
Sir, these were the replies to the various
propositions submitted by His Grace in relation to our contributions towards the defence
of this country, and to the means for supplying the same. If different ground is now
taken by honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches, it seems to me that they
abandon the rights which belong to a free
people—the right of controlling the expenditure of our own money, the denial of which
caused the revolt of the American colonies
in 1776. In the observations I have made
on the question of defence, and the willingness of the people of this country to contribute
their share, I wish to be understood
that the proportion asked of us shall be
according to our ability. What I say is
that in the condition in which the country
is at this moment, it would be idle for us to
undertake an outlay which would hopelessly
embarrass our exchequer. To organize a
large force in connection with the outlay for
fortifications, would require a large number
of men, who would be withdrawn from the
industry of the country—and, that industry
being heavily taxed, without any return being
expected ;—and the soil refusing perhaps to
be as prolific as in other years, most serious
embarrassments would overtake us in the
attempt to defend ourselves in a war which
we had done nothing to provoke. And,
having no knowledge of the Imperial policy
which might bring about such a war, I say
it becomes the people of this country, before
they undertake a large outlay for defence or
military organisation, to consider what portion we can bear of the burdens sought
to be
imposed upon us. (Hear, hear.) I say
nothing of the sensational style of speaking
which the Attorney General West gets up
about other topics, in order to get away from
the point raised by my honorable friend from
Chateauguay, who stated the case in a way
that any one who desired might have met it
fairly. When a plain answer is wanted to a
pointed question, honorable gentlemen opposite invariably fly off to something else.
I
will not allude to the debate which incidentally followed aftcr the recess this evening,
and before I resumed my observations a
little while ago, farther than to make a
remark on the statement of the Attorney
General West, that I sneered at the question
736
of defence. The honorable gentleman stopped
there, and I do not know what he intended to add. I suppose it was to be the
same courteous and elegant language which
he addressed to my honorable friend the
member for Chateauguay—language which,
as regards its audacity and vituperative
character, no other member of this House
would condescend to use. Complaints from
this side of the conduct of the Government generally, the honorable gentleman
meets by getting up in a dreadful fury,
and singling out honorable gentlemen on this
side for personal attack. Such conduct, I
think. is unworthy of the leader of this
House. (Hear, hear.) I deny that I have
ever sneered at the defence question. During
my life, it has been more than a sentiment
with me—it has been a principle that this
country should be defended. I know it is a
duty we owe to the Empire, as a self-governing colony, to contribute a fair proportion
of our means for defence. And I am sure I
speak the sentiments of every honorable
member on this side, when I say that we are
prepared, to the extent of our resources, to
contribute all we can for that object. But it
is not only that we are called upon to contribute means for our defence ; we shall
be
called upon also, in the time of danger, to
contribute men, to shed the best blood of the
country, to see our fields devastated, our
towns destroyed, our trade and commerce
ruined. All these are consequences of a
state of war, which must necessarily fall
upon us, in the event of that calamity arising.
We have all that to consider, and we have
the consciousness also that, without a very
large amount of Imperial aid, it would be
impossible for us for a long time to resist an
invasion of this country. But, while taking
this ground, let us not be led away by this
buncombe talk of loyalty—by the dragging
in of the name ot the Sovereign and the
name of the Governor General by hon. gentlemen opposite. To over-awe and whip in
their supporters, they say to them that they
must do what they bid them, because the
Queen has said this, and the Governor
General has said that, and they constantly
refer to " loyalty." For my own part, I never
invoke the aid of that term—for I always
take it for granted that men are loyal, until
they prove by word or deed that they are
disloyal. (Hear, hear.) The imputations
cast on our loyalty are a gratuitous insult
offered to true Britons, who have proved in
times past, and are ready to prove again,
their loyalty and their valour—men, whose
attachment to the soil on which they were
born makes them still more anxious to keep
their hearths and firesides free from the
pollution of the invader. Those who
have come here only yesterday cannot feel
the strength of the ties which bind us
to our native land ; and yet they have
the audacity to charge us with being annexationists. So far from submitting to
this imputation, I charge the gentlemen on
the Treasury benches, by the course of legislation they have introduced—by the sudden
manner in which they have changed their
tactics, and proceeded to organise a Constitu
tion which familiarises the people of this
country more to American institutions that
anything ever done here before—I charge
them with having done much, to hasten
annexation. I put it to honorable gentlemen
whether the outside talk of annexation is not
assuming a very alarming aspect. (Ironical
cries of " Hear ! hear" from the Ministerial
benches.) Yes, and I charge honorable gentlemen with the fatal consequence of
placing the issue before the English public,
the people of this country, and the
people of the United States—that either this
self-made, unauthorised Constitution must be
supported, or else the rejection of it will be
tantamount to annexation, and consequently
that we are annexationists at heart who do not
approve of this measure. We, who raise our
voices honestly against the scheme, being
desirous really to perpetuate our connection
with the Mother Country, and to defend this
province with the means we have, are to be
stigmatised as annexationists by the Minister
of Agriculture, who sends it forth to the
world, that there are annexationists not only
here but down in the Lower Provinces. He,
forsooth, is the man of all others to talk about
loyalty ! I have listened with disgust—(oh !
oh !)—with disgust, at the assumption with
which the honorable gentleman passes judgment on those who will be found standing
by the British flag when he will be nowhere.
(Hear, hear.) Yes ; I can scarcely restrain
my anger when I hear that honorable gentleman reading us a lecture on loyalty. It
is
" Satan reproving sin." When he gets into
a government with a number of super-
loyal gentleman, he forsooth must stigmatise
as disloyal every one who will not go just
his own way.
HON. MR. McGEE—I had said all these
things you refer to, before you took me mo
your government. (Laughter.)
737
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—Whilst the
honorable gentleman was with us, we kept
him as close as we could, and it was a hard
task. (Laughter.) We managed, however,
to keep him right, and he took his part
in settling the principles which were laid
down in the answer we gave to the Duke of
NEWCASTLE.
HON. MR. McGEE—Some of the views
laid down in that document are very good.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—And no
doubt, when he disagrees with the gentlemen
with whom he is now associated, and leaves
them as he left us, he will have different
views again.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—The honorable gentleman was glad to come to us. It
was the first lift he got in Canada.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I was led
into this digression in consequence of the
taunts and imputations cast upon us this
evening by the leader of the House. We
were obliged to him for saying, in his
speech at the opening of this debate, that we
are all loyal in this country; and yet the Attorney General East in his speech made
on
the following day, said there were annexationists here—there were the JOHN DOUGALL
party and the extreme democratic party. It
is not for me to reconcile the statements of the
two honorable gentlemen. One says there
are no annexationists, the other says there are.
The Hon. Attorney General East spoke of
an annexation sentiment in Montreal. Whether he is.right or not, we know that that
city became notorious for its annexation
proclivities at a former time. With regard
to the prosperity of the country, and its condition at this present time, I have some
observations to make, and will leave the
House to deduce there from how far the
Administration will be justifiable in asking
from this House authority to make the outlay which they may propose for purposes
of defence. I have said that the cry of
annexation has arisen from the attempt
made by honorable gentlemen opposite to
shape our Constitution after the American
model. And there is nothing more natural
than, when the commerce of the country is
at a stand-still, when indebtedness presses
hard and heavy upon the farmers and
mechanics as well as merchants, and all
branches of trade are depressed—nothing is
more natural than that people should look
somewhere for relief. This leads me to state
that the desire for change—which it is said
this proposed scheme is intended to meet—
has not been produced so much by any sectional difficulties, as by the embarrassments
which have overtaken the country. Make
the institutions of this country analogous,
except in some very trifling instances of difference, to those of the United States,
and
let us feel that our commerce is too limited,
and embarrassments have overtaken us
—and the result will be that the policy of
honorable gentlemen opposite with regard to
this question will make people look to the
States, in spite of themselves. I wish to
shew that the state of the country ten years
ago was much more prosperous than it is
now. The condition in which we found ourselves in 1852 and 1853 justified us to a
great
extent in going into a large indebtedness for
the Grand Trunk. And probably the healthy
condition of the farming interest and of every
branch of trade at that time, justified to some
extent the enactment of the Municipal Loan
Fund Act, which enabled municipalities to
borrow money for all sorts of improvements.
Having referred to the state of prosperity
which then prevailed, I shall next allude to
the cause, which, in my judgment, more
than anything else contributed to produce
the disastrous difficulties which have since
overtaken the country. I first quote from the
despatch of Lord ELGIN in 1852, to show
what was our condition about that period, when
transmitting to the Colonial Office the Canadian
Blue Book for the previous year :—
I had the honor with my despatch, No. 2,
on the 9th September, to transmit two copies of
" Tables of the Trade and Navigation of the Province of Canada for 1851," and I now
enclose the
Blue Book, together with a printed copy of the
" Accounts of the Province," and of a Report by
the Commissioner of Public Works for the same
year. These documents furnish much gratifying
evidence of the progress and prosperity of the
colony, and justify the anticipations on this head
expressed in my despatch, No. 94, of the 1st
August, 1851, which accompanied the Blue Book
of 1850.
That is the official statement made by the
then Governor General to the Mother Country.
And what does he say in the following year?
In 1853, after going over a number of facts,
shewing the advancement of trade and commerce, and the general progress of the
country, he says, in the last sentence but one
of his despatch :—
738
I enclose the supplement of a local newspaper,
which contains copies of the addresses that were
presented to me at various points in my progress
up the Ottawa. Your Grace will observe with
satisfaction the uniform testimony which they bear
to the prosperity of the country and the contentment of the inhabitants. Reports which
reach
me from other parts of the province speak on
this point the same language. Canada has enjoyed
seasons of prosperity before, but it is doubtful
whether any previous period in the history of the
colony can be cited at which there was so entire
an absence of those bitter personal and party
animosities which divert attention from material
interests, and prevent co—operation for the public
good.
I could quote also from the essays written
at that time by the member for South Lanark
(Mr. MORRIS), the Solicitor General East
(Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN), and the late JOHN
SHERIDAN HOGAN, to shew the unprecedented progress which was being made by
Canada at that time. And what was the
first thing to mar that prosperity? I wish to
call the attention of honorable gentlemen to
the fact, that the first step in bringing about
the embarrassment we are now laboring
under, was the repeal of the Usury laws. In
the first place, the bill of the honorable
member for South Oxford (Hon. Mr. BROWN)
in 1853, took away the penalty attached to
lending money at usurious rates. Money was
then got freely—farmers and others borrowed
heavily—and we commenced our downward
career. Afterwards all restrictions on the
lending of money were taken off. At first
people could get money at six per cent., but
afterwards capital came in from abroad, and
the country was flooded with money, but at
unlimited interest. I appeal to honorable
gentlemen, who represent the farming portions Of Upper Canada—I appeal to honorable
members for Lower Canada, if they
can rise in their places and say that the
condition of this country at present is not
deplorable ; that there is not an amount of
private indebtedness which is frightful to contemplate ? And why is this ? It is because
so many are borrowing money on account of
the facility of obtaining it at high rates ;
then, getting embarrassed, they borrow for
three or four years more at 15 or 20 per
cent ; next they have to borrow at 30 or 40
per cent, and finally are stripped of their
property and ruined.
Mr. A. MACKENZIE—Does the honorable gontleman want an answer to the appeal
he made a moment ago ?
MR. A. MACKENZIE—Well, I have to
say for one, that while there is a considerable
amount Of money borrowed in the part of the
country which I represent myself, there is
an amount of accumulated wealth there
tenfold what it was at the time the honorable
gentleman has referred to ; and there is not
anything like that amount borrowed now
that there was at that time. (Hear, hear.)
MR. STIRTON.—I have no hesitation in
endorsing that statement, as applicable also
to the part of the country which I represent.
MR. A. MACKENZIE—And I should
have added that money can be borrowed at
lower rates now than at the time referred
to.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—Well, it
appears that I have the testimony of two
honorable gentlemen against me. As regards
the statement of my honorable friend who
comes from the Oil Springs, we can easily
understand why money has flowed in there,
where they sell a hundred acres for a million
of dollars—and why, at the time his section
of country has become rich, other parts of the
country may remain poor. (Hear, hear.)
At the time the usury laws were repealed,
I had the honor, Mr. SPEAKER, to be in the
seat which you now occupy, and I had
therefore no opportunity of urging my opposition to the bill then brought before the
House by the honorable member for South
Oxford (Hon. Mr. BROWN) with all that
energy and earnestness which characterises
that honorable gentleman. But whenever
the attempt was subsequently made to restore
the usury laws, or to reimpose the restrictions on the rate of interest, my vote will
always be found to have been with those who
were opposed to what is called free trade in
money, and to-day I feel more satisfied than
ever that it is the repeal of the usury laws
which has brought about a large amount of
the depression and the difficulties under
which the country now suffers. It is true
that for two or three years after the repeal
of the usury laws, the country was prosperous. Property was valued at enormous
rates ; large amounts were borrowed
the Municipal Loan Fund, and were spent
on local improvements generally, yielding no
return whatever. Then there were large
sums borrowed from the different moneyed
corporations that came into the country—
such as the Canada Loan and Credit Company—the Trust and Loan Company— and
the various insurance companies that are
daily investing their surplus funds in valu
739
able property in this country. Where does
that money go ? It does not remain here. It
is drained off in the dividends of the banks,
and of the various companies that are lending
at usurious rates of interest. It is going
out of the country. And what do we get in
return ? More facilities for borrowing.
And I ask honorable gentlemen from Upper
Canada—I do not know how far this is applicable to Lower Canada—whether it is not
true that an immense number of our youth,
now in the armies of the United States, have
gone away because the properties held by
their fathers are so heavily mortgaged that
they had no hope of retrieving them.
Speaking for my own section, I can say that
there is scarcely a young man who can now
look forward, as was the rule ten or twelve
years ago, to succeeding his father in the
family homestead. I say then that this generally depressed state of the country, without
any prospect of relief, causes a large amount
of uneasiness in the public mind. And there
is no doubt that a good deal of the feeling
in favor of the scheme which honorable gentleman take credit for, is influenced by
the
desire to look for some change, as a relief
from the depression under which we labour.
And I am not without authority for the statement I am now making. I shall read from
an
article published only a day or two ago by
one, whose name I am sure is well known to
the commercial community generally—who
has contributed more than any one else to
the statistics of our trade and commerce by
his labors in Toronto, and subsequently in
Montreal—I allude to the Editor of the
Trade Review. I shall read from that article,
and shall then ask the House to say whether
I have been exaggerating. I am now speaking
more of the condition of our farmers, and
those who have been induced to borrow on
account of the facilities afforded for getting
money ; I shall come presently to speak of
the trade and commerce of the country, and
shall prove from the same source that the
statistics of our trade shew both to be in a
deplorable condition. I do this to show that
we should not blindly incur an immense
liability in the matter of defence, when we
have no means of meeting the outlay that
may be imposed upon us. When the Hon.
Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN) and
the member for St. John's (Mr. BOUBASSA)
had a race every year to see who would be
foremost in bringing in his bill to reduce the
rate of interest, the member for South Oxford
(Hon. Mr. BROWN) of course insisted on the
maintenance of his pet scheme, which, in my
opinion, has done more harm to the country
than anything else. I regret that the
House should have agreed so far with the
honorable gentleman in maintaining that
policy. As I said before, in a country like
this, where our wealth is in our lands, where
we own but little money—when our crops
fail, how can we meet the extravagant
demands made upon us by those from whom
we borrow ? But I will proceed to read what
the
Trade Review of February last says of
our present laws on the subject of usury :—
The framers of these laws evidently intended
them, we think, to protect the trader and the
farmer from the extortions of money lenders,
and, as such, they may have been suited for the
time, when banking was solely in the hands of
one or two corporations, which, of course, were
monopolists. But competition has now fairly
effaced all possibility of oppression from such a
source. These laws, in fact, instead of guarding
the interests they were intended to protect, only
serve to drive their representatives into the enemy's quarters, and leave them at
the mercy of the
oppressor. Mercantile paper, which our banks
are not willing to discount at seven per cent., is
handed by the needy trader—who is in want of
money to meet the pressing demands of some
creditor, or to retire some notes falling due—to a
broker, by whom, perhaps, after getting a bond
over part of the trader's property, the paper is
discounted at a rate more nearly assimilated to
that at which respectable bankers are selling
" current fund" drafts upon New York (say fifty
per cent. discount) than a fair rate for commercial
paper. This is the kind of protection our usury
laws afford. Rather a rude nurse, we should call
them, for our undeveloped "resources, and our
infant manufactures."
That is the language of the reviewer, one
whose business it is to review, not only the
monetary condition and the commerce of the
country, but every branch of our industry
and trade, and he seals with his judgment
the statements which have been made as to
the deplorable condition into which the
existing usury laws, in this and in former
years, have brought the country. That is
one of the consequences of free trade in
money. The honorable member for South
Oxford in answer to a remark from this
side, said this afternoon that the commercial interests of Upper Canada were in a
most prosperous condition.
HON. MR. BROWN—I did not say " a
most prosperous condition." What I said
was this—that the honorable member for
Chateauguay had exaggerated the difficulties
now existing in Upper Canada ; that the
740
troubles in the United States, short crops and
other causes had caused a depression in
Upper Canada ; but that this, I considered,
was merely temporary, and that with one or
two good crops all this would disappear.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—But these
are hard truths which I have been reading.
And I think it is better to tell frankly our
condition, than to base our estimates on a
condition which we do not really enjoy. Let
us not send out extravagant statements about
our situation which will not stand the test of
an impartial scrutiny. Let us rather make
known here and in the Mother Country our
real resources, than make false representations of a state of prosperity which does
not
exist. Then this is our prospect, as stated
by the editor of the
Trade Review, and
honorable gentlemen must remember that
our present prospects have a great deal to do
with the course they should take in legislating on the future constitution of our
government :—
A very general degree of anxiety is apparent
among mercantile men as to the prospects of a
healthy trade during the coming season. There
are so many unfavourable circumstances combining to affect our commerce, that this
anxiety is
by no means without a cause. Excessive importations last year, implying large internal
and foreign
indebtedness ; decreased exports, equally implying
inabi ity to readily reduce this indebtedness, are
facts that in themselves are sufficient to create a
marked change in the immediate condition of
trade. There can be no doubt but that the grain
crop throughout Western Canada falls short of
even diminished expectation, the fine sleighing of
the past two months having failed to induce deliveries to any large extent by farmers.
Taking
into account, however, that throu bout the autumn the deliveries were insignificant,
it was
generally anticipated that during the winter the
amount of produce to be brought out would be
very large. But unfortunately, notwithstanding
a continuance of excellent roads, a very great
pressure for money, and a fair demand at moderate rates, at no point in all the province
have
the receipts yet reached those of previous years.
The only inference is, that the crop is not only a
short one, but that the money being realised for
it falls far short of general expectation. The
result must be to materially lessen the debt-paying
power of the people, and render them less likely
to make new purchases. Not only will this be
the internal effect, but when it is understood that
one section of the province will require for consumption very nearly all the surplus
produce of
the other. the difficulty to discharge foreign indebtedness is intensified."
MR. SPEAKER, I again quote from the
Trade Review. It tells us that the pro
bable excess in Upper Canada will be more
than swallowed up in Lower Canada. The
article goes on to say :—
Another cause for anxiety is the general condition in which the retail trade of the
country is
found. The numerous failures that are daily
occurring, and the wretched dividends which real
estates are likely to pay, indicate a condition of
things not at all desirable. Not only is there
constantly apparent a manifest lack of capacity,
but, as we remarked last week, a degree of rascality is being developed, which cannot
fail to be
highy injurious to general confidence. We do
not now propose to enumerate the causes for
these frequent casualties, or point out the policy
of trade that has induced them : it is sufficient to
say, that recent events make it more than usually
incumbent upon importers to scan their credits
very closely ; to lessen large amounts in few
hands ; and to use every legitimate precaution for
safety rather than profit. We need hardly another
cause to account or the anxiety of merchants as
to the future. But another cause we have in the
restricted policy which the banks will of necessity
be compelled to pursue. All that we have been
attempting to describe will act with far greater
force upon the banks than upon individuals. A
small movement of produce implies an equally
small circulation of bills ; any lack of confidence
in the retail trade will hasten the policy which
has been for some time evident, viz., the contraction into large cities of the means
of the
leading institutions. Even in the ordinary condition of affairs, the banks would not
do other
than contract in a year of short crops and low
prices. But another cause for contraction will be
the contemplated withdrawal of Southern gold
now in deposit. The passage of the Alien Bill
may have one of two effects,—1st, it may cause
the withdrawal of a considerable sum of gold held
by the banks ; or 2nd, it will certainly necessitate
preparation for such a withdrawal, should it even
never take place. Either consequence implies a
conversion into bullion of some property not now
in that shape. The banks now unitedly hold five
and a half millions of dollars in gold, against which
there is a circulation of notes of over nine millions. This proportion will doubtless
be maintained, and any considerable drafts for deposits
will be met by bills of exchange on England, the
banks either using their credit there, which they
can do with interest at five per cent., or they can
sell the securities in which their foreign deposits
are invested.
Sir, there is the future, drawn only last
month, of the condition of Upper Canada—
short crops and nothing to export, and
nothing staring us in the face but actual
distress and actual want. Then, if that is
imminent, does it not behove us to regard
closely the conduct of the gentlemen on the
Treasury benches? We ought to admonish
them not to go heedlessly and needlessly
741
into extravagance which this country cannot
bear. (Hear, hear.) The effect of this
legislation, the unhinging of the public
mind, and the high expectations formed of
the advantages which are to result from the
adoption of this scheme of a new Constitution—all these things have contributed to
make the people unhappy and to drive the
population out of the country. (Hear, hear.)
I put it to the House, whether the honorable
gentlemen on the Treasury benches have not
given, as the main excuse for pressing
the Confederation scheme, the imminent
danger which surrounds us. Does the
emigrant choose that country where
he cannot profitably invest his capital ; where
he cannot find profitable employment on his
arrival, nor lands in convenient situations,
which he can convert to immediate use,
where extravagance has been induced by
the facilities afforded for borrowing and for
wild speculations ; and above all, where he
expects to be called upon to perform military duties in the face of a powerful enemy
immediately on the berders of his new
home? I think that if, in the face of all
these circumstances, the gentlemen on the
Treasury benches pledge themselves to an
excessive outlay, we ought to be told now
what are the prospects in store for the
people of Canada. (Hear, hear.) But, sir,
they are silent on that point. We know
this, however, from past experience—we
know that it will be impossible for us to
regulate the conducto f the honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches, when they
get to Downing-street, surrounded by the
influences which will meet them there. Sir,
We have occasion for alarm. We remember
that when Hon.Mr. HINCKS went to England
in 1854, notwithstanding we had voted
one million eight hund sterling in 1852
for the Grand Trunk, he returned to
Canada just in time to call Parliament
within a day of the prescribed period appointed for its meeting, and proposed, as
the important measure for that session,
ÂŁ900,000 stg. additional ; and this vote was
forced through Parliament during the following session, when it transpired, for the
first time, that the agreement to advance
this sum out of the public exchequer had
been entered into by Mr. HINCKS and Lord
ELGIN whilst in London. We are now
called upon to give these gentlemen a vote
of credit ; to give them the control of a
large sum of money, to spend as they think
proper ; to allow them to betake themselves
to England to bind us to an agreement for
all time to come. (Hear, hear.) We see,
sir, day after day, as I have said before,
how gentlemen come to this House and disregard the pledges they have made their
constituents. Once in their places here,
they forget the vows by which they obtained them. I could give a long list, in
my experience of a quarter of a century in
this House, of members who have betrayed
the confidence reposed in them by the
people who elected them. (Hear, hear.) Is
it vain to appeal to members now to control
the power the Government are asking from
us, after we have protested against this sort
of thing year after year ; when we are refused those explanations which should be
given to this House ; when the country is
deeply embarrassed, I fear, beyond redemption ? (Hear, hear.) I have to apologise
to
the House for the length of time during which
I have occupied its attention. But I hope
the House will believe this, that I am not
actuated by any factious motives in this
matter. (Hear, hear.) I stand here as one
who has no vote of his to recall ; as one who
has always maintained that, under our Constitution, as it is, prosperity and enjoyment
might be secured, with all their concomitants,
were we free from demagogueism, which
has produced a very large proportion of the
difficulties by which we are surrounded.
(Hear, hear.) I think I have demonstrated
that there is suficient cause for alarm to
make us anxious for the future. For all
we know, we may find ourselves in a very
awkward predicament when the question
turns upon Confederation or annexation. I
sincerely regret to notice the prevalence of
this tone of annexation, and I say that, since
the honorable gentlemen opposite got on the
Treasury benches, this tone has been much
more decided on this question than ever
before. (Hear, hear. Sir, I need only
refer to the declaration of the honorable
Premier in the other House, who stated the
other day that we were on an inclined plane
towards annexation, but which the Confederation scheme was calculated to arrest. I
regret also, as much as any one, the position
in which we are placed, and that, with such
a large population, we are, like mendicants,
knocking at the door of the Lower Provinces, imploring them against their will to
step in to save ns, forsooth, from destruction. (Hear.) It is no wonder that the
742
people there refuse to cast their lot with
ours, after hearing the opinion the honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches
have so frequently expressed of each other.
And what will be the consequence if an attempt
is made to coerce them ? Why, they will be
like the damsel who is forced to marry against
her will, and who will, in the end, be most
likely to elope with some one else. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) With the tricks which
the gentlemen on the Treasury benches know
so well to play, we will only hasten the day
when the Lower Provinces will perhaps endeavor to withdraw from the Mother Country
and seek another alliance. I resume my
seat, sir, regretting the manner in which
the Government have tried to stifle the full
and free discussion of this great question.
(Cheers.)
MR. COWAN—I cannot agree altogether,
Mr. SPEAKER, with the honorable member
for Cornwall as to the causes which led to
the prosperity of this country from 1854 to
1858, nor yet with the picture he draws of
our present circumstances. That hon. gentleman attributes our prosperity to the repeal
of the Usury laws. I do not doubt but that
the repeat of the Usury laws had some effect,
but there were other causes which had much
more to do in producing that prosperity
than the repeal of the Usury laws. In the
first place we imported money by the million
to build our railways, and in the second
place, not only had we abundant harvests,
but short crops in other countries gave
us fabulous prices for everything we raised.
Instead of eighty or ninety cents, wheat was
worth two dollars a bushel and upwards,
with millers scouring the country with teams
to carry it from the barn to the mill. Such
a tide of prosperity, Mr. SPEAKER, never set
in on any country ; the result was that it
unhinged the sober calculation of almost
everybody, and we ran into debt individually,
municipally, and provincially, as if pay-day
had never been to come. Well-to-do farmers, with perhaps a thousand dollars or two
in their pocket, thought they might purchase
an adjoining farm, but it was well if they
escaped with the loss of the money paid
down. In many instances the homestead
was sacrificed ere the new farm was paid for,
while houses planned and built then have
not yet received their furniture. But, Mr.
SPEAKER, if our prosperity was unprecedented, so were our reverses. The commercial
crisis of 1858 came on us when we were
almost without a crop. The disastrous frost
of the 11th of June destroyed the one-half,
if not three-fourths, of the fall wheat—
Spring wheat—all except the Fife sort, then
but sown—was so blighted as in many
instances not to be worth the cutting. And
many a farmer was not only destitute of
potatoes to eat, but had even to purchase his
next year's seed. The only article from
which numerous farmers got any return was
surplus stock, which that season brought
fair prices—lean as well as fat—in the
American markets. But these reverses were
not without a salutary effect. All speculation
was instantly stopped. Farmers began to
practice anew frugality and economy, and
turned their attention to rearing stock as well
as cereals. The consequence is that the
country has in a great measure recovered
from the shock of 1858, and, notwithstanding
rather short crops and comparatively low
prices, I cannot help thinking that the hon.
member for Cornwall takes altogether too
gloomy a view of the state of the country.
But though I cannot coincide with the
gloomy views of the member ior Cornwall,
neither can I accept the bright prospect of
the member for South Wellington, as being
descriptive of the agricultural interest,
generally, throughout the province. It is
all very well for my hon. friend, who resides
in one of the most fertile counties in Canada,
and whose farmers devote their attention to
rearing stock—stock second to none in the
province—to talk of agricultural prosperity.
But in less favored sections it cannot be
denied that there is much individual
suffering, caused by the midge and the
unprecedented drought of last summer.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. LAFRAMBOISE said—Mr.
SPEAKER, when, a few nights ago, I had the
honor to assert in this House that the Government would adopt every means to cause
their scheme of Confederation to be passed
without amendment, and would have recourse
to motions of the nature of that which is
engaging our attention at the present time, I
certainly did not expect that my prediction
would be so soon accomplished, and I acknowledge that I did not believe that it was
so well founded as it has proved to be. What
do we see, Mr. SPEAKER? We see an example of the most deplorably restrictive action
which can possibly be displayed by a
government. After delivering, to satiety,
speeches lasting several hours, speeches to
743
which we have listened with the greatest possible attention, the Administration, alarmed
at the agitation which is arising everywhere
throughout Lower Canada, and dreading reaction, takes every means to prevent discussion,
and to cause the House to vote without
allowing it an opportunity of proposing amendments to the informal scheme which it
is desirous of imposing upon the country. (Hear,
hear.) Among those who were witnesses of
the unworthy behavior of some of the honorable Ministers, who now sit on the opposite
side of the House, at the time of the celebrated "Double Shuffle" of 1858 ; among
those who saw those men record an oath at
ten o'clock at night which they violated the
very next day—among those, I say, the breach
of faith, of which the Hon. Attorney General West has just given so sad an example
to this House, will excite no surprise, for
those gentlemen have long accustomed us to
such unworthy actions on the part of a Ministry which has lost all sense of honor
and of
the respect which they owe to the House.
(Hear, hear.) It is evident, Mr. SPEAKER,
that the Government is afraid of amendments
which might be proposed by the Opposition
to their scheme, and of the vote which would
be taken on those amendments; discussion
alarms them, and the Hon. Attorney General
for Lower Canada dreads nothing so much
as an appeal to the people, notwithstanding.
that he would appear to hold in contempt the
protests which come to us in the shape of
petitions from all the counties in the district
of Montreal. (Hear, hear.) Yes, Mr. SPEAKER, these numerous petitions prove to us
that
several honorable members of this House do
not represent here the opinion of their constituents in respect of the new Constitution
which it is wished to impose upon us. There
are representatives here who are ready to vote
in favor of the scheme of Confederation in
spite of earnest protestations from the counties for which they were elected. I shall
content myself with mentioning a single one—I
allude to the honorable member for St. Hyacinthe. Well, Mr. SPEAKER, that honorable
member has declared that he will vote against
the appeal to the people, and in favor of Confederation, notwithstanding that out
of two
thousand inhabitants whom he represents, or
rather does not represent, in this House,
seventeen hundred have formally enjoined
him, by a petition signed with their names, to
adopt the contrary course. (Hear, hear.)
A VOICE—How many of those are electors ?
HON. MR. LAFRAMBOISE—They are
all electors; and if you like, you may convince yourself of the truth of what I state
by
examining the signatures, which are those of
duly qualified electors who voted at the election of the honorable member for St.
Hyacinthe. I say then, Mr. SPEAKER, that the
imposing and significant movement which is
now going on in Lower Canada alarms the
Ministry, and that if the Lower Canadian
representatives obey the popular voice, and do
not disregard it as some of them appear disposed to do, they will vote against the
motion
proposed by the Honorable Attorney General
or Upper Canada; for if those honorable
members support this motion, they will simply
declare that they do not wish for amendments
to the scheme, that they are opposed to an
appeal to the people and to any alteration
whatever of the scheme. The other night
the honorable member for Montmorency declared in this House that this signified nothing;
that a representative was not bound to respect
the wishes of his constituents, and that we
were at perfect liberty to vote as we might
think fit on any measure whatsoever, and especially on the scheme of Confederation.
At all
events, Mr. SPEAKER, I shall venture to hold
a different opinion from that of the honorable
member, and I say that every man who shews
a proper respect for his position in this House
cannot vote contrary to the expressed wishes
of his constituents; it is a doctrine which was
never called in question until the honorable
member for Montmorency considered that he
might cast a doubt upon the correctness of it.
Well, a fact that none will venture to deny is,
that several members promised their constituents that they would vote in favor of
an
appeal to the people ; and, by compelling them
to-day to accept the motion of the Honorable
Attorney General for Upper Canada, every
chance of their doing so is taken away.
Placed as the are in this dilemma, the members who made that promise, and who at the
same time are in favor of the Government,
ought not to hesitate as to the course to be
pursued ; they ought to throw out this motion,
for, if it should be adopted, Confederation will
at once become an accomplished fact, and the
appeal to the people will have to be given up.
(Hear, hear.) The Honorable Attorney
General for Lower Canada has reproached the
Opposition with pressing the adjournment of
the House at ten, and half-past ten o'clock at
night ; but let him remember that he himself
pressed an adjournment at the same hour, in
order to give his colleague, the honorable
744
member for Dorchester, an opportunity of
speaking on the following evening.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—I moved
the adjournment at a later hour of the evening; the clock on your side marked a later
hour than half-past ten.
Hon. Mr. LAFRAMBOISE—Well, I can
say that the Ministerial clock shewed the hour
which I have mentioned, and the two clocks
generally agree, better than we agree ourselves. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) In conclusion,
Mr. SPEAKER, I have no hesitation
in saying that our parliamentary history shews
no precedent for so unworthy a proceeding as
the present. I say that it is the intention of the
Government to send their measure to England
to receive the Imperial sanction before the
people of this country have had time to judge
of it, and before their representatives have
had an opportunity of amending it in any
way whatever. This measure, or this new
Constitution, after it shall have so received
the sanction of the Imperial Government, will
have to be accepted by Lower Canada, whether
it suits her or not. (Hear,. hear.) Mr.
SPEAKER, I venture to hope that greater independence will be exhibited by our Lower
Canadian representatives than our Ministers
are willing to believe will be exhibited, and
that our Lower Canadian members will not
consent to allow themselves to be so led by
the nose by their leaders. We were promised,
at the commencement of this debate, that all
the members should have an opportunity of
expressing their views on the scheme, and of
making amendments to it, should they think
proper to do so; and now, treading all their
promises under foot, the Ministry thus lays
its ultimatum before us: you must adopt the
scheme which we submit to you, without
attempting to change a single iota. For my
part, Mr. SPEAKER, I consider that I should
be failing in the performance of my duty as a
representative if I did not record my protest
against such conduct, and such scandalous
neglect of all the principles of responsible
government. (Applause.)
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I very much regret that I find it necessary to detain the
House, even for a few moments, for a second
time on the same day, on the same subject;
but I desire to repel, in the strongest manner,
the insinuation that the Hon. Attorney General West has cast on those hon. gentlemen
who are opposed to the Confederation scheme
—the charge that we are either actuated by
feelings tending towards the annexation of
Canada to the neighboring republic, or else
that we desire to offer factions opposition, and
that we have no good motive in seeking for
delay with reference to the consideration of
this question. Now, speaking for myself, I
must say that I do not believe that there is
an honorable gentleman on the floor of this
House, or even within the length and breadth
of British North America, who would less desire to see any change in the constitutional
relations existing between these provinces and
the Mother Country than myself. (Hear,
hear.) In my opposition to the scheme I am
actuated by a feeling, that adopting it in the
manner in which it is now proposed to be
done will tend more to drive us towards that
annexation, which is held up as such a bugbear, than anything that could he done by
honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches
in half a century, if our Constitution were allowed to remain as it is. (Hear, hear.)
Then,
as to our being called obstructionists, I would
call your attention, Mr. SPEAKER, to the circumstances surrounding this debate. In
the
first instance, as has been represented by
several honorable members, it was proposed
that the matter should be considered as if in
Committee of the Whole; but for purposes of
preserving order and convenience for transacting other business, that the Speaker
should
remain in the chair. Though the Hon.
Attorney General West does not consider that
proposition in the same light as it was understood on this side of the House, and
by myself,
yet I am satisfied that the intention of hon.
gentlemen in proposing it, was that the debate
should go on in same free and unrestrained
manner, due order being preserved, as if the
Speaker was not in the chair. (Hear, hear.)
Hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches
then proposed that they should have the
opportunity of laying the scheme before the
House and the country in as full and careful a manner as they pleased—that they were
to
take their own time to do this, and were to be
allowed to speak without any interruption.
That privilege was accorded to them most
heartily and cordially by the Opposition.
There was no interruption whatever from this
side of the House during the whole of their
five long speeches. (Hear, hear.) But the
very moment they had accomplished their
object, and we desired to have exactly the
same opportunity—that of laying our views
before the House and the country in the same
manner, and letting them follow the speeches
of the honorable gentlemen on the Treasury
benches in proper order—they objected in the
most arbitrary manner. The Hon. Attorney
745
General East claimed the right to reply at
once to every speech delivered on this side of
the House. (Hear, hear.) Then again a
motion was made by the Hon. Attorney General West that until disposed of, the consideration
of this question should be taken
up every evening at half-past seven o'clock,
and that was at once concurred in on our
part. In a very short time afterwards it was
proposed, and the proposition was endorsed
and pressed by the Government, that this
solemn agreement should be broken up, and
the whole business of the country on the floor
of this House suspended until the debate
should be brought to a close. In reference to
that, I did oppose the course pursued, because
I did not think it was for the interest of the
country, or that it would facilitate the business of this House. We find that several
days were occupied in discussing whether that
resolution should be adopted from day to
day or not. Who is responsible for that
discussion and delay ? Was it hon. gentlemen
on this side of the House, who desired to
carry out the arrangement proposed by the Government themselves, or was it the hon.
gentlemen on the Treasury benches, who sought to
break up the agreement that had been entered
into, of which they themselves were the
authors ? (Hear, hear.) I have also, Mr.
SPEAKER, in this connection, to make my
acknowledgments to the Hon. Attorney General West for the very elegant compliment
he
paid the honorable member for Peel and myself, in characterising us as the " shanghais
"
from their, the Ministerial side of the House
(hear, hear, and laughter)—but though he
did give us the credit of being the only ones
that had laid eggs that amounted to anything,
the others being all addled, he might have reflected a little, and in doing so have
found
that the that these " shanghais " had
laid will produce birds that in all probability
will cut the combs of honorable gentlemen on
that side of the House. (Laughter.) The
hot haste with which those honorable gentlemen are proceeding with this measure is
fostering and providing that heat that will
bring into vitality and life those very eggs
that they referred to; and when the country
understands the character of the brood which
is produced by those eggs, honorable gentlemen will find that they have been counting
without their host in hatching them. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. GALT—Counting their chickens
before they are hatched. (Laughter.)
MR. M. C. CAMERON—Exactly; count
ing the chickens before they are hatched.
Honorable gentlemen parade before this House
an indefinable something that they are careful
to keep in the background, which they seem
to intimate, if they were only to divulge,
would bring almost every member of the
House around to their view of the question
at once. Mr. SPEAKER, if there is any information of that kind in their possession,
we
should know what it is. (Hear, hear.) If
we have a herculean labor before us to meet
some approaching difficulty, this House should
know what that labor and that difficulty is,
that we may prepare to meet it as speedily
and as bravely as possible. (Hear, hear.)
I do not find that the honorable gentlemen
are making any preparations for meeting the
lack of defence under which they say the
country exists, between the present time and
the assembling of this House in the summer.
And yet they bring the matter up to frighten
the House into submission to their views.
They have a puppet from which, by keeping
it sufficiently behind the screens, they throw
a distorted shadow upon the wall and tell us
to look at the giant; but when the shadow is
traced to its origin, it will be found, I apprehend, to be nothing but a puppet after
all.
If they were to come out boldly and give this
House all the information of which they boast
the possession, I am very much mistaken if
the mystery would not turn out to be a mere
scarecrow. They make a great cackling about
the hawk, and then when the whole brood of
chickens is gathered under their wings, it turns
out that the source of their pretended fright
is nothing but a harmless dove after all.
(Laughter.) Honorable gentlemen on the
Treasury benches are constantly endeavoring
to lead us to suppose that there is imminent
danger of a war with the United States, and
yet each honorable member, as he rises, declares that for himself he has no apprehension
of anything of that kind. They ought to
consider that if there is any ground for apprehension, if there is any danger of the
United States attacking Canada and getting
into a war with England, such a war will be
upon us almost immediately. When the nation
emerges from the strife in which it is at
present engaged, they will have learned a costly
lesson of the horrors of war and the financial
burdens it imposes; and I am satisfied that
so intelligent a people as they are universally
admitted to be, will not rush into a contest
with a power like that of England, unless they
do so while smarting under wrongs they imagine they have suffered at the hands of
Eng
746
land in connection with the war in which
they are now engaged. After they have had
time to reflect and to sit down and count the
cost of the strife through which they will
have passed, in treasure and blood and intellect, and their national wounds have had
time
to stiffen, there will be little danger of their
again rushing into another similarly disastrous
contest. I heard a gentleman describing this
matter a short time ago, by an illustration which
I will here repeat. His position was that the
respective probabilities of a war with the
United States, at an early or a remote period,
might be learned from what is often seen
when two men have been engaged in a round
of fisticuffs. They pummell and bruise each
other in the most shocking manner; and while
the wounds they have received at each other's
hands are fresh, while their blood is up, and
while they are smarting under their injuries,
if a bystander interferes with either of them,
even sometimes by a little wholesome, well-
meant advice, the wounded man will be ready
to pitch into him at once, almost without
thought of the odds that may exist against
him. But after such an individual cools off
and his wounds become stiff and sore, and he
gets time for reflection, he has no desire whatever to enter into a contest. And so,
I apprehend, will it be with our neighbors on the
other side of the line. When they get cooled
down after the present contest, return to their
almost desolated homes again, and see the
vacancies that have been caused, and when
their leaders count up the millions upon
millions of dollars that their present war will
have cost them, and the claims that will
be made upon them for compensation, war
losses, and numerous other matters, they will
feel a very great aversion to entering upon
hostilities which will bring down upon them
the whole power of England. Therefore I
hold that if we are going to expend money in
defences, it ought to be done without a day's
unnecessary delay. And yet hon. gentlemen
propose to delay submitting a measure for
the consideration of the House until another
session. They will prorogue this session
without making any appropriation for defence, and go home to England to push
through a scheme which there is now no
object in hurrying forward. (Hear, hear.)
Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House
are not actuated in their opposition to the
scheme by any desire to occupy the place of
any one of the hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches, but their object is to protect
the interests of the people, on whose behalf
they have been sent to this House, and on
their behalf to see that we have a government
carried on upon economical principles, so that
the peole may be led to respect and sustain
it. (Hear, hear.) But if we have a government that is extravagant in their ideas,
how
can we expect the people to respect that
government? And what is there so well calculated to place this country on the inclined
plane to slide into the American Union—so
graphically described by the head of the
Government in the Upper House—as extravagance on the part of our Government? If
we have to spend the sum that the commission has recommended in erecting works of
defence, and then provide corresponding forces
of men and equipments, the expense will be
monstrous. And yet, forsooth, because we
ask for information, and object to the coersion
they have attempted, they charge us with
being obstructionists. Do they mean to say
that it is factious conduct for the representatives of the people to demand that they
be consulted before their very Constitution is
trampled upon and another forced upon them?
Canada is by far the most numerously populated, most wealthy a d most important of
all the colonies to be affected by the change,
and yet the people of this province are the
only people that are to have no opportunity
of saying whether the change is acceptable or
not, nor are their representatives in Parliament to have even the opportunity of moving
a single amendment to it. (Hear, hear.) If
opposition to that kind of thing entitles me
to the epithet of obstructionist, then I glory
in the name of an obstructionist. (Applause.)
I shall vote against the motion that has been
made by my hon. friend the Hon. Atty. Gen.
West, and again express my sincere regret
that he should have been induced to bring in
such a motion, calculated, as it is, to stifle
the proper and ordinary expression
of this
House. To tell us that we may discuss the
question as much as we please is most gratu
itous, and is nothing but a sham, alongside of
the fact that the motion shuts us off from
bringing forward any amendments, or placing
our views upon the subject upon the records
of the House. How often have hon. gentlemen on that side of the House told us that
if
we were not prepared to accept the measure,
we ought to prepared to propose a better
one? But no sooner do we give notice of
what we consider a better one, than we are
virtually gagged, and told that we shall not
have the opportunity of even proposing then
to the House. If that is the way that a free
747
people is to be treated, hon. gentlemen will
soon find out that they are on the wrong
track; and when Parliament is again summoned, they will be met by a voice from the
people that will show them that they have
adopted a course that will consign names that
have heretofore been honorable, to political
oblivion, on account of this outrage upon the
rights and liberties of a free people, and it will be an oblivion that will be richly
merited. (Loud Cheers.)
MR. SCATCHERD said :—The resolutions under debate, involving as they do an
entire change in the Constitution of this
country, I regard as of greater importance
than any question that has been debated
before this House since the union. So
sweeping a change seldom takes place except
after war or insurrection. (Hear, hear.)
But we have had neither war nor insurrection—(hear)—we have enjoyed a very long
season of peace and quietness, and at no
time has there been an agitation among the
people for such a change as that now proposed. I believe this scheme to have been
undertaken mainly because the leaders of
the two political parties saw that they had
no hope left of continuing in office on the
one hand, or getting into office on the other,
while they fought against each other. I
have heard it asserted in this House and
out of this House, that so grave had become
the position of public affairs, that all government had become impossible, and that
the gravity of the occasion required that
men of all parties should unite to find a
solution of existing difficulties. I hope this
was not a mere pretence, put forward by
men in office to continue in office, and by men
out of office to get into office. It is a fact
well known, that so long as either party
could govern without the assistance of the
other, no advance was made toward a union
between the leaders. The changing of two
or three votes in this House would have
indefinitely postponed the scheme now under
consideration. That there was no necessity
occasioned by a dead-lock in carrying on the
Government must be apparent, when we consider that political parties, by a little
forbearance, would have avoided the dead-lock.
Surely, if parties could unite as they did in
June last, they could have united to prevent
the difliculty complained of, and have put
off the evil day perhaps forever, without
entering upon a scheme to subvert the Constitution. If a dead-lock existed, it ought
to be attributed rather to the contention of
parties than to any defect in our form of
government. (Hear, hear.) The union between the Cauadas took place in 1840;
for some time afterwards each section was
represented in the united Legislature by
forty-two members. Upper Canada at the
time of the union had a population of
486,000, and Lower Canada 661,000. After
the union took place, from 1844 to 1848,
the majority of the Government was a very
narrow one. The Government was kept in
power by two or three votes; yet during
these years there was not a suggestion in
favor of a change of Constitution for the
purpose of increasing the majority. (Hear,
hear.) The same number of members continued to represent each section of the
province until 1854, when the number from
each section was increased to sixty-five, and
has continued so to the present time. From
the year 1854 until the present time, there
has existed among the people of Upper
Canada a strong agitation in favor of representation according to population. That
principle was agitated by the Reform party
at every election. It was the principal
political topic, and members were required
to pledge themselves to maintain it under
all circumstances upon the floor of this
House. And not only was the Reform party
committed to that principle, but many Conservatives were forced to declare themselves
in favor of it. In 1858 some of the members of the Government sent an offical
letter to England, in which the difficulties
of the country were graphically referred to,
and the agitation was characterized as being
fraught with great danger to the peaceful
and harmonious working of our constitutional
system, and consequently detrimental to the
progress of the province. This document
was laid before Parliament in February,
1859, and in November of the same year
the Toronto Convention met, where the
Reform party was represented by about 570
prominent gentlemen from all parts of
Upper Canada. At that meeting the grievances of which Upper Canada complained
were discussed in an able manner by gentlemen fully acquainted with them, and capable
of setting them forth. Although the project
of a Federal union of the provinces had been
brought before Parliament and the country
in February, and the Convention met in
November, and ample time was given for its
agitation, we find that the Convention did
748
not consider that it afforded a proper remedy
for the evils that existed in Upper Canada.
The resolutions passed by that Convention
with respect to the grievances of Canada, and
the proper remedy for them, were as follow :—
No. 1.—Resolved, That the existing Legislative union of Upper and Lower Canada has
failed
to realize the anticipations of its promoters, has
resulted in a heavy public debt, burdensome taxation. great political abuses. and
universal dissatisfaction through Upper Canada, and it is the
matured conviction of this assembly. from the
antagonism developed. from difference of origin,
local interests. and other causes, that the union
in its present form can no longer be continued
with advantage to the people.
So much for the grievances.
No. 5.—Resolved, That in the opinion of this
assembly the best practical remedy for the evils
now encountered in the government of Canada,
is to be found in the formation of two or more
local governments, to which shall be committed
the control of all matters of a local and sectional
character, and some joint authority charged with
such matters as are necessary, common to both
sections of the province.
Such was the remedy. The 4th resolution
shows that the Federation of the provinces
was not entertained as a remedy for the
evils complained of by the Convention, for
it resolved :—
That without entering on the discussion
of other objections, this assembly is of
opinion that the delay which must occur in obtaining the sanction of the Lower Provinces
to
a Federal union of all the British North American Colonies, places that measure beyond
consideration as a remedy for present evils.
Now, if it had been the opinion of the
people of Upper Canada. as represented in
that Convention, that a Federal union with
the Maritime Provinces would prove a remedy
for the grievances they were laboring under,
they would have taken it into consideration.
Either it did not suit the leaders of the Reform party at that time to take up that
plan
as it was brought forward by men opposed
to them. or else they did not believed it the
true remedy. If they had believed it the
proper remedy, there was nothing to prevent
them uniting with the Government to carry
it out, with the cooperation of the other
provinces. The only drawback to the adoption of the scheme was the fact that its proposers
were in office and likely to remain
there. That to my mind is the only reason
which can now be alleged for not taking it
it up at that time. One ef the reasons
assigned for calling that Convention together
was. that although the population of Upper
Canada was much larger than that of Lower
Canada, and was constantly increasing, yet
Upper Canada found itself without power in
the administration of the affairs of the province, (Hear, hear.) Another principal
grievance under which Upper Canada labored
was the unjust levying and distribution of the
public moneys. It was contended that seventy
per cent. of the annual taxation was collected
from Upper Canada, and only thirty per
cent. from Lower Canada ; on the other
hand, when the money came to be expended,
for every dollar that was expended in Upper
Canada, a dollar was also expended in Lower
Canada. And that appears to have been the
opinion of prominent members of both political parties ; representation by population
was demanded by the people of the western
section as a cure for that state of things.
They considered that if they were represented in this House according to numbers,
they would be able to prevent the unjust
distribution of the public revenues of the
province. Now, the great measure before
this House has been considered by some as
designed to create a nation, by others as a
means of increasing largely the material and
commercial interests of the country. I cannot see that the Federation of the provinces
has anything of a national phase in it. For
those who are dissatisfied with remaining as
colonists of Great Britain, it may be very
well to look forward to the creation of a
nationality or state of national existence.
When you speak of national existence, you
speak of independence; and so long as we
are colonists of Great Britain we can have
no national existence. (Hear, hear.) In
New Brunswick this question has been treated purely as a question of material interest
to the people. — (Hear, hear.) In a work
recently published by the Hon. Mr. CAUCHON, I find the following statement of the
way in which the question is treated in New
Brunswick. The honorable gentleman says,
page 26 :—
The only point for them to consider in making
a selection would be the material question of
profit or loss; more or less of trade, more or less
of taxes. The truth of this is clearly shown by
the project of Confederation itself, in which it
will be seen that the exceptions affect only Lower
Canada, and in the speeches made by Mr. TILLEY,
in New Brunswick, in which he states frankly and
unequivocally, that with that province there can
be but one paramount question in the discussion
of the scheme, namely. that of pecuniary interest.
Will New Brunswick, under the union, pay more
or less, receive more or less; will the taxes im
749
posed, under the union, be more or less than they
now are? The question has been thus received
by the press and public men of that province,
and they have so discussed it, with a view to accept or reject it.
To my mind, that is the way in which the
question ought to be treated in this province.
As a national matter it ought not to be considered at all. The true question is, whether
the people of this province will be called
upon to pay more or less taxes, and enjoy
more or less prosperity. (Hear, hear.) The
agitation in connection with representation
by population has continued during the past
ten years. Going back to the time of the
defeat of the CARTIER-MACDONALD Administration, we find that that Administration had
considered it an open question.
The MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration,
which succeeded, resolved to treat it as a
close question. They agreed to leave it in
abeyance, but I never understood that their
supporters from Upper Canada agreed to
abandon it. It was stated distinctly at the time
of the formation of that Government, that any
abandonment of the question was a matter
altogether with the Government, and was not
binding upon their supporters. (Hear, hear.)
That government adopted what was called
the double-majority principle, but I never
understood that a majority of their supporters
from Upper Canada agreed to accept it as a
basis, or a means of securing the settlement
of the grievances of Upper Canada. What
the Upper Canada Reform party agreed to
was, that as there was great corruption and
extravagance in the administration of the
finances of this country, for the sake of
securing administrative reform they would
allow the question of representation by population to remain in abeyance for a time.
However, the double majority principle
would not work. (Hear, hear.) The MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government were defeated,
and the MACDONALD-DORION Government
was formed. They treated the question in
the same way as the CARTIER-MACDONALD
did—left it an open question. While that
government continued in office, there was no
special agitation for representation according
to population, although in the House it was
very generally supported by members from
Upper Canada. That government resigned,
a new government was formed, and, during
the period of that new government's existence, the hon. member for South Oxford had
his committee appointed to take into consid
eration the representation question. That
committee, it appears, had the matter under
consideration for a long time. They made
a report the same day the Government was
defeated, but came to no conclusion whatever, except in the general statement that
most of its members looked in the direction
of a Federal Government. (Hear, hear.)
This government was defeated on the question of the $100,000 paid to the city of
Montreal. That vote took place on the 14th
of June, the latter part of the resolution
being as follows :—
And in view of the facts above recited, this
House would be failing in its duty if it did not
express its disapprobation of an unauthorized advance of a large amount of public
money, and of
the subsequent departure from the conditions of
the Order in Council under which the advance was
made.
There was never a vote aimed more distinctly
than that at the Honorable the Minister of
Finance; it was declared by a majority of
this House that he was the means of the loss
of this $100,000 to the country. The majority voted in that way, and affirmed that
resolution. The moment it was passed a
Ministerial crisis occurred, and it was understood that the Ministry had the sanction
of
the Governor General to dissolve the House ;
within a few days, some of the very men who
condemned the Minister of Finance were
willing to overlook his offence, to treat the
vote of the House as of no consequence
whatever, and to become colleagues of that
honorable gentleman in the Government.
(Hear.) Thus the present Coalition was
formed with its policy of Confederation. I
believe that the agitation for representation
by population had been less active for three
years preceding the foruation of that government than at any time during the last
ten years ; but the mere fact of the Government being defeated seemed to be a suflicient
excuse for these honorable gentlemen to join
men to whom they had been opposed for
years, and to come down to this House with
a proposal for a Confederation of the provinces. For my own part, I am not opposed
to a Confederation of these provinces, on a
proper basis, although I would rather have
seen a legislative union of them preferred.
I have no sympathy with those members in
their opposition to the scheme, who, while
opposing it, are equally opposed to legislative union and representation by population.
I think, from the increase of population in
750
Upper Canada, that some change is necessary; and I cannot understand how hon.
members, who are opposed to this scheme
and also to a legislative union, and to any
change in representation, can expect sympathy from Upper Canadian members. It
is not the principle of the scheme that I
object to. My objections I will state. Part
of the new Constitution proposes the construction of the Intercolonial Railway.
Now, when that question was first brought
up in 1862, I was opposed to it. When
it was first announced as the intention
of the MACDONALD—SICOTTE Government
to undertake the building of that road,
I expressed myself as decidedly in opposition to it, on the very first opportunity
that
offered, and I have never since seen any
reason to change the position I then took.
In connection with this subject, I beg leave
to cite the opinions of the hon. member for
South Oxford, as then expressed. I do not
do so in order to show that he has changed
his mind with regard to this road, for I
believe he does not conceal the fact himself.
I make this citation to show not only what
his views were, but what were the views, I
believe, of the majority of the peeple of
Upper Canada at that time, views which in
my opinion they still entertain. It is stated
that the road ought to be built becauuse
it is necessary for the military defence
of the country. It is stated that it ought
to follow the longest route, because the
shorter one will bring it too near the
boundary line of the State of Maine.
(Hear, hear.) When it is considered that
this road will unite with the Grand Trunk
at Rivièra du Loup, and that the Grand
Trunk is at places within twenty-six miles
of the boundary of Maine, I think that
the amount it will contribute to the military
defence is of very little value. It is ridiculous
to suppose that the Americans would not be
able to cut a railway only twenty-six miles
from their territory. If we are not strong
enough to hold and protect the road which
runs through Maine, the Intercolonial would
be of very little importance or use. The
opinion expressed in the Globe about this
railway as a work of military defence was
this—I quote from the issue of the 18th
September, 1862 :—
But as our opinion upon military matters may
not be worth much, we are prepared to adduce
corroborative testimony in its support.
And then he cites the following from Blackwood's Magazine :—
On the whole we are inclined to think that
until our military frontier is rectified, the construction of a railway between St.
John and the
St. Lawrence would, as far as military operations
are concerned, be money thrown away. If the
Intercolonial Railway is to be built, let its friends
justify it upon bona fide grounds, and not upon the
bogus plea that it is necessary for the military
defence of the province.
That was the Opinion, I believe. of the
majority of the people of Upper Canada at
that time, that as a military defence this
road would be completely useless. But we
find that the proposition to build the road
is inserted in one of these resolutions, the
68th, in the following terms :—
The General Government shall secure, without
delay, the completion of the Intercolonial Railway from Riviere du Loup through New
Brunswick to Truro, in Nova Scotia.
The next resolution refers to the North-
Western Territory, and is as follows :—
69. The communication with the North-Western
Territory and the improvements required for the
development of the trade of the Great West with
the seaboard are regarded by this Conference as
subjects of the highest importance to the Federated Provinces, and shall be prosecuted
at the
earliest possible period that the state of the
finances will permit.
According to these resolutions the construction of the Intercolonial Railway is
made a part of the Constitution of the
country, and the road will have to be built.
On the other hand the enlargement of the
canals and the opening up of the North-
West will depend upon the contingency
whether the finances of the country will
permit of the performance of these works.
Now, the opening up of the North-West is
a subject that has engaged the serious attention of many people in Upper Canada. By
a large majority of the population it is considered as most important for the intrest
of
of this country that that territory should be
opened up to settlement. I find the Great
North-West is thus referred to by the Hon.
Mr. CAUCHON. in his pamphlet on the
Union of the Provinces of British North
America, page 56 :—
And what is Canada in extent compared to the
Western prairies, the area and fertility of which
can scarcely be appreciated or judged even with
reports before us furnished by Mr. DALLAS, Governor
of the Hudson's Bay Company, and Dr. RAE, an
old factor, well known from his reputation as an
astronomer, and as having discovered the remains
of FRANKLIN and his unfortunate companions. The latter, instructed to attempt the
discovery of
751
a passage through the Rocky Mountains for the
Transcontinental Telegraph Company, states that
the river Saskatchewan is a great public highway,
flowing through immense fertile valleys, in which
wheat and barley might be grown in abundance.
Mr. DALLAS alludes to it in the following
words:—
The whole country is more or less adapted to
colonization. Two years ago I rode on horseback
in the month of August over the greater part of
that country. We had to wade as it were knee
deep through tares and fitch. I saw there horses
an oxen as fat as any I ever found on the best
pasturage grounds in England. Those animals
had passed the winter in the open air, without a
mouthful of hay; this will give a better idea of
the climate here than if I were to furnish the
variations of the thermometer.
I look upon this country as well adapted to
settlement, and extraordinarily healthy. Everything seems to thrive here ; the wheat
crop is of
course rather uncertain, but all other cereals and
vegetables obtain the same perfection that they
do in England. Towards the north we find an
area of timber land, and undulating prairies, which
extend over the whole country. The lakes and
rivers abound in fish, and the prairies with every
species of game, &c.
Now, sir, that is a description of the country
held forth to the people of Upper Canada as
a kind of set-off against the Intercolonial
Railway, to be opened up whenever the state
of the nuances will permit. I object to the
scheme, for the reason that it makes the
opening up of such a country a mere contingency ; and to show the interest taken by
the people of Upper Canada generally, I
will refer to an article that appeared in the
Globe about the time the MACDONALD-
SICOTTE Government proposed to build the
Intercolonial Railway, on the 19th of September, 1802. lt said:—
We observe that Mr. FOLEY has the good sense
to reject the suggestion of Mr. HOWE that the
Quebec and Halitax road is in fact an important
link in the great Pacific Railway through British
territory. Not a pound of freight nor a passenger
which may come over the Pacific Railway, when it
is built, will ever seek the port of Halifax. It
is an absolute injury to the Pacific Railroad to
represent that it is necessary to construct four
hundred miles at an utterly unproductive line
before commencing the greater work with one-
fifth of the sum per annum which is to be devoted
by the ministerial scheme to the Intercolonial
Railroad. We can open a practicable communi
cation across the continent and annex to Canada half a continent of the richest land
yet
unoccupied by civilized man. Not a penny are we
to receive for this purpose, but ÂŁ50,000 per annum
thrown away upon the rocks of Riviere du Loup.
That, sir, was the opinion expressed by the
Globe newspaper so late as September, 1862,
and I call the attention of the House to the
fact that as a very large proportion of the
expense of building this railroad is to be
borne by Upper Canada, would not the same
sum, if so applied, open up this magnificent
country ? Are we not, in fact, deferring the
opening of it up by spending a large sum of
money in the opposite direction ?
MR. SCATCHERD—Then another complaint that has long been made in this country is, that we have a
very large public debt;
that the people are very highly taxed for
the necessaries of life, and that in fact the
chief articles consumed by the people can
bear no more taxation. I think there can
be no doubt that this complaint is true to
quite as great an extent as has ever been
urged. Let us look back and see what
duties were paid upon the principal articles
of consumption ten years ago, compared with
the duties that they now bear. I hold in
my hand a statement showing the rates of
duty from 1855 to 1865, and also the values.
of the chief articles for consumption imported into this province for the half-year
ended 30th June, 1864 :——
| Articles |
1855. |
1856. |
1857. |
1858. |
1859. |
1865. |
Value. |
Duty. |
|
Per ct. |
Per ct. |
Per ct. |
Per ct. |
Per ct. |
Per ct. |
$ |
$ |
| Coffee........ |
8 1/3 |
8 1/2 |
10 |
10 |
15 |
23 1/2 |
89,016 |
21,118 |
| Molasses........ |
16 |
11 |
11 |
18 |
30 |
27 1/2 |
118,285 |
33,007 |
| Sugar........ |
27 1/2 |
20 |
17 1/2 |
21 |
30 |
47 |
779,907 |
373,963 |
| Tea........ |
11 1/2 |
11 1/2 |
11 1/2 |
12 1/3 |
15 |
26 |
1,089,674 |
275,126 |
| Cotton Goods |
12 1/2 |
13 1/2 |
15 |
15 |
20 |
20 |
3,277,985 |
664,381 |
| Iron " |
12 1/3 |
13 1/3 |
15 |
16 |
20 |
20 |
776,225 |
151,422 |
| Silk " |
12 1/2 |
13 1/2 |
15 |
17 |
20 |
20 |
430,773 |
85,845 |
| Woollen " |
12 1/3 |
14 |
15 |
18 |
20 |
20 |
2,517,669 |
499.084 |
752
Well, sir, we find that some of these articles
have been taxed to an amount equal to one—
half their value. The person who buys and
pays 50 per cent. duty, gets in fact in value
only one-half of the money paid. With the
duty derived from these articles it is proposed
by this scheme to do, what? Why to spend
$20,000,000 on this railway, and that money
will have to be raised some way or other out
of the earnings of the people. I will cite
another extract from the Globe with respect
to the paying or supposed paying qualities of
this road. On the 23rd of September, 1862,
it said :—
The scheme of the Government for the construction of the Intercolonial Railway opens
an
account that never will be closed; every storm of
snow in the inhospitable regions below Riviere
du Loup will lay a new burden on the people of
Upper Canada. The tax-payers will watch the
passenger travel and freight traffic with the liveliest interest, as indicating the
extent of the demands upon them for the year. The road will be
run with a perfect consciousness that there is a
prompt paymaster behind. With all the care that
public companies can employ, the expenditures
upon the small items connected with the running
of a railroad is above all things difficult to control ; but what sums will be spent
when it is the
Government that will manage and the people of
the province that will pay? It was bad enough
when they consented that Canada should pay five-
twelfths of the expenditure, when in fact it will
not receive one-twelfth of the benefit. Who can
fail to see the hand of the Grand Trunk in
this? It is the dream of many persons in Nova
Scotia that this Halifax and Quebec Railway will
draw to their harbor the trade of the West, but it
is a dream and nothing more. No passenger, no
shipper of freight, will ever think of going or
sending to Halifax when he can find shipping at
Quebec or Portland. He will not add the cost of
seven hundred miles of railroad to the expenses of
transit to benefit the people of Halifax. As to
freight, the thing is not to be spoken of. Neither
freight nor passengers would such a line draw
from any point higher than Riviere du Loup.
There is a refreshing coolness in the demand that
Canada shall pay for the construction of a road
which is professedly designed to draw away trade
from its great estuary.
Is that not equally the case now as then?
Who can fail to see the hand of the Grand
Trunk in this Confcderation scheme ?—
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Again, with
respect to this Intercolonial Railway, I find
the following language used in the Globe on
the 26th September, 1662 :—
With Upper Canada decidedly opposed to the
scheme, and Lower Canada divided, we are happy
to say that we do not see any great danger of
hasty action. We are only astonished that the
Ministry should have committed themselves to a
scheme which finds so little support in any part
of the province. The Lower Province delegates
humbugged them beautifully. It is evident that
Blue Nose is a sharp fellow. He is rubbed bright
on his rocks. We shall have to be careful in our
dealings with him. If Lower Canada is afraid of
him because he is British, we must learn to watch
him because he is not very rich but very keen and
shrewd.
Well, it was supposed when the members
of the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government
were dealing with these men in 1862, that
they were humbugged beautifully, but when
we got the best men in the country, the
ablest and most talented men, to deal with
them, what kind of bargain did they make
with these shrewd blue noses ? (Hear, hear.)
Why, instead of Canada paying what was
proposed by the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government, the Lower Provinces made a much
more favorable bargain with the cleverest
men we have. (Hear, hear.) I contend, sir,
that this scheme, at one jump, proposes to
increase the public debt twenty millions of
dollars. And another thing stated is, that
a sum necessary for the purpose will be
expended for the defence of the country;
and if we are to place any reliance upon the
report of Col. JERVOIS, the sum of about six
millions of dollars will have to be expended
upon the defences. From the reports which
reached us to-day by telegraph, it appears
that the Imperial Government will expend
for our defence only the sum of ÂŁ50,000.
HON. MR. BROWN —The hon. gentleman
is mistaken. The Hon. Attorney General
West distinctly stated to-day that there was
an error in the telegraphic report of the
debate in the Imperial Parliament, and it is
highly indecorous for the hon. gentleman to
repeat these statements after they have been
shown to be erroneous. And I am now in
a position to state, that we have had an
answer to a telegram sent specially to New
York to ascertain the fact from the London
papers, that the sum asked for by the Imperial Government for the defences of Quebec
was ÂŁ200,000, not ÂŁ50,000 as stated by the
hon. member.
MR. SCATCHERD—Before the hon.
member makes charges, he ought to have
ascertained that this telegram had been
brought to my notice. I took the statement
as it appeared in the published telegraphic
reports. He has no right to charge me with
repeating an incorrect statement. (Hear,
hear.)
753
HON. MR. BROWN—It was not to that
that I particularly referred; but the hon.
gentleman all through his speech has repeated things which my colleagues as well as
myself have repeatedly declared, from personal knowledge, to be incorrect.
HON. MR. HOLTON—If the papers
were brought down there would be no misapprehension.
MR. SCATCHERD— What is the amount
to be contributed by the Imperial Government altogether for our defence? Is it only
ÂŁ200,000 ?
HON. MR. BROWN— The hon. gentleman
will see from the reports that that amount is
intended simply for works at Quebec. The
proportion to be contributed for the defences
at Montreal and westward is not stated, nor
yet settled.
MR. SCATCHERD—I have been told for
the first time that the Imperial Government
will contribute anything towards the western
defences ; for the telegraphic reports say
that, if they undertake to fortify Quebec, the
Canadian Government will have to undertake
the works at Montreal and westward. Now,
we are told that this scheme has reference
both to local government and local defence,
and as the cost of defensive works is stated
by Col. JERVOIS to be six millions, I suppose
we will have to pay that too.
HON. MR. BROWN—The cost may be a
great deal more than six millions, possibly.
We can say nothing at present as to the cost.
MR. SCATCHERD—A great deal more.
Then immense sums of money are to melt
away like snow upon these works, and, in
fact, there will be no limit to the expenditure. (Hear, hear.) However, passing on
from this point, I would like to ask, if Confederation is carried, in what position
will
the country stand in respect to the public
debt ? It appears that the population of the
various provinces, in 1861, was as follows :—
| Upper Canada ............. |
1,396,091 |
| Lower Canada ......... . . . |
1,110,664 |
| New Brunswick ............ |
252,047 |
| Nova Scotia ............... |
330,857 |
| Newfoundland .............. |
130,000 |
| Prince Edward Island ....... |
80,757 |
If Confederation takes place, these provinces will be indebted as follows: the
public debt of Canada, according to the
Public Accounts, amounts to $67,263,000 ;
Nova Scotia is to be allowed to increase its
debt to $8,000,000 ; New Brunswick will be
allowed to increase its debt to $7,000,000 ;
the debt of Prince Edward Island is $240,000 ; and the debt of Newfoundland, $946,000,
making, if the provinces are united, a
grand total of $83,000,000 as the debt of
the Federal Government. It may be said
with respect to Canada, that she is going
into the Confederation with a debt of only
$62,500,000 ; although that may be true,
she will nevertheless owe the whole amount
I have stated, which, if not paid by the
Federal Government, will have to be paid
by the Governments of Upper and Lower
Canada.
HON. MR. BROWN—My hon. friend
will see that the debt of $5,000,000 that
make up the $67,263,000 is due to ourselves,
and that there are assets to meet it, which
assets will be made over to the local governments. The reason it was taken from the
$67,263,000 was because it was due upon
local account, and because there were local
funds to meet its payment. It was altogether
apart and distinct from the general debt of
the province.
MR. SCATCHERD—What are the assets ?
Are they suflicient to pay the interest upon
the amount ?
MR. SCATCHERD—This $5,000,000 is
part of the debt of the province, which I
have put down at $67,263,000.
HON. MR. BROWN—Yes ; but my hon.
friend must see that there are local funds to
meet it, just in the same way as we deduct
the Sinking Fund from the amount of the
general debt.
MR. RYMAL—Two years ago the hon.
gentleman taught us to believe, and I heard
him say that the debt of the country was
$78,000,000. (Laughter.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—Was the amount
of the Sinking Fund always deducted by the
hon. member ?
Hon. MR. BROWN —Yes ; I always deducted it from the debt; but I did not
deduct these local funds that are now placed
against the sum of $5,000,000 to be borne
by the local governments.
MR. SCATCHERD—At the time Confederation takes place, there will be a debt
weighing upon the provinces of $83,000,000,
upon which interest will have to be paid,
and the following additional debts, so far as
we know, will be immediately contracted by
the new Government : Intercolonial Railway,
$20,000,000.
754
HON. MR. BROWN—No! no! My hon.
friend must surely see how wrong it is to
make such a statement. It is quite uncertain what amount will be thrown upon the
Federal Government for the construction of
that road ; but, it it is built in the way which
has been suggested by the Lower Provinces,
it will cost no such sum, nor anything like
the sum, mentioned by the hon. member for
West Middlesex. Of course, no one can at
present tell in what way the Federal
Government may decide that it shall be done ;
but if it is done in the way of a bonus to be
paid on the completion of the road, and on
security being given that the road shall be
kept open for a certain term of years, it will
cost nothing like the sum mentioned by my
hon. friend.
HON. MR. BROWN—But I believe the
Lower Provinces have such a proposition
before them for a large section of the road
—a proposition for a bonus of $10,000 per
mile, which would complete the whole road
for a sum infinitely less than my hon. friend
has mentioned. Therefore, my hon. friend
leads the House quite astray when he
dogmatically puts down the cost of the
Intercolonial Railway at $20,000,000.
HON. MR. BROWN—Perhaps Hon. Mr.
TILLEY thinks that it may cost that sum,
but there are other hon. gentlemen who are
quite as well able to judge of the matter as
my hon. friend, Mr. TILLEY, who place it at
$8,000,000 ; and the money that will be
necessary for the purpose will be borrowed
under the Imperial guarantee, at a rate, I
presume, not exceeding 3 1/2 per cent.
MR. SCATCHERD—I would ask my
hon. friend the President of the Council if
he has not stated that the Intercolonial Railway would cost $16,000,000 or $18,000,000
?
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. BROWN—It is quite probable ;
my impression at one time was that it would
cost $15,000,000 ; but then this was always
based on the idea of its being built by the
Government, and it was one of my strongest
objections to the scheme that the honorable
gentlemen who now constitute the Opposition intended to build it at the public cost,
and run it at the public cost.
HON. MR. BROWN—I am not speaking
of the hon. member for Chateauguay, but of
his leaders.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Will the honorable
gentleman please refer to those he means
more specifically?
HON. MR BROWN—The hon. gentleman
who sits at his side is one of them.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Surely the hon.
gentleman does not refer to my hon. friend
the member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr.
DORION) ?
HON. MR. HOLTON— No ; the hon.
member for Bagot only joined the Government in 1863.
HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. member
for Cornwall (Hon. J. S. MACDONALD), is at
any rate fully responsible.
HON. MR. DORION— The government
of my honorable friend (Hon. J. S. MACDONALD) had a proposition before it somewhat
similar to this, and which was to build
a railway; but it was not said by what means.
You, however, have bound yourself to build
a railway, and if you do not find a company
to construct it, you will have to build it and
keep it open at your own cost.
HON. MR. BROWN—Not exactly ; and
there is already a proposal to build a large
portion of the line.
MR. SCATCHERD-I think the course
which the debate has taken shows the
absolute necessity that the Government
should have brought down a statement of
the expense of this road, so that members
might have been able to form some opinion
in regard to its cost. They might have
called upon the engineer who surveyed
the route to make some approximation
of the probable outlay. When, in the
absence of such information, I rise in my
place and say that according to the best
data at my command, it will cost $20,000,000, I am met by the Hon. President of the
Council protesting against my making such
a statement. But when I ask my honorable
friend if he has not stated that it will cost
$16,000,000 or $18,000,000, he replies that
he might have said it would cost $15,000,000.
So that, according to my hon. friend himself,
it is safe to assume that for the Intercolonial
Railway, the debt will be increased by
$15,000,000. This; then, is one of the new
debts the new Government will be called
upon immediately to contract. Then another
debt will be required for the defences of the
country. I put this sum down at $6,000,000.
755
But the Hon. President of the Council says it
is impossible to say what the defences will
cost, and they may cost a great deal more.
HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. gentleman
should state more carefully what I said. I
did not speak of this country simply, but of
the whole defences—those to be undertaken
by the Imperial Government as well.
MR. SCATCHERD—I refer to the fortifications required for Quebec, Montreal,
Kingston, Toronto and Hamilton. It is
impossible for us to form any estimate of
what defences may be required in St. John
and Halifax, and other portions of the
Lower Provinces. But certainly the sum
which will be required for the defences and
for the armament of those defences in Canada
will not be less than $6,000,000. Add this
and the sum required for the Intercolonial
Railway to the debt already existing, and
it will be found that, almost at the outset
of its career, the Federation would labor
under pressure of a debt amounting to
about $110,000,000.
MR. SCATCHERD—The fact is undeniable. Almost from the first day of its existence, the new Government
will be called
upon to pay interest, on account of public
debt, to the amount of $3,809,668 for
Canada ; $750,000 for Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, and $59,333 for Newfoundland
and Prince Edward Island ; then there is,
over and above the subsidy of eighty cents
per head, the sum of $115,200 to be paid
yearly to Newfoundland, and $88 900 to be
paid annually to Prince Edward Island. To
this must be added the interest on the outlay for the Intercolonial Railway. It has
been stated that money for this purpose can
be borrowed at three and a half per cent.,
but there is nothing to show that the arrangement proposed to be entered into by
the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government, some
two or three years ago, in reference to the
borrowing of money at three and a half per
cent., can now be carried out. We have no
reason to believe that the proposed Federal
Government will be able to borrow money
on the same favorable terms ; and, if the
interest charged is at the rate of five per
cent., there will be nearly $1,000,000 to be
paid annually as interest on the Intercolonial
Railway debt alone.
HON. MR. BROWN—A million of dollars!
Five per cent. interest on money borrowed
on the credit of the Imperial Government !
HON. MR. BROWN—My hon. friend
must have heard the statement of an arrangement being made with the Imperial Government
for borrowing the necessary funds.
MR. SCATCHERD—I read in the pamphlet recently published by the hon. member for Montmorency ( Hon.
Mr. CAUCHON),
who is a warm supporter of the Government,
and is supposed to be an authority on this
subject, that :—
The population of Newfoundland being 130,000,
$25 per head would establish its debt at $3,250,000, and it would thus be placed on
a level with
the population of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick with regard to their respective figures
of population.
But as that province owes $946,000, we must
deduct this amount from the $3,250,000; this
would give a result of $2,304,000, on which the
Federal Government will have to pay to Newfoundland an annual interest of five per
centum,
viz: $115,200.
But if the money can be obtained at three
and a half per cent., why is it proposed that
the Federal Government shall pay interest
at the rate of five per cent. to the Provinces
of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island ?
HON. MR. BROWN—Does not my hon.
friend see how this is, and how unfair his
conclusions are? The reason why we are to
pay these provinces five per cent. is, that we
are about to throw upon them a large share
of the burden of our public debt, upon which
five per cent. interest is paid ; if the people
of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island,
who have little or no debt, assume debts of
the other provinces, for which they have to
pay five per cent. interest, it is only fair and
just that they should get their five per cent.
back again.
MR. SCATCHERD—The Hon. President
of the Council says that at present we pay
five per cent. on our indebtedness, but that
in future we shall not pay so high a rate.
HON. MR. BROWN—No one said so.
What I said was that the Imperial Government would guarantee the interest on the
money to build the Intercolonial Railway,
and that we should have to pay interest
according to the terms on which the Imperial
Government would be able to borrow, which
will be about 3 1/2 per cent.
MR SCATCHERD—And supposing the
money is obtained on these favorable terms.
756
the interest for the Intercolonial Railway
debt will be half a million of dollars.
MR. SCATCHERD—At the reduced rate
of interest, the Federal Government will start
with an annual burden, in the shape of inter—
est, of at least $5,000,000. I had put the
sum down at $6,158,851.
HON. MR. BROWN—How much does
my hon. friend make the difference in the
interest—$1,158,851 ?
HON. MR. BROWN—My hon. friend is
entirely wrong in his calculations. But will
my hon. friend answer this question: How
much additional money shall we receive into
the treasury in the shape of customs duties
from the Lower Provinces ?
MR. SCATCHERD—But we are given to
understand that the customs duties, instead
of being increased, will be decreased. If,
however, the Lower Provinces, which now
pay on an average, we will say 15 per cent.,
shall be called upon to pay at least 20 per
cent., and up to 40 per cent., they will never
agree to Confederation.
HON. MR. BROWN—My hon. friend is
all wrong in his figures, but that is really
not the point. When he says that the
interest will be increased, he should also state
what we are to get back in the shape of
customs duties from the Lower Provinces.
What is the use of giving one side and not
the other ?
MR. SCATCHERD—I think that any
person who will seriously contemplate this
proposition of the Government, must come
to the conclusion that this Confederation
scheme is nothing more or less than a scheme
to construct the Intercolonial Railway.
(Hear, hear.) If it was not necessary for
some parties that that road should be
constructed, we should have had no Confederation scheme. Another objection, to
my mind, on the face of these resolutions,
has reference to the subsidy of 80 cents per
head. The 64th resolution provides that
the General Government shall pay 80 cents.
per head of the population of 1861 to the
several provinces for local purposes :—
| Upper Canada ........... |
$1,116,872 |
| Lower Canada ........... |
888,531 |
| Nova Scotia. . ........... |
264,685 |
| New Brunswick .......... |
201,637 |
| Newfoundland ........... |
104,000 |
| Prince Edward Island ..... |
64,505 |
I think it will be admitted by every member
from Upper Canada, that if the people of
Upper Canada had representation by population, they would have no desire to change
the present system of government. (Hear,
hear.) We in Upper Canada contend that
we pay seventy per cent. of the taxation,
while Lower Canada pays only thirty per
cent. Now, what will be the effect of the
64th resolution? Under that resolution,
Upper Canada will receive a subsidy of
$1,116,000, and on the principle which has
always been contended for in Upper Canada,
the preportion of that sum which Lower
Canada will pay, as a member of the Confederation, will be thirty per cent., or say
$335,000, while Upper Canada will pay
seventy per cent., or $781,000. We have
been paying the larger proportion of the
taxation, and Lower Canada the smaller
proportion, and the object of going into this
Confederation is, that the local governments
should have the management of their own
local affairs, and that we should raise the
money necessary for our own local purposes,
while Lower Canada should raise the money
necessary for her local purposes. But in
this instance, the General Government will
collect that money in Upper Canada in the
large proportion which I have just stated ;
on the other hand, Lower Canada will get a
subsidy of $888,000. Upper Canada, as
a member of the Confederation, will pay
$621,000, of that sum, according to the
admitted ratio in which she contributes to
the public exchequer, and Lower Canada
will pay 30 per cent., or $267,000.
MR. SCATCHERD—By this arrangement, then, Upper Canada, in comparison
with Lower Cauada, will pay to the General
Government yearly, for all time to come, in
excess of Lower Canada, $286,000 more than
she would pay were these subsidies collected
direct from each province.
HON. MR. BROWN— The calculation of
my hon. friend is entirely incorrect. But I
do not wish to interrupt him, unless he desires it.
MR. SCATCHERD—I have no objection.
Is not the principle on which I have made
the calculation correct?
HON. MR. BROWN—No, it is not correct. The hon. gentleman should remember
that the relations between Upper and Lower
Canada will be entirely changed when all
these provinces are brought together.
757
HON. MR. BROWN—Of course, so far as
Upper Canada and Lower Canada are concerned. But the hon. gentleman must see
that by the introduction of the Maritime
Provinces into the union, an entire change
is made in the relations between Upper and
Lower Canada. There will not only be a
change in the way in which the taxes contributed by the people reach the treasury,
but an immense change also in the way in
which those moneys will be distributed,
and by both Upper Canada will profit.
MR. SCATCHERD—The hon. gentleman
admits that the principle is correct, and,
unless as affected by altered circumstances, it
will bring out the result I have stated.
HON. MR. BROWN—But we know what
the circumstances will be. The honorable
gentleman should take up the whole of the
financial arrangements of the scheme. It is
not fair to take up a mere portion of them.
If he had looked at the commercial tables of
all the provinces, he would have seen that his
calculations were entirely erroneous.
MR. SCATCHERD—What I say is this,
that if, instead of paying all the local governments this subsidy of 80 cents per
head,
Upper Canada had been left to collect from
her own people her $1,116,000, and Lower
Canada to collect from her people the $888,000
which she is to receive, that would have been
what we have been contending for in Upper
Canada.
MR. SCATCHERD—Well, we have always
contended that we were willing to collect the
moneys required for our own local purposes in
Upper Canada, and that Lower Canada should
do the same. We are entitled, according to
that principle, to $286,000 more than we
shall receive ; and the proposed arrangement,
therefore, I say is unjust ; otherwise we have
been contending for what was incorrect for
the last ten years. It should have been made
part of the scheme, that whatever Upper
Canada required for her local expenditure
should be obtained by taxes levied on her
people, and that whatever Lower Canada
required for the like purposes should be levied
in the same way. But that is not the scheme,
so that we gain nothing with regard to our
paying more than we receive, which has been
our complaint hitherto.
HON. MR. BROWN—I am surprised that
my honorable friend should go so far. I
agree with him so far as my own judgment is
concerned, that it would have been a desirable
arrangement if we could have got each province to collect, by direct taxation, the
moneys
it required to meet its own local expenditure.
But the honorable gentleman must not say
that because we have not got that length, we
leave the matter exactly as it was. There is
a very great change, and the proposed system
is much more just than that existing hitherto.
(Hear, hear.)
MR. SCATCHERD—But will the hon.
gentleman not say that it would have been
desirable that these sums, instead of being
collected by the General Government, should
have been collected by each province ?
HON. MR. BROWN—Certainly ; that was
what I contended for. But we had not the
making of the whole of the bargain ; and
surely the honorable gentleman cannot contend
that because we did not get everything our
own way, we should therefore give up the
whole scheme. I apprehend, however, it will
be found, if this scheme goes into operation,
that the burdens on the people of Upper
Canada will be very different from what they
have been in times past.
MR. SCATCHERD—Well, the honorable
gentleman admits that Upper Canada will
not get in this scheme all he contended for,
and I say that if this scheme goes into operation, the position of Upper Canada will
be
no better than it was before. I give this as
a glaring instance—there are others which
cannot so readily be detected—of the way in
which the just claims and interests of Upper
Canada have been overlooked. I do not see
how honorable gentlemen will be able to answer the charges brought against them by
their constituents, that they have deliberately
agreed, that for all time to come there shall
be that advantage of one section over the
other. If Upper Canada is to get no more
benefit from the Confederation than I can
find in these resolutions, I am at a loss to see
how she is benefited by them. The expense
of an Intercolonial Railway is to be saddled
on her farmers and her people generally—
they are to pay the larger portion of that
expense, and that, so far as I can see, is to
be the grand effect of this scheme. (Hear,
hear.) Another objection I have to the project relates to the proposition with reference
to the Constitution of the Legislative Council. I say it is a retrograde step to do
away
with the elective principle in the Legislative
Council— (hear, hear)—and a step that will
be very unpalatable to the people of Upper
Canada. I do not see why the large province
758
of Canada, containing a population of two
and a half millions, should have been obliged
at the Conference to give up a point involving so important a principle, to the small
provinces containing a population of only
800,000. (Hear, hear.) I say take those
resolutions from first to last—there are seventy—two of them—let any man read them,
and
he cannot fail to come to the conclusion
that from the first to the seventy-second, it
is concession after concession on the part of
Upper Canada to those Lower Provinces.
MR. SCATCHERD—What I say is, that
I cannot see why this large province should
have been overruled at that Conference with
reference to this question of the Legislative
Council. What did it matter to New Brunswick if the people of Upper Canada desire
to
have their legislative councillors elected ?
If New Brunswick desires to have hers nominated by the Crown, let it be so; but why
prevent Upper Canada from having hers
elected by the people ? (Hear, hear.) Then
the 43rd resolution I consider objectionable. The first clause of that resolution
authorizes New Brunswick to impose duties on the export of timber, logs, masts,
spars, deals, and sawed lumber. If this Intercolonial Railway is constructed, it will
have very little passenger traffic during a
large portion of the year, and I suppose it
will do a large business in freight. Like other
railways, it will be the means of conveying a
large quantity of timber to the seaboard. It
appears to me that any one interested in the
timber business of this country must see that
every stick of timber that will go on the
Intercolonial Railway from Canada into New
Brunswick will be liable to this export duty.
I ask the Honorable President of the Council
if that will not be the fact ?
HON. MR. BROWN—I think the honorable gentleman could not have been present
when the Honorable Finance Minister explained this matter. This export duty is the
same as is paid on timber in this country in
the shape of stumpage.
MR. SCATCHERD—That is not the
point ; no timber can go out of New Brunswick without paying an export duty. Is not
that the law at the present time ?
HON. MR. BROWN—No timber can go
from our forests without paying a duty of
exactly the same kind.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Does the honorable
gentleman say that this export duty and
stumpage are exactly the same in their nature ?
HON. MR. BROWN—I say exactly the
same, with reference to the lumber from which
the Government of New Brunswick now derives a revenue. There will be some instances
in which it will not work in exactly the same
way.
HON. MR. BROWN—There will be a difference as regards that. This was the way in
which this arrangement arose. For myself, I
regret it should be put in that shape, for I am
opposed to all export duties. (Hear, hear.)
Of course it was arranged that the Local Governments should have the lands, mines,
minerals and Crown timber of their respective
provinces. From our Crown timber here we
receive a large revenue in the shape of stumpage, which is to go to Upper and Lower
Canada respectively for their local purposes. But
the New Brunswick delegates Said—" We do
not levy a stumpage duty on our Crown timber as you do; we find it better to levy
it
in the shape of an export duty "—and we complied with their desire that they should
have
their local revenue in that shape as an offset
to our stumpage duty.
MR. McKELLAR—I think the question
raised on this point by the honorable member
for West Middlesex is hardly worth discussing, because timber from Canada will never
be carried over the Intercolonial road. It
does not pay to carry it over our own roads,
and it would certainly never be carried by
railway all that distance. (Hear, hear.)
MR. T. C. WALLBRIDGE—It is carried
from Canada to Portland over the Grand
Trunk for shipbuilding purposes. (Cries of
" No, no.")
MR. SCATCHERD—My honorable friend
from South Oxford has not come to the
point, which is this, that it is not right for
the people of New Brunswick to charge this
duty on timber. What right have they to
levy an export duty on our timber ? Yet
this resolution, it appears to me, would give
them that right.
HON. MR. BROWN—My honorable friend
will recollect that these resolutions are to be
embodied in a statute, and the intention will
be much more clearly stated in it. It was
not by any means the intention that one pro
759
vince should have the right to impose an
export duty on the products of another.
MR. SCATCHERD—It seems to me,
however, that the meaning of that resolution
is clearly as I have stated it. This scheme is
objectionable on the face of it, because it will
largely increase the public debt for the erection of defences and the construction
of the
Intercolonial Railway.
MR. SCATCHERD—Why, according to
the extracts I have just read, we will get
nothing at all.
HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. gentleman
says that the construction of this railway to
the Maritime Provinces will involve us in increased debt. Now, should he not let us,
in
all candor, know how much we are to get in
the shape of revenue from those provinces, as
an offset.
MR. SCATCHERD-It is is generally admitted that we will receive no advantage from
the construction of the lntercolonial Railway.
MR. SCATCHERD—I say that this road
will have to be run at the expense of this
province, and not only that, but it will be a
piece of corruption from the time of the turning of the first shovelful of earth.
All the
officers of the road will be appointed by the
Government, and it will be an everlasting
expense. It could not have been better expressed than it was by the hon. member for
South Oxford in his own paper, that every
storm of snow would be watched with the
liveliest anxiety by the people of Upper Canada. (Hear, hear.) I know it is said that
the Government will open up the North—West
when the state of the finances permit ; but
how much better would it be to have the
money taken, which is to be appropriated for
this unprofitable railway, and expended at
once in opening up that territory ? It is
doubtful whether there is any land in that
part of the country through which the railway is to pass, fit for cultivation. Then,
according to the view taken by my honorable
friend from South Oxford, the only products
shipped on it will be those grown east of
Rivière du Loup. (Hear, hear.) The payment of subsidies from the General to the
Local Governments, the doing away with the
elective principle in the Legislative Council,
and the construction of the lntercolonial
Railway, are to my mind grave objections to
the Confederation. I consider that such a
measure ought not to become law until it has
been submitted to and pronounced upon by
the people. (Hear, hear.) Yet it is the declared intention of the Government not to
submit it to the people for their opinion. Now,
I think the Government are not keeping faith
with the people in this respect. At a dinner
in Toronto, in November last, the honorable
member for South Oxford is reported, by the
Globe of Nov. 4th, to have said :—
Hon. Mr. BROWN—A friend asks if the scheme
is to go into operation without being submitted
to the people. That is a matter for the different
Parliaments to consider—whether it shall be
done, or whether it shall not be done. It is not,
I apprehend, for the Administration of this province, or any other province, to say
that this
measure shall or shall not be sent especially to
the people. We are in the hands of the repre—
sentatives of the people, and by their decision we
are ready to abide.
How different is that declaration from the
conduct of the Government now, when they
come down and say they are going to use
every means to carry the scheme through
without submitting it to the people! (Hear,
hear.) At the same dinner there was another
honorable member of the Government present,
the Hon. Minister of Finance, and I will read
to the House what he said on the question of
appealing to the people :—
They would have desired to see a Central Government, extending its ægis over all interests.
But there were difficulties which rendered this impossible, and in meeting these difficulties
he
trusted that the measure which would be submitted to the people, to the Imperial Parliament,
and to the Provincial Parliaments, would be
found to be one which protected local interests,
while national interests had been reserved for the
central power, which he hoped would manage
them in a way to do honor to the race from which
we had sprung. (Cheers.)
There is the express declaration of two
Ministers of the Crown that this measure,
before it would become law, should be submitted to the people. (Hear, hear.) Now,
is the course indicated that which has been
adopted? Is the scheme to be submitted to
the people ? No ; they bring down the scheme
and say that it must be passed in its entirety,
and so far from submitting it to the people,
they move the previous question to prevent
the possibility of an amendment to that effect
being put. Some members who have preceded me contended that it would be unconstitutional
to submit it to the people, and
they cited cases in support of their argument.
But in those cases, Parliament had full
power to dispose of the question then before
760
it; this Parliament has no power to dispose
finally of this question. The British Parliament can act with or without the consent
of
this Parliament ; therefore, it appears to me
that the cases cited are not applicable to our
case, and I maintain that submitting the resolutions to the people would prevent irritation
hereafter. (Hear.) How can it be pretended
that if the measure is not passed now, the
time will never occur again ? So far as
Upper Canada is concerned, I think she might
hope to obtain such a scheme as this at any
time—( hear, hear)—and I am willing to take
the responsibility of voting against this Confederation scheme. (Hear, hear.)
MR. JOHN MACDONALD (Toronto)
said—MR. SPEAKER, before recording my
vote on this question, I desire plainly to
state the position which I occupy in regard
to it. I desire to say that I am in favor of
Confederation. (Hear, hear.) The first resolution which was proposed at the Quebec
Conference and agreed upon, namely, that
a Confederation of all the British North
America Provinces, on principles just to all,
was desirable, I have no hesitation in saying,
meets with my entire approval. We have
been told that the Conference at Quebec
exhibited one of the grandest spectacles
which the world ever beheld. (Hear, hear.)
I may be wrong, but I fail to see it
in that light. I am prepared to award
to honorable gentlemen all the sincerity
in meeting together to settle the sectional difficulties of this country to which
they can possibly lay claim, and it is a matter
of great regret to me that I find myself
to-night compelled to record my vote against
hon. gentlemen with whom it has been my
pleasure to be associated ever since I entered
political life. But, sir, it is with me a matter
of conscientious conviction, and I am bound,
whatever the consequences may be, to follow
those convictions. (Hear, hear.) Now, Mr.
SPEAKER, I think that hon. gentlemen, in
bringing this scheme down and saying that
we must take it just as it is without making
any amendment to it whatever, are asking
too much. (Hear, hear.) That is assuming
the document is perfect in every particular,
or as nearly so as possible. If we are to
undertake the discussion of this question, and
yet not be allowed to alter it in any single
particular so as to adapt it to the
circumstances of the province, I really cannot
conceive for what purpose this House has
been called together. (Hear, hear.) We
have heard a good deal said about the leading Opposition members in all the provinces
having received invitations to enter the
Conference for the free discussion of the
question, but I would ask, sir, on what
occasion the Opposition of Lower Canada
were invited by the Government to take
part in that Conference? (Hear, hear.)
I understood the hon. member for Montreal Centre (Hon. Mr. ROSE) to say, that
although he did not agree with some of the
minute details, yet rather than jeopardise
the adoption of the whole scheme, he was
prepared to vote for it just as it stands.
Now, I would ask if the question of our
School law is a minute detail ? I would ask
if the appropriation of the debt between
Upper and Lower Canada is a minute detail ?
I would ask if the question of the defences
of the country is a minute detail ? And yet
we are asked to vote for this measure without
having these particulars laid before us for
our consideration. (Hear, hear.) It is better,
the hon. gentleman says, that we should vote
upon it in ignorance of these things, and
leave the result, if wrong, to be righted by
future legislators. Well, the member may
vote in ignorance if he prefers to do things
in that way, but as I am constituted (it
may be a fault of mine), I cannot do that.
I will never record a vote in this House
unless I know, or have tried my utmost
to know what I am doing. (Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Minister of Finance, in the very
able speech which he delivered at Sherbrooke,
alluded to the great difficulties which surrounded the School question. He intimated
that the question was one of such magnitude,
that a great deal of time was required for its
consideration, and then invited the coöperation of all intelligent men to the solution
of that difficulty. If then the smaller question is of so much importance, why should
the larger one be forced upon this House
with such haste ? Does it require less time
for consideration than the smaller one to
which I have alluded ? It seems to me very
much like building a house first, and after
it is built proceeding to examine the foundations. The hon. gentleman spoke of the
improvement which this scheme had already
secured in the value of our securities in England. Now, it does not require much thought
to discover that it is an easy matter to affect
the stock exchange either favorably or unfavorably. Securities go up to-day and down
to-morrow. A man in business may get an
761
endorser which may for a short time improve
his credit ; so we seek to improve our credit
by an alliance with the Maritime Provinces.
Mr. SPEAKER, there are other and far better
ways of improving our credit, the very best
of which is living within our means, bringing our expenditure within our income, and
establishing our financial operations on a
sound and healthy basis. Rest assured, the
monied men of England will attach much
greater importance to such a course than
any alliance we can possibly make with other
provinces, for the purpose of improving our
credit. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, we are
told that this great scheme is to settle all
our sectional difficulties. I may perhaps be
very dull of comprehension, but I must confess that I cannot see that. We have difficulties
among ourselves, as scenes that have transpired on the floor of this House have fully
proved, and we seek to settle those difficulties
by forming a union with provinces that are
at loggerheads among themselves. (Hear,
hear.) Now, sir, we have long contended in
Upper Canada for a just representation in
Parliament, and we are told that, because we
are going to get seventeen more members than
Lower Canada in the Federal Legislature,
all the difficulties for the settlement of
which representation according to population was sought, are to be thereby remedied.
I cannot see that that result will follow,
because in the Upper House there is still
to be an equality of votes, and I quote now
from the pamphlet written by the Hon. Mr.
CAUCHON to show that he is of Opinion
that any advantage which we gain in the
Lower House will be completely paralyzed
in the Upper Chamber. He says :—
The Constitution of 1840 only stipulated for
equality in the Lower House. Let us suppose
that the majority of the Legislative Counci had
chosen to adopt a project of law which would
have been hostile to the interests of Lower
Canada ; as Upper and Lower Canada were
equally represented in the Lower House, the bill
adopted by the Upper House would have been
certainly thrown out, and it is by the Lower
House alone that we have, up to this time, been
able to protect and save our institutions, taking
into account also the good-will shown to us by
Lower Canadian representatives of English descent. Why has the Legislative Assembly
always
been the battlefield with respect to the struggle
that has been going on for the last fourteen years
between Upper an Lower Canada on the question of representation by population ? It
is
because there alone equality has existed, and
there alone could be found the means of solving
the constitutional problem. If then, instead of
the present Constitution, we substitute local
legislatures, and over them the Federal Parliament, we shall see in that case precisely
the
inverse of that which we have always observed
in our present legislature, that is to say, that on
the occurrence of any local misunderstanding, the
struggle will be carried from the Lower House
to the Legislative Council, and precisely fo the
reasons that we have adduced.
Mr. SPEAKER, we have here, in the
language of one of the most, determined
opponents of the principle of representation
according to population, very good reasons
given for coming to the conclusion that the
granting of increased representation in the
Lower Legislature will amount to nothing,
while the same just principle is denied in
the constitution of the Legislative Council.
I hope I may be incorrect, but I am of
opinion that if this scheme goes into operation, we shall witness the difficulty alluded
to on the floor of the Confederate Legislature
in less than six months after its organization.
(Hear, hear.) And the unfair representation
which Upper Canada will have in the Upper
Chamber must exist throughout all time.
Nor will she be able to add even one
member, no matter how great may be the
preponderance of her population over other
parts of the Confederacy And this equality
of votes between Upper Canada and Lower
Canada will act, as Mr. CAUCHON tells his
Lower Canadian friends, as a perfect counterpoise to the legislation of the Lower
House.
In connection with this subject, there is
another feature of the scheme which is
painful to contemplate, in which we are, I
think, about to advance backwards. The qualification of a Legislative Councillor is
now
$8,000 ; but it is proposed to reduce it to
$4,000, which I regard as retrogressive.
And in the case of Prince Edward Island
and Newfoundland, the qualification may be
personal property as well as real estate—in
other words, the legislative councillors from
those provinces may be peddlers of jewelry
or any other commodity, whose stock in trade
may be burned up while they are attending
a session, rendering them unable longer to
qualify. (Hear, hear.) But there is a much
worse feature than that : it will have
the effect of introducing into the Upper
Chamber a class of needy adventurers who in
a crisis may be approached without very
much difficulty, and who might plead their
own circumstances as an ample apology in
quieting their consciences for the votes they
762
might give. Now, Mr. SPEAKER, I object
further to this scheme on the ground of the
cumbrous and expensive machinery of the
local governments. I know it has been
asserted that it will not cost the country any
more than under the present system, and I
will entirely give up my position if any hon.
gentleman can prove to me that a man will
not go behind who doubles or even increases
the number of his employés without at the
same time increasing the capital and extent
of his business. I see in this scheme the
introduction and increase—the rapid increase
—of a large number of consumers, without
correspondingly increasing the producers of
the country. If I err in this I err in good
company, for I quote the words of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. CARDWELL,
who says on this point :—
A very important part of this subject is the
expense whic may attend the working of the
Central and the Local Governments. Her Majesty's Government cannot but express the
earnest hope that the arrangements which may be
adopted in this respect may not be of such a
nature as to increase, at least in any considerable
degree, the whole expenditure, or to make any
material addition to the taxation and thereby
retard the internal industry or tend to impose
new burdens on the commerce of the country.
Now, sir, I object as a western man
(and I will be pardoned if I allude to the
sectional question) to the great injustice
which will be done to the people of Upper
Canada in the heavy burdens which she
will have to bear in the carrying on of the
General Government. In the able speech
delivered by the Hon. the Minister of
Finance at Sherbrooke, he said that when
the population of Canada should reach five
millions (a larger papulation than that of
the proposed Confederation at present), the
revenue which would be derived for public
purposes would not be a farthing more than
now. One hon. gentleman has said in this
House that it is as cheap to govern three
millions as five millions of people. That may
be true, but one million of money will not
go as far as five millions in making those
local improvements which Upper Canada
would require, and to which the people of
Upper Canada would be justly and fairly
entitled. Then I object further to the
scheme, because while Upper Canada will
contribute the largest amount to the general
revenue, she will also have to bear the heavy
share of defensive and other public works in
the Maritime Provinces and Lower Canada.
(Hear, hear.) I object further to the indefinite postponement of the opening up of
the North-West, the settlement of the valleys
of the Saskatchewan and the improvement
of our canal system. (Hear, hear.) There
is a very marked difference in the phraseology of two of the clauses of this scheme
which must strike any one reading them is
extraordinary. The one declares that the
Intercolonial Railway shall be built. There
can be no mistake about that, nor is there
any possibility of doubt. The language is
definite—it is to be built immediately.
(Hear, hear.) The other clause (69) reads
thus :—
The comunication with the North-Western
territory and the improvements required for the
development of the trade of the Great West with
the seaboard are regarded by this Conference as
subjects of the highest importance to the Federated Provinces, and shall be prosecuted
at the
earliest possible period that the state of the
finances will permit.
(Hear, hear.) This certainly is the most
ambiguous language that could well be employed in reference to this great and desirable
work. However, we are told that this is
a mistake, and that the opening up of the
North-West will go on simultaneously with
the construction of the Intercolonial Railway; but we find Hon. Mr. TILLEY asserting
in the Lower Provinces that there was so
serious intention of going on with this work
at present, and that a large sum was to be
spent at once in New Brunswick in improving its defences. If I may be allowed to give
an
illustration of the uncertain and evasive character of this provision of the scheme,
I wo;;
quote from a cartoon in Punch, which
I have here before me. It refers to
a Russian State paper on Polish affairs
England. France and Austria examining it
thus explain it :—
England, " It seems to mean—Eh? H'm ?"
France, " I think it means—Eh ? Ha !"
Austria, " I suspect it means—Eh ? Ho !"
Chorus, " And we don't know what it means."
MR. JOHN MACDONALD—Well, my
ignorance is pardonable when there is
so much ignorance of the scheme ever
among members of the Ministry. (Hear
hear.) I can fancy the question of the
opening up of the North-West coming up it
the first session of the Federal Legislature
and the manner in which it will be received
763
New-Brunswick will say: " Oh we cannot
on with this work until the Intercolonial
Railway is completed, and New Brunswick
put in a complete state of defence."
Nova Scotia will say : " When the finances
permit we will proceed with it ;" and all the
provinces will unite in saying, when this
provision of the Constitution is pointed out
them, " Oh, we don't know what it means."
(Langhter.) I object to this scheme, air, on
account of the burdens it proposes to place
this country in the shape of defence.
(Hear, hear.) We have had glowing accounts
from the Hon. Minister of Agriculture and
farmers about the territory that will belong to
this Confederation. We are told that it will
extend for four thousand miles from ocean
ocean ; and will it be believed that we in
Upper and Lower Canada, with a population
less than that of the city of London, will be
called upon to defend such a frontier—a
territory, we are told. as great as the continent of Europe? (Hear, hear.) The thing
was an anomaly that no country in the world
consents except our own. I regard this
condition of territory by Confederation as a
source of weakness instead of strength ; and
of my mind the casting of the burden of
defence upon this country is like investing a
sovereign with all the outward semblance of
loyalty, and giving him a dollar per day to
keep up the dignity of his court, or like
expecting the engine of one of the small
ferry steamers which ply on the river here
Point LĂ©vis, to propel the
Great Eastern
across the Atlantic. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I am
unmindful of the fostering care of the
British Island over all its colonies. I am
unmindful of all that England has done
guard and protect her colonies throughout
the world, and to
develop their resources. But when we see by the telegraphic
reports of today that the Imperial Government is about to expend £50,000—or if you
accept the correction of the Government, as
presented this evening, £200,000—upon the
provinces of this country, I ask in all serious-
what is that amount for the protection
n exposed frontier such as our's?
Hon. MR. BROWN—I do not wish to
interrupt hon. friend; but I must say
when he has heard it stated that this
0,000 is to be granted by the Imperial
Government simply for the defence of the
of Quebec, am amazed how he can
up here and charge the Imperial Government with the intention of giving only that
amount for the defence of the whole country.
HON. MR. DORION—It is distinctly
stated in the report of the debate in the
House of Lords that that is all the Imperial
Government intend to appropriate.
HON. MR. BROWN—I beg the hon.
gentleman's pardon, but it is not so stated.
I think the hon. gentleman will find that
there are now large works going on at
Halifax and St. John ; and that besides the
appropriation for works at Quebec, the question of the amount to be contributed for
the
defence of Canada elsewhere is still under
the consideration of the Imperial Government.
HON. MR. BROWN—Well, the hon.
gentleman may not accept the statement I
make, but I am quite sure the hon. member
for Toronto will, that the question of the
defence of this province at Montreal and
westward is still under the consideration of
the Imperial Government, and at this moment
is undecided.
MR. JOHN MACDONALD—Of course,
I was aware that the ÂŁ200,000 proposed to
be appropriated were for works at Quebec.
HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. gentleman should not have stated, then, that they
were for the defence of the whole of the
province.
MR. JOHN MACDONALD—I am free
to admit that this was a mistake, and that
the amount was for the defences of Quebec.
MR. JOHN MACDONALD—Well, I
ask that if the Imperial Government will
appropriate only this sum, where, at such a
period of imminent danger as the present is
said to be, and with every point of the frontier perfectly defenceless, is the money
to
come from to place all parts of the province
in a position to resist aggression, and who
is to provide it? The hon. member for
Lambton, the other night, in alluding to the
ability of this country to raise and maintain
a standing army for our protection, instanced
the case of Denmark, which he said was able
to support an army of 20,000 men. I certainly thought the allusion a most unhappy
one,
and one would have imagined that the recent
history of that country would have prevented
its being made. (Hear, hear.) But in regard
to all the features in this scheme objectionable to Upper Canada, and adverse to
764
its interest, Upper Canadian members in this
House say, "Oh, let us have Confederation,
and we will make all these things right by
subsequent legislation." Well, I say to every
Upper Canadian that if he goes into this
treaty with a view of violating its letter and
spirit subsequently, he is unfaithful to the
duty he owes to Upper Canada as well as
to Lower Canada and the sister provinces.
(Hear, hear.) I do not desire to enter into
a treaty with the object of escaping its obligations at some future time ; and it
is because
I wish to do what is right, that I point out
those things in the scheme that I believe to
be wrong, and which, unless they are modified, I cannot support by my vote. (Hear,
hear.) It would be a breach of faith on the
part of Upper Canada in a few years after
this to say, "We want an increased representation; we want a larger amount for our
local purposes," when with their eyes open,
her representatives accepted the document
now before the House, and with a clear
apprehension of what they were doing, made
themselves parties to this treaty. Why, Mr.
SPEAKER, is it that Lower Canada has so
long resisted the cry for an increased representation to the western section of the
province? Simply because the treaty of 1840
granted to both sections equality on the floor
of this House. (Hear, hear.) I regret exceedingly that the Government intend to
force this measure upon the people without
appealing to them on the question, and
knowing whether it meets with their approval
or not. (Hear, hear.) In that same speech of
the Hon. Minister of Finance to which I have
already made allusion, one of his strongest
points was this, that the Union Act of 1840
was forced on the people of Lower Canada
without their consent. (Hear.) Yet, Mr.
SPEAKER, what do we find ? We find the
intelligent and enterprising people of New-
Brunswick have rejected this measure, and
that it is not favored either by the people of
Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia.
We find, further, petitions coming in every
day against the measure from all parts of
Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) And yet, in
the face of all this opposition, the Government presume to force the measure upon
the country. But then we are told that the
rejection of the scheme by New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island will
make no difference, although they were
treated with here on equal terms, Prince
Edward Island having the same vote in the
Conference as Upper or Lower Canada ; they
assisted in framing these articles, and it was
to conciliate them that all these concessions
were made. We are told that this is a
document of concessions ; but I declare that
I have failed to sec any concessions whatever
that have been made to Upper Canada ; they
were all made to the Maritime Provinces.
I repeat that the delegates who met in
Quebec as the representatives of provinces,
and who had equal weight in the
Conference with Canada, are now to be treated
as if they were of no account ; that if the
people of Canada, representing three-fourths
of the whole population, decide upon it,
it will be carried through. (Hear, hear.)
Then we are told that the danger of war
is very imminent. I fail to see that. The
Government brought in an Alien Bill,
and a large majority in the House voted
for it, because they believed it necessary,
at the time, to secure the peace of the
country ; and in like manner they will be
supported by this House in any measure
which may be required for the purpose of
adding to our security. But I ask, sir, if
these resolutions were carried to-night, how
much they would add to our peace and
security ? What increased facilities of communication would they give us with the
Lower Provinces, until it was possible to
build the Intercolonial Railway ? Very many
years must necessarily elapse before that
work could be completed ; meanwhile, the
whole question of union could be discussed ;
objections could be considered, and the people
could be consulted. Thus, without hastily
pressing on a measure which might eventuate
in disappointment and misery, a sound and
judicious measure might be devised, which
would meet with the approval of the country,
and whose principles might be perpetuated
with the happiest results.
MR. JOHN MACDONALD—Perhaps I
differ with many in regard to the subject of
the Intercolonial Railway. I am willing that
the Intercolonial Railway should be built,
and I am willing that it should be built
at once. I will go farther than that,
and say I am willing that this Parliament
should grant as the share of this country an
amount sufficient to justify sound commercial
men in taking up that work, which I look
upon in the light of a great commercial
undertaking. That is the idea that I hold
765
in regard to the Intercolonial Railway. We
should then know how much the road would
cost, and how much money we had to spend,
and by placing it under the management of
sound, judicious commercial men, the best
possible guarantee would be afforded us of its
being properly worked.(Hear, hear.) I do not,
for my part, underrate the difficulties which
beset the hon. gentlemen who now occupy
the Treasury benches. However much others
may be ready to charge hon. gentlemen with
having lost confidence in them, I am free to
admit that my confidence in hon. gentlemen
with whom I have hitherto worked, is as
strong as ever it was. But sir, no matter
whether that confidence were strong or feeble,
I must vote on this question as I conscientiously believe it is my duty to vote. That
course I have ever followed since I have had
the honor of a seat in this House, and that
course I intend to pursue so long as I continue in public life. Far be it from me
to
withhold from honorable gentlemen that full
measure of credit to which they are justly
entitled. I believe that they were perfectly
sincere in thus coming together to endeavour
to bring about a solution of our constitutional
difficulties, and I hope they may be succesful
in their efforts in that direction. And if in
the end they shall accomplish that great
object—if they shall succeed in banishing
strife and discord from the floor of this
House, and in bringing to our shores an
increased mesure of commercial prosperity,
no man will be more willing to acknowledge
his error than I shall, and no one will be
more ready to join in giving them that full
measure of a nation's gratitude to which
under those circumstances they will he so
fully and fairly entitled. (Cheers).
MR. McKELLAR—It is very late in the
evening, and I do not intend to speak at any
great length. However, I think it is proper,
in the interests of a considerable portion of
the people of Upper Canada, that I should call
the attention of the House to this fact, that a
few weeks ago a very large and influential
meeting of the citizens of Toronto was held
in that city, most of them, I believe, being
the constituents of the honorable gentleman
who has just addressed us, and to which
meeting that honorable gentleman was invited
for the purpose of discussing that very measure. He did not, however, think proper
to
attend ; but I myself was there ; and I think
he has treated his constituents not with that
courtesy and attention which they had a right
to expect at his hands. (Hear, hear.) Why,
sir, did he not attend that meeting, and throw
on it that flood of light which he has shed
abroad amongst us this evening ? (Laughter.)
Well, in the metropolis of Upper Canada,
where many of the most influential men of
that section of the province were assembled,
on a motion being made for what the honorable gentleman now contends, an appeal to
the people—that this measure should be submitted to the popular vote before being
disposed of by this House—at a public meeting,
I say, in the metropolis of Upper Canada,
where there were hundreds of the leading men
assembled, not a seconder could be found.
(Hear, hear.) I say we must hold that honorable gentleman responsible for not going
to
that meeting and enlightening his constituents
upon this very important subject.
MR. McKELLAR—Yes, the question was
fully discussed by them. The honorable gentleman who sits in the Upper House as the
representative of the two counties of Essex
and Kent was elected by acclamation. And
why ? Because this Coalition had taken
place, and this scheme of Federation was in
progress, and that honorable gentleman came
out, openly and above board, and declared
in his speeches and in his address that he was
prepared to do what he did the other day in
the Upper House, vote for every paragraph of
these resolutions. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member for Toronto (Mr. JOHN MACDONALD),
however, did not venture to go
near his constituents, although they were
assembled within some two hundred yards of
where he resides ; and in the face of that he
comes here and tells us we must have an appeal
to the people. If ever a subject was brought
under the attention of this House, which met
the almost unanimous approval of the people
of the country, it is the scheme now under
discussion. (Cheers and counter cheers.)
We have been told that because the press of
the country support the scheme nearly without exception, the press has been subsidized,
and yet, up to this moment, they have not
been able to point to a single case in proof of
their assertion. It is paying the conductors
of the press of Canada a very poor compliment
to say that they could be bought, even were
such a thing to be attempted. (Hear, hear.)
The press of this country—the unbought
press of the country—from one end to the
other, are in favor of the scheme. We have
766
had, too, elections for thirty or forty constituencies in both sections since the
scheme
was brought forward.
MR. McKELLAR—The honorable member alludes to those elections as being municipal elections, but
I spoke not of the little municipality of Cornwall, and the hon. gentleman
need not therefore be in any way alarmed.
(Laughter.) Almost without exception, the
elections which have since taken place have
been in favor of this scheme of Federation.
(Hear, hear.) It was my intention to have
spoken at some length on the merits of this
scheme.
MR. McKELLAR—I am quite willing to
drop the subject in the meantime. I may
state that if it is thought desirable to proceed
to a vote without discussion, for my part—
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—I must
beg the honorable gentleman to understand
what is our position on this subject. He
stated just now that he had merely risen to
answer some objections which were made by
the honorable member for Toronto, and he
appears indisposed to speak this evening.—
Well, the honorable gentleman may speak at
another time. It is only half-past twelve, and
we may very well sit till two—(oh, oh)—so
there is plenty of time. And as we know
very well that the honorable gentlemen belonging to the Opposition are desirous of
discussing this question at greater length, we
are willing to listen to what they have to say.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I am willing
to stand as much night work as any honorable member of this House, but it is a little
too much to ask us to sit here after twelve,
night after night. At no time have I ever
seen any success attending legislation after
midnight.
MR. McKELLAR—I simply rose at the
present time to point out the extraordinary
conduct of the honorable member for Toronto.
I may or may not desire to trespass upon the
attention of the House to-morrow. But if I
do not then speak, it is because of the imminent danger which I believe we are in,
that
the debate should be brought to a speedy
close. In case I do not address the House
again, I desire to take this opportunity of
saying that I am entirely in favor of the resolutions, and that I shall support them
cor
dially, and oppose any amendments which
may be offered to them ; and, in taking that
course, I am confident that I am doing that
which will be endorsed almost unanimously
by my constituents, and which will commend
itself to at least three-fourths of the people
of Upper Canada. If I believed that this
measure was opposed to the wishes of the
people of Canada, I would be the last man to
press for a vote upon it until it had been submitted to them; but believing, from
the clearest evidence, that the scheme meets with the
almost unanimous approval of the country, I
think the sooner we bring it into operation
the better. (Hear, hear.)
MR. JOHN MACDONALD—I may perhaps be allowed to state in explanation, that
the good people of Kent are doubtless favored
with a representative of much clearer views
and sounder judgment than he who represents the unfortunate people of Toronto.
But I would just say to that hon. gentleman,
that if he will only look after the interests of
his own constituents, I will try to look after
the interests of mine. There is this difference
between the hon. gentleman and myself,
that when the scheme was first announced,
he took the whole thing down at once, whilst
I thought it too weighty to be thus hastily
disposed of, and required time for reflection.
And the debates which have taken place in
this House—the diversity of opinion amongst
Ministers themselves as to several points of
the scheme—convince me that so far from
its being understood by every man, woman
and child in Upper Canada, as the hon.
member for Kent stated, and as he would
fain have us believe, it is far from being
understood in the country. I am persuaded
that the course I took was right. I can
only say that, if the honorable gentleman
leaves this House with skirts as clean as I
intend mine shall be when I retire from
Parliament, he will have no cause to reproach
himself for anything he has done during his
political career. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. HOWLAND—I desire to say a
few words in reply to what fell from my
honorable friend the member for Cornwall
(Hon. J. S. MACDONALD), so that no misconception should exist on the part of the
members of this House in regard to the
course I thought proper to pursue when I
went before my constituents, after having
accepted the office which I have now the
honor to hold in the Government. From the
honorable gentleman's remarks, I think it
would be inferred that I had accepted office
767
subject to conditions, and had left it to
be understood that amendments would be
made to the scheme now before the House.
At least such is my impression from what
fell from my honorable friend. I feel extremely obliged to the honorable gentleman
for the kind manner in which he has spoken
of me, and I can assure him in return that I
value his opinion and friendship most highly ;
at the same time, it is proper that I should
say a word or two in reference to what he has
stated, in order that no misconception may
possibly exist on the subject. I placed before
my constituents, fairly and fully, my views on
this important question. I indicated to them
that there were some parts of the scheme
which, if I had been a delegate to the Convention, I should have opposed and endeavored
to modify. At the same time, I
stated that we had to accept it as it was, it
being in the nature of a treaty, or reject it.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I am sure
my honorable friend will not accuse me of a
desire wilfully to misrepresent his position
in reference to this matter. What I meant
to say, if I did not say it, was this,
that the scheme, as a whole, is not such as
the Hon. Postmaster General desires—that
he himself told his constituents that he entertained objections to it ; and on that
I argued
that if the scheme was so bad as to be unsatisfactory to the members of the Government
themselves, it was not fair to deny to the
Opposition, to whom it was still more distasteful, the opportunity of placing on record
their objections to it. (Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER moved in
amendment that the debate be resumed at
the next sitting of the House to-morrow, as
the first Order of the Day after routine busi
ness.
That the debate be adjourned till Monday next,
and that an humble Address be presented to His
Excellency the Governor General, praying that
he will cause to be laid before this House, in the
meantime, all information submitted to the Conference, as well as any that may have
since come
into the possession of the Government, relating
to the various important subjects referred to in the
resolutions of the Conference ; and particularly
all information respecting the route and cost of
the proposed Intercolonial Railway, the proposed
distribution of the public property and liabilities
among the several governments which are intended to replace the present Government
of this Pro
vince, the nature, extent and cost of the contemplated improvements of our inland
water communications, the rights of Canada in the North-
West Territory, and the cost of opening up that
territory for settlement, the amount required to
be contributed by the provinces towards the public defence, and the extent and value
of the public lands of Newfoundland, in order that this
House may be better enabled to consider the
effect of the proposed constitutional changes on
the material interests and the future political
condition of the country.
The honorable gentleman said—Mr. SPEAKER, I shall simply say, with respect to this
motion, that we are asked to adopt conclusions come to by the Conference of delegates
which met in Quebec in October last. It is only
right and proper—it is only fair and reasonable—that we, should be placed in possession
of the data upon which these conclusions are
founded. If we are a free British Parliament, worthy of our position as the representatives
of British freemen, we will insist on
being placed in possession of all the information upon which these resolutions were
founded. I think there can be no reasonable answer
to oppose to this request, and I feel that I
should be doing injustice to the House if I
detained it for one moment longer with any
argument upon the subject. (Hear, hear.)
MR. A. MACKENZIE—The time mentioned is too short. It would be necessary
to adjourn the debate for two months at least,
in order to get the information here sought.
But there are serious omissions in the resolution. The honorable gentleman ought to
have asked for the number of engines and
cars proposed to be employed on the railway,
and the amount of traffic which is expected
to be carried backwards and forwards in the
course of a year. (Laughter.) The whole
thing to my mind is ridiculous. (Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—I am surprised, sir, that the honorable member for Chateauguay should have proposed
such a motion
in amendment as this—a motion which has no
affinity whatever to the question under consideration. In my opinion things should
be
called by their right names, and I have not
the least hesitation in saying that this motion,
from the irrelevant matter it contains, is entirely irregular—that it is, in fact,
an absurdity. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. DORION—This is the only
way in which we can make a motion for getting information from the Government. The
amendment proposes that the debate shall be
adjourned until Monday next, for the purpose
of affording an opportunity to the Government
768
to bring down the information which they
had before them during the Conference at
which the resolutions in favor of Confederation were originated. It cannot be denied
that when the Hon. Finance Minister and his
colleagues agreed that $150,000 should be
paid for the unoccupied lands in Newfoundland,
they must have had some information before
them as to the value of those lands, and whether
they consisted of one acre or a million. There
is no doubt that when they agreed upon what
part of the public debt of Canada should
form part of the debt of the Confederation,
they had a statement laid before them upon
which that agreement was based. If I recollect aright, I saw in the newspapers a statement
that the Conference had adjourned for
a day or two in order to allow the Finance
Ministers of the several provinces to make
up and bring before the Conference a statement respecting the debts and financial
positions of the several provinces. Well, this
is all we want to obtain. We want the same
information that the honorable gentlemen
had before them when they agreed to those
resolutions in conference. We do not suppose that they went into the consideration
of
these matters without any information before
them. We do not suppose that they merely
guessed that the debt of Canada was $62,
500,000, and guessed in the same way at
the debts of the other provinces. We want
the same opportunity of understanding these
resolutions and of coming to a correct decision upon them, that the honorable gentlemen
themselves enjoyed. We do not want
an hour's delay more than is absolutely
necessary to bring down the information
and enable us to apply it in judging of
the merits of the scheme. (Hear.) Honorable gentlemen say it will require months to
get the information. The honorable member
for Lambton (Mr. A. MACKENZIE) seems to
be very much afraid to have the information
brought down, lest it would result in the scheme
not being carried. He ought to remember
that we have not the confidence in the Honorable Attorney General East, nor yet in
the
Honorable Finance Minister, that he has.
(Laughter.) He has known those gentlemen
for a long time, and the House has had frequent opportunities, during past sessions,
of
observing the amount of confidence he has
always reposed in them. He had a wonderful
amount of confidence in the Honorable Finance Minister at the close of last session,
when
he voted for the motion respecting the $100,000 handed over to the city of Montreal
for
the payment of a Grand Trunk railway liability. But he will pardon us and exercise
a
little patience with us if we, who have never
had that confidence in the honorable member
for Sherbrooke since he has been Finance Minister, desire to have a little information
before
we vote for the extravagant scheme which he
has brought before us. We want information
mainly respecting the finances, the Intercolonial Railway, and the Crown lands of
Newfoundland, and we have no other way of
placing our demand in a shape to be recorded,
since the previous question has been moved,
than by moving for it in amendment to the
motion for adjourning the debate.
HON. MR. GALT—The honorable gentleman is going into the merits of a resolution
about which a point of order has been raised.
HON. MR. DORION—I was not aware
that a point of order had been raised. What
is the point of order ? I understood the
Honorable Attorney General East to have
been arguing against bringing down the information called for.
HON. MR. CARTIER—No, no, not at
all. The Speaker will decide whether the
resolution is in order or not.
THE SPEAKER—It is a well understood
rule that no amendment to a motion for an
adjournment can be proposed, unless it relates
to the time to which the adjournment is proposed to be made. The first portion of
the
motion is in order, or would be in order if it
were separated from what follows, and proposed by itself ; but I cannot compel the
honorable mover of it to alter it. According to
the best of my judgment, the motion is out of
order.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Then, Mr. SPEAKER, I desire to have an opportunity of placing
an appeal from the decision of the Chair on
the resolution I have offered, upon the
Journals of the House.
The members having been called in, the
decision of the Honorable Speaker was sustained on the following division :—
YEAS.—Messrs. Alleyn, Ault, Beaubien, Bellerose, Biggar, Blanchet, Bowman, Bown, Brousseau,
Brown, Carling, Atty. Gen. Cartier, Cartwright, Cauchon, Chapais, Cockburn, Cornellier,
Cowan, Currier, De Boucherville, De Niverville,
Dickson, Dufresne (Montcalm), Dunsford, Evanturel, Galt, Gaucher, Gaudet, Gibbs, Haultain,
Higginson, Howland, Jones (South Leeds), Langevin, LeBoutillier, Mackenzie (Lambton),
Mackenzie (North Oxford). Magill, McConkey, McDougall, McGee, McKellar, Morris, Morrison,
Pinsonneault, Poulin, Powell, Robitaille, Ross
(Prince Edward), Scoble, Smith (Tomato East),
769
Stirton, Street, Sylvain, Thompson, Walsh, Wells,
Willson, and Wright (East York).—59.
NAYS.—Messieurs Cameron (North Ontario),
Coupal, Dorion (Drummond and Arthabaska),
Dorion (Hochelaga), Dufresne (Iberville), Fortier, Geoffrion, Holton, Houde, Labreche-Viger,
Laframboise, Lajoie, Macdonald (Cornwall),
O'Halloran, Paquet, Parker, Perrault, Rymal
Scatcherd, and Thibaudeau.—20.
The question being again put on Hon. Mr.
Attorney General CARTIER's motion,
HON. MR. DORION said—Mr. SPEAKER,
I hold in my hand an amendment which will
exactly suit the ruling of the Chair, as it relates only to the time to which the
debate
shall be adjourned. The very unfair and arbitrary course which the Government has
unfortunately seen fit to pursue, has prevented
the honorable members of this House from
moving any amendments to the scheme proposed for its adoption ; but I for one am
most desirous, in accordance with the almost
universal wish of the people of the district of
Montreal, to have the question tested whether
the opinion of the people shall be allowed to
be heard before a final decision is come to by
this House. I find that in nineteen French-
Canadian counties in that district, resolutions
have been passed in favor of that course, and
petitions have been signed by from fifteen to
twenty thousand inhabitants, asking that no
such scheme be adopted without submitting it to a vote of the people. (Hear,
hear.) Sir, I think it would have been far
more dignified on thé part of the Government,
and more respectful towards the country, to
have allowed the scheme—which, in their
opinion, will create such prosperity that
everybody will be in ecstacies over it, but
which, in our opinion, will bring on this
country such a state of dissatisfaction as will
perhaps engender some other feeling than
that of union with the Lower Provinces—to
be voted upon by those who are most deeply
interested in it, the people of Canada. But
they have chosen to gag us, in so much that we
have no other course left but to move amendments to the motion for adjourning the
debate, and that we are determined to avail ourselves of. My motion in amendment is
:—
That the debate on this resolution, involving
as it does fundamental changes in the political
institutions and in the political relations of this
province, changes which were not in the contemplation of the people at the last general
election,
ought, in the opinion of this House, to be adjourned
for one month, or until such time as the people
of this province shall have an opportunity of con
stitutionally pronouncing their opinions thereon,
by an appeal to them.
I do not fix the time arbitrarily in which the
appeal to the people shall be made. If hon.
gentlemen are anxious to have the scheme
carried at an early day, they can bring on an
election at once, or they may take their own
time. Let them dissolve the House to-morrow. We are ready for it at any time. The
conduct of the Government in reference to the
procedure of the House upon the great
question they submitted to it, is as disgraceful as it is derogatory to the dignity
of this
House. After coming to a solemn agreement with the House that the discussion
should go on as if in Committee of the
Whole, and that consequently amendments
might be moved, they now distrust the favorable feeling which they told us at the
outset
existed among the people, and now they will
not allow us to place amendments to the
scheme in the Speaker's hands. They fear
to have the question discussed and understood
among the people. They are wise in their
generation. They have just beheld the Hon.
Mr. TILLEY—for ten years past at the head of
the Government of New Brunswick, and a
most deservedly popular gentleman—though
uniting with his own strength that of the
leaders of the Opposition, swept away
by the people. (Hear, hear.) Well may
they tremble for the fate of their scheme
among the people of Canada. But they do
not content themselves with simply refusing
an appeal to the people. They go further
and refuse the members of this House the opportunity of placing their views before
the
House and country. We are ready to go to
our constituents at once upon the question,
and if they say that the scheme is a desirable one, I for one am prepared to bow
to the will of the majority. But, sir,
to bow to a self-constituted delegation—
an association of honorable gentlemen who
were never authorised, either by the Par
liament or people of this province, to meet
together along with gentlemen from other
provinces, and concoct a new Constitution for
the government of the people, and then to
come to this House and say to it, " You must
accept this new Constitution in all its details,
making no change or amendment, nor even
having the privilege of proposing any amendments so as to have them placed on the
Journals of this House "—I say the demand that
we should bow in meek and humble submission to that sort of treatment at the hands
of
770
the gentlemen on the Treasury benches, is
most monstrous. (Hear, hear.) I cannot
say that under other circumstances, such an
appeal as has just been made from the decision
of the Chair would have been taken, but in
this instance there was no other course left
to the minority to show that they had demanded most important information in reference
to the scheme under discussion. Whether it be until a direct appeal can be had to
the people by a general election, or by petitions,
I say the gravity of the question calls for delay. Never has such extraordinary action
been taken by any government, whether weak
or strong, as has been taken by honorable
gentlemen opposite.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—The Government
having endeavored to checkmate the Opposition to their scheme in the tyrannical way
in
which they have done, I think it is only fair
to defeat their object and to stalemate them,
because in point of fact it will amount to that
if we succeed in this motion. I think honorable gentlemen will admit that in this
great
and momentous change which is going to take
place, the people who sent us here are as
deeply interested as we are. They sent us
here to make laws under the Constitution as
established, not to overturn the Constitution ;
and before such a violent change of Constitution is made as will, undoubtedly, plunge
us
into most serious expenses, there ought to be
given them an opportunity of saying whether
or not they concur in the change proposed.
It is for this reason I second the resolution in
amendment, and I hope we shall have for it
the support of those honorable gentlemen
who, though supporters of the Government,
have expressed such marked dissent from the
policy of shutting off amendments by moving the previous question.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER said—With
reference to this motion, I have to raise the
same point of order that I brought against
the other one. I beg to say at the outset that the statement that there is to
be no other opportunity of bringing forward a motion in favor of submitting the
scheme to the people, is all clap-trap. The
honorable member for Peel has given a
notice of a motion on that subject, as a substantial proposition on which every honorable
gentleman will have an opportunity of
recording his vote in a regular way.
[The honorable gentleman then went on to
discuss the point of order, giving several
reasons for considering it irregular. The dis
cussion of the points raised was also taken
part in by Hon. Messrs. GALT, HOLTON,
DORION, J. S. MACDONALD, and Mr. MORRIS]
THE SPEAKER ruled the motion out
of order. He said that the practice in such
cases appeared to be for the Speaker to
eliminate from such motions all that was
irregular, and if the honorable member
who prepared the motion consented to that,
to put it to the House as it then stood. If
the honorable member would not consent, why
the motion fell to the ground. If the honorable member for Hochelaga would consent,
therefore, to his eliminating from the motion
all but that which referred to the adjournment, he (the Speaker) would put it to the
House. If not, he would be obliged to rule
it out of order.
HON. MR. DORION having declined to
allow his motion to be interfered with, it was
accordingly ruled out of order, the amendment of the Honorable Attorney General
CARTIER was agreed to, and the debate was
adjourned until three o'clock the next day.
This individual participated in:
