893
FRIDAY, March 10, 1865.
On the Order, for resuming the debate
upon the motion " That the question he
now put" upon the Resolutions relating to
Confederation, being called-
HON. MR. HOLTON rose to a point of
order, objecting that the "previous question"
was in the nature of an amendment, and that
no member could move an amendment to his
own motion.
After some discussion,
MR. SPEAKER decided as follows:—
" The original motion, made by the Hon.
Attorney General for Upper Canada, is that
the House should concur in certain resolutions relating to a Federal union of the
provinces. Debate having arisen thereon,
the Hon. Attorney General for Upper Canada moves, not in amendment in my Opinion,
' that that question be now put.' The substance of an amendment is to alter the
original question. Does this motion alter the
original question? So far from that, it is a
proposal to bring that question before the
House for immediate decision. The authorities cited to show that this motion is an
amendment sustain the contrary view in my
judgment, because they only state that the
previous question is 'in the nature of an
amendment.' If it were really an amend
ment, or were to be used as an amendment
it would be stated that it was in fact an
amendment. The motion to adjourn is also
spoken of as being in the nature of an amendment, but it is not an amendment, and
like
'The previous question,' does not displace
the original proposition, if carried. Hence
I conclude that 'The previous question' is
not an amendment. The objection that the
Hon. Attorney General for Upper Canada
cannot move it, on account of having proposed the original motion, in my opinion is
not valid."
Mr. TASCHEREAU said—It is not
without hesitation, Mr. SPEAKER, that I
rise at this late period of the debate to offer
a few observations on the measure before
us—the plan of Confederation of the
British North American Provinces; and my
hesitation is the greater that I am under the
necessity, not only of speaking on a question
which has been so long and skilfully dis-
cussed, that it would appear almost impossible to say anything which may interest
hon.
members, but also and more especially that
after long and deliberate consideration—after
carefully weighing the gist and tendency of
these resolutions, and tracing out the effects
which cannot fail, I believe, to result from
the measure of which they are the exponentsI feel myself bound, Mr. SPEAKER, to abandon,
on this question, those with whom I
have always acted hitherto, to differ in
opinion from those whose talents and judgment I have never ceased to admire, and to
record my vote against the new Constitution
which is proposed to us in these resolutions.
Hear ! hear ! from the left.) It could not
fail to be to me a particular cause of regret
that I felt compelled to come to this conclusion. I could not understand that this
measure was a simple party matter—one of
those questions on which those party feelings
which have prevailed in Canada so many
years ought to influence any body. I could
not conceive how, in considering a question
which, in my opinion, imperils all that we
hold most dear, and opens to us, if it is
carried, the prospect of a future, dark with
clouds, portending evil not only to us Lower
Canadians, but perhaps no less to all British
North America—I could not conceive, I say,
how I could be unmindful of my convictions,
and lay aside my fears and the sense of duty
which binds me here, to yield blind obedience
and submission to the influence of political
party. I thought myself at liberty to think
894
for myself, even on so important a question;
and I am persuaded that if there are
members of this House who consider
themselves authorized to doubt the sanity
of those who do not always think as they
do, they are not in a majority here.
For my own part, Mr. SPEAKER, I respect every man's opinion. I am willing
to allow all who are so disposed to think
diflerently from me, and do not, on that
account, hold them to be either prejudiced
or dishonest; on the contrary, I am willing
to believe that they act according to their
convictions, and with perfect good faith. I
desire that others will judge me in the same
manner, and that those from whom I am
now dissentient on the subject of the resolutions in your hand, Mr. SPEAKER, will
believe, at least, that I too am acting in this
matter according to my honest convictions
and with good faith; that I, too, am animated by love for my country and my nationality
; that I, too, have at heart the
preservation of that nationality and those
institutions which have been transmitted to
us by our fathers, as the reward of so many
struggles and sacrifices. (Hear, hear.) At
this advanced stage of the debate, it is not
my intention to combat or discuss all the
arguments which have been urged in favor
of Confederation. I must, however, observe
that I have not been convinced by the hon.
. gentlemen who have spoken before me, that
the Constitution oflered to us embodies
guarantees sufficient to protect our rights.
I am of opinion, therefore, that the vote
which I shall give against Confederation
would be given by a large majority of my
constituents, and a large majority of the
people of Lower Canada ; and my opinion
on this subject is so firmly grounded, that I
should despise myself if, for the sake of not
separating from my party, I were to vote for
Confederation, my convictions being so strong
and so sincere. (Hear, hear.) We were taught
to believe, till within the last two or three
days, that the most ample discussion of the
question would be allowed ; but, by the moving
of the previous question, the face of things
has undergone a change. This House, and all
Lower Canada, supposed that before being
called upon to vote on the main question, we
should have had an opportunity of obtaining
an expression of the opinion of the people.
I am persuaded that if, after a full and
complete discussion of the measure in this
House, the people were called upon for their
opinion, they would be more decidedly
opposed to Confederation than they ever
were to any measure. (Hear.) Unfortunately, as the previous question has been
moved, we must vote on the resolutions as
they stand, without being able even to move
amendments which might render them less
objectionable to the country. I now come
to the appeal to the people. Well, I maintain that in voting to change the constitution
of the Government, without consulting the
people on the subject, the members of this
House are exceeding their powers ; and that
even if the people were in favor of Confederation, they ought not to pass it, as they
are now about to do, without special authority.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for South
Lanark (Mr. MORRIS) has told us that this
is no new question—that it has been for a
long time a subject of discussion—that the
people understood it thoroughly, and that
the members of this House were privileged
to vote on it without referring it to their
constituents. I am quite aware that much
has been written on the subject of the
Confederation of the provinces ; but has the
question ever been discussed before the
people at elections? I am fully convinced
and perfectly certain this question was never
brought up at any election, nor the question
of any Confederation at all. It has never
been laid before the people, and the people
have never expressed an opinion on the
subject. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me
that the amendment which is to be moved
by the hon. member for Peel (Hon. J.
H. CAMERON), after the present resolutions
have been voted by the House, will be in a
singular position. (Hear, hear.) I have
understood the explanations given by the
Honorable Attorney General for Upper
Canada (Hon. J. A. MAODONALD), relative to the resolution of the honorable
member for Peel—that the resolutions before
the House would be passed first, and that
afterwards, when the House went into committee, the hon. member for Peel would
move his amendment, namely, " that the
House will vote the Address to Her Majesty
this evening, in order that the Government
may despatch it to England to-morrow, if
they please, and that on Monday afternoon
the hon. member for Peel will come and
move. an Address to His Excellency, praying
that he will refer these resolutions to the
people." (Hear, hear.) I confess that I do
not understand how the members of this
895
House, who are in favor of the appeal to the
people, can vote for Confederation after the
previous question has been decided, any
more than I can understand how the hon.
member for Peel can move the appeal to the
people after the resolutions have been passed.
The hon. member has said that he would
endeavor to move his resolutions before the
Address is presented to His Excellency, or
before it is referred to a committee of the
whole House ; but I think I understood likewise that the Hon. Attorney General for
Upper Canada will not allow this, and has
said that the hon. member for Peel is not
entitled to do so. (Hear, hear.) I am not
alone in feeling the apprehensions which I
have expressed relative to the new Constitution intended for us. A member of this
House, who wrote, now a long time since, on
the subject of Confederation, has allowed us
to see indistinctly that the resolutions as
presented to us did not afford sufficient
guarantees to settle all our sectional difficulties at once. The honorable member
for
Montmorency could not, in his pamphlet
written in 1865, avoid saying as follows:-
But, nevertheless, it is clearly evident that concurrent legislation is full of danger
for the future;
that is plainly laid down even in the clause that
we are now discussing, since, to obviate it,
central legislation has invariably been made to
predominate over local legislation. Will it be
possible to avoid the points of contact likely to
be produced by concurrent legislation, or to define
them with such precision that these conflicts
would be impossible, or nearly so ? Without
harmony the system would be worth nothing,
and would soon destroy itself ; and the harmony
of the system cannot be found exclusively in the
predominant power of the Government and of the
Federal Parliament. It is necessary that this
harmony should also exist in the inferior machinery, and be felt throughout the whole
system.
And afterwards, in the same chapter, he
adds:-
In fact, will not the elements upon which the
local institutions will be based, be reproduced in
all their vivacity in the Government and in the
Federal Parliament ? And this local power which
it has been their object to compress will react
dangerously on the whole system. At one time
it may be Lower Canada that will be punishing
its Ministry and its members for having wounded
Lower Canadian feelings and striking at its interests ; and another time it may be
Upper Canada,
or perhaps the Atlantic Provinces, that may make
similar complaints. This should not be, and to
avoid it our eminent statesmen must put their
heads together to find a better solution to the
problem.
While the hon. member for Montmorency
was writing that article, he naturally saw
that Confederation would have some very complicated parts in its machinery, and that
the
difficulties which might occur would not be
easily surmounted—that the resolutions
would need to be amended. That was, no
doubt, the opinion of the hon. member for
Montmorency when he wrote those articles,
but since he has found that the Ministry
are resolved not to allow any amendment of
the resolutions, the honorable member has
thought it better to take them as they are,
with all their imperfections, than to risk
losing Confederation altogether. (Hear,
hear.) I believe, Mr. SPEAKER, that we
needed a remedy for the constitutional difficulties in which we were involved, but
I
believe also that the remedy proposed would
be worse than the disease sought to be
cured. (Hear, hear.) I believe that the
country has suffered from those difficulties, but on the other hand I see in Confederation
internal strife in the local legislatures, not to speak of that strife which will
infallibly spring up at an early day between
the federal and the local legislatures. (Hear,
hear.) It is evident that the federal will
never be able to satisfy the local legislatures.
In Lower Canada, for instance, we shall have
a pretty strong party—the English party,
Protestants, who will carry their complaints
to the Federal Government, just as, in Upper Canada, they made complaints relative
to representation based on population, and
that party being a minority in Lower Canada,
will seek a remedy for their evils, real or
imaginary, at the hands of the Federal
Government. Moreover, we shall have constant contests and sectional heart-burnings
between the local legislatures themselves, on
all those subjects on which their interests
may come into collision. (Hear, hear.) Let
us suppose, for instance, that the Legislature of Lower Canada should make some
perfectly just demand, something to which
that province is clearly entitled, and that
the representatives of Upper Canada and
the Maritime Provinces should combine to
hinder it from obtaining its demand—would
the Lower Canadians be well satisfied with
such treatment ? And this might easily
happen. The hon. member for Vaudreuil
(Mr. HARWOOD) has spoken in pompous
language of the prosperous future which
awaits us under Confederation. To hear
him we are not only to have coal mines,
896
but lakes of gold at our disposal. I think
the honorable member's figures of rhetoric
have carried him rather too far; and I sincerely believe that instead of that prosperous
and happy future foreseen by him, we are
preparing for ourselves a state. of things
which will cause us to repent in ten years of
what we are now doing. I believe that we
are commencing Confederation ten years too
soon. (Hear, hear.) We should have an
Intercolonial Railway at least five or six
years before thinking of Confederation. At
present we are as much strangers to New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia as we were
previous to last autumn. We may perhaps
know them a little better than we did before
we began to discuss Confederation ; and we
ought, in the first place, to establish easy methods of communication between those
provinces and ourselves, as a means of bringing
about Confederation at some future day, if it
he practicable. I say that the Intercolonial
Railway ought first to be built, and that
Confederation might be put off even several
years after that. (Hear, hear.) Article 41
of the resolutions before us says as follows:-
The Local Government and Legislature of each
province shall be constructed in such manner as
the existing Legislature of each such province
shall provide.
If I understand that article right, the local
constitution of Lower Canada will be settled
by the present Legislature ; just as in New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, &c., the present
legislatures will decide on the constitution of
their legislatures under Confederation. Very
well; but in that case Upper Canada will
give us a constitution, as we may give her
one. The effect of that clause will be, that
in order to the organization of its local constitution, Lower Canada will stand with
47
French-Canadian votes, against 83 votes of
members of other origins. We shall therefore not stand on the same footing as New
Brunswick or Nova Scotia in this respect;
the difference will be very great. (Hear,
hear.) We have only 47 French-Canadian votes out of 130, and we could
not count on Upper Canadian members
for the safety of our interests—either local
or religious—whereas they would have the
support of all the English and Protestant
members from Lower Canada. (Hear.) And
in Confederation the English minority of
Lower Canada will not make common cause
with the French-Canadian party, but, on the
contrary, with the Upper Canadian party ;
for they will look to Upper Canada for protection. (Hear, hear.) We are told that
all
our interests and institutions are protected,
and that the clergy are in favor of Confederation. I, for my own part, have seen no
proof of the truth of that assertion ; I believe that the clergy have not made any
display of their opinions on this question.
I am moreover convinced that those of that
body who have considered the question,
have looked upon it as fraught with danger
for us—as pregnant with evils, the development of which may be grievous to us as a
nation hereafter. Another part of the resolutions which we should not adopt without
consideration, is that contained in the 34th
article of clause 29. It reads as follows:-
The General Parliament shall have power to
make laws for the establishment of a General
Court of Appeal for the Federated Provinces.
We have a guarantee that we are to have our
own local tribunals, that our judges will be
taken from the bar of Lower Canada, and that
our civil laws will be maintained. Why
then establish a Federal Court of Appeals,
in which appeals will lie from the decisions
of all our judges? We are told, it is true,
by the Hon. Minister of Finance, that the
resolutions did not create a Court of Appeals,
but only gave the Federal Parliament the
power to create it. But what difference is
there between creating the court forthwith
and granting a right to create it hereafter?
The principle is the same. If the Government may lawfully create such a court, no
one
can prevent the Federal Goverhment from
establishing it whenever they think fit. Would
this tribunal be an advantage to us French-
Canadians, who are so attached to our civil
code? It will be composed of judges from
all the provinces—from New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, Upper Canada, &c. ; and notwithstanding the talents and the learning
of all those judges, we Lower Canadians
cannot hope to find the same justice from
such a tribunal as we should receive from
one consisting of judges from Lower Canada;
for our laws being different from the laws of
those provinces, they will not be able to
understand and appreciate them as Lower
Canadians would. (Hear, hear.) And,
moreover, when this new Court of Appeals
is instituted, the appeal to England will not
be abolished, so that we shall have one more
means of producing delay and increasing
the costs of suitors. Lower Canadians will
897
assuredly be less satisfied with the decisions
of a Federal Court of Appeals than with
those of Her Majesty's Privy Council. In
good truth, I do not see why this clause was
imposed upon our delegates. I do not
suppose that the delegates of the other provinces can have very strongly insisted
on it ;
but even if they had, I do not see why ours
submitted to it. Of course our laws would
not be understood in such a court, and most
of the judges would render their decisions
according to principles of jurisprudence
unknown to Lower Canada. I am convinced
that those Lower Canadian members who
are in favor of Confederation are not in
favor of a legislative union; but have they
not read the speech made at Toronto by the
Hon. President of the Council (Hon. Mr.
BROWN)? And did they not hear that of
the honorable member for South Leeds (Mr.
FORD JONES), and the speeches of the
members from Upper Canada generally, who
nearly all spoke in favor of a legislative
union, declaring that they accept Confederation as an instalment—a first step—towards
a legislative union, which we shall have in a
few years? It is not necessary for me to
discuss, on this occasion, the advantages or
disadvantages of a legislative union, for all
the members are perfectly well acquainted
with the question; but I am well convinced
that the Confederation will be converted into a legislative union in a few
years. I believe that the Hon. Minister of
Finance and the hon. member for South
Leeds were sincere in saying that, and that
they were perfectly convinced of its truth.
(Hear, hear.) It has been said, as a reason
for hurrying on the passing of the measure,
that if we wish for Confederation, now is
the time to obtain it ; that if we wait another
year it will be too late ; that the Lower
Provinces are ready for Confederation, and
that England is disposed to grant us a new
Constitution. I believe that the Lower
Provinces have proved to be a little slack
in fulfilling their engagements, and that the
policy of the Government might therefore,
with great safety, undergo some modification.
(Hear, hear.) But if we must absolutely
have Confederation, if there is no getting on
without it, why was not an appeal made to
the people last autumn, when the scheme
was quite prepared? (Hear, hear.) For
my part, I think that the want of the measure of Confederation is not so urgent as
it
is said to be, and that time should be taken
to mature the plan. Does anybody believe
that the question of Confederation would
have been thought of if the TACHE-MACDONALD Ministry had not been overthrown
last summer? No; we should not have
heard a word about it. (Hear, hear.) So
that Confederation was not so very pressing
at that time! And if the want of it was
so little felt in the Constitutional Committee
appointed last year at the instance of the
hon. member for South Oxford (Hon. Mr.
BROWN), that many members who this day
vote themselves, and induce others to vote
for Confederation, thought themselves authorised to oppose it then, and to vote
against any proposition of the kind, I
think that it is not so needful to unite
us by Confederation as we are told it
is. I believe that if the adoption of the
measure is urged forward so anxiously, it is
only because there is fear of public opinion
being roused to examine it, and fear especially of its not being accepted hereafter,
when the people have pronounced upon it.
(Hear, hear.) And, I repeat, I believe in
my heart, if the Government had not been
overthrown on the 14th June last, we should
never have heard a word about Confederation this year. (Hear, hear.) As I said
when I commenced speaking, I will not
discuss every question connected with this
scheme, because the House must be tired of
such a long discussion. I am bound, however, to declare again, that all the reasons
hitherto alleged in favor of Confederation,
and all the magnificent pictures presented to
our view of the prosperity we are to enjoy
under its auspices, have entirely failed to
convince me that it is our bounden duty to
adopt the resolutions laid before us; and
notwithstanding the eloquent speech made
to us yesterday by the hon. member for
Vaudreuil (Mr. HARWOOD), I cannot say, as
he does, that our posterity will be grateful
to us for having opened the way for them to
become members of the great empire of the
Provinces of British North America. I
shall say, on the contrary, what will be soon
found out, that this Confederation is the
ruin of our nationality in Lower Canadathat on the day when Confederation is
voted, a death-blow will have been dealt on
our nationality, which was beginning to take
root in the soil of British North America.
(Hear, hear.) Our children, far from feeling grateful for what we are now doing, will
say that we made, a great mistake when we
imposed Confederation on them. (Cheers.)
Ms. A. M. SMITH—Mr. SPEAKER, I
898
cannot permit the vote to be taken on this
important measure, without placing on record some of the reasons which induce me
to give it my support, and to show why, to
some extent, I have changed my views on a
few of the leading details of the scheme.
When, sir, the people of the first commercial
city in Western Canada elected me to represent them on the floor of this House, I
publicly stated that by every legitimate
means I would oppose the construction of a
railroad between Canada and the Lower
Provinces—then, as I do now, believing
that in a commercial point of view, that
Intercolonial road would never pay, nor be
even beneficial to Upper Canada. But at
the same time, sir, I pledged myself to urge
upon the Ministers of the Crown and this
House the vast importance to the country of
an enlargement of our canals and the extension of our canal system. Since then, Mr.
SPEAKER, our political and commercial positions are very much changed. (Hear, hear.)
Threatened with the abrogation of the Reciprocity treaty, a very serious loss will
be
entailed on Canada—if the threat be carried
into execution—without any advantage accruing to the United States. Indeed,
from the nature of our commercial relations with the United States—the natural
result of a trade fostered and carried on
between the United States and Canada for
years—the abrogation of the Reciprocity
treaty cannot be otherwise than attended
with great distress and serious loss to the
business men of this country. In addition
to this, sir, we are threatened with the abrogation of the bonding system. Surely
this
is much to be deplored. To every thinking
mind a resort to such measures must seem
absurd, and what could induce a people so
thoroughly commercial as the people of the
United States, to desire the abrogation of a
treaty which, while it benefits us by permitting the transit of goods through their
territory, also benefits them largely by increasing their carrying trade, and fosters
an
immense trade in the purchase of goods of
all descriptions in bond—I must declare my
inability thoroughly to understand. But,
however strange, Mr. SPEAKER, all this may
seem to us, angry men, it must be admitted,
frequently do indulge in strange antics, and
it need not surprise us that a nation plunged
in all the horrors of civil war should, under
the excitement of some real or fancied
wrong, do the same thing; as has been exemplified in the adoption of the despotic
system
of passports, the abrogation of the Reciprocity
treaty, and the annulling of the treaty for the
extradition of criminals. Yet, Mr. SPEAKER
I cannot believe that the United States will
abrogate either the one or the other, and I
do not believe that the great and high-minded
and honorable men who control the moneyed
institutions of the United States will permit
it. But, sir, it is only right on our part to
do the next best, and only thing we can, to
protect ourselves from the loss and inconvenience to our trade in winter, and that
is, to
build the Intercolonial Railroad—for we
must have a highway to the ocean at all
seasons for our mails and our merchandise.
But, Mr. SPEAKER, while I admit that I
have changed my mind with regard to the
Intercolonial Railroad in voting for the
scheme in which it is a prominent measure,
I am more and more convinced of the paramount necessity of immediately setting about
the enlargement of our canals. We hear of
schemes to connect the Georgian Bay with
Ottawa by way of the French River route
and the Trent route, and sir, perhaps the
only practicable and shortest route via
Toronto and Lake Simcoe ; but all these only
divert attention from what really can and
ought to be done, at a very trifling cost in
comparison with any other scheme—I mean
the enlargement of the canals we now have.
(Hear, hear.) We have now nine feet of
water in the St. Lawrence canals, and ten
feet in the Welland, and the cost of increasing
the depth of those canals to twelve feet, I am
told by men competent to judge, would be
trifling indeed—probably not over two or
three millions of dollars. But if it cost as
many pounds, I contend that it would not
really cost the country one cent. If the toll
of one cent per bushel on grain outward and
a proportionate rate on inward merchandise
were enacted, the canals would not only be
self-sustaining, but would become a source of
revenue to the provinces. Take for instance,
what I believe a small estimate, one hundred
millions of bushels outward, and an equal
amount inward for other merchandise, and
you would have a revenue of two millions of
dollars—a sum more than sufficient to pay
interest and working expenses. Then, Mr.
SPEAKER, see the impetus it would give to
our inland shipping trade, if we could—and
we could then do so—attract to the St. Lawrence route the immense grain crops of the
Great West. I might also refer, Mr. SPEAKER
to the ship-building suited to the wants of
our country, and the immense advantage
899
shippers of grain would have if their vessels
proceeded to sea without the ruinous
delay of transhipment, and the mixing
and destroying of property round the
wharves and storehouses at the different
points at which grain, under the present
system, has to be transhipped. I only wish
I had the eloquence of the Hon. Attorney
General West ; with the little practical
knowledge I have of those things, I think I
would be able to interest both western and
eastern members alike on the necessity of
improving, and at once, this great and vital
avenue to our future prosperity. (Hear.
hear.) Now, sir, with regard to our defences :
while I do not object to some expenditure to
please the English people if you choose ; I
am of opinion our best defence is to cultivate with the United States friendly commercial
and political relations, and then, sir,
I do not fear that if we do what is right,
they will do us any wrong. Sound and
honorable conduct on our part is of more
strength than all the forts of masonry or
earthwork that we shall ever see. (Hear,
hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, the prompt and
manly course that our Government has pursued with regard to the Alien Bill, and calling
out a portion of our volunteers to repress
raiding and piracy, will entitle them to the
gratitude of every right-minded man in this
country. Sir, had they commenced to build
forts and arm ships, instead of the manly
and honorable course which they did pursue,
they would, in my Opinion, have found use
for their volunteers and their forts too;
while I hope that in a very short time they
will not require either. (Hear, hear.) I
wish now to say a few words about this great
Confederation, from which so much is expected, commercially and politically. I am
of opinion that the advantages will be very
evenly divided—they taking our grain and
flour, while we buy their fish and oil. We will
have an open market for our manufactures
with them, and they will have the same
for theirs with us, so that it is a mere matter of who gives most. But at present
the
Maritime Provinces import from the United
States flour and grain, if I am correct, to
the amount of three or four millions of dollars' worth per annum, which our political
and more intimate relations would in a more
or less degree attract to Canada ; and I have
no doubt our merchants would know how to
turn those advantages to account. Mr.
SPEAKER, these are some of the reasons
why I gave this Confederation scheme my
hearty support, believing that the honorable
gentlemen who have brought this treaty
before this House have no other motive,
and can have no other motive, but the promotion of the best interests of this our
adopted land. (Hear, hear.) I think the
scheme as proposed is, as near as it can be,
fair to all the provinces Before I close, I
would just say a word with reference to the
course pursued by my respected and honorable colleague from Toronto West (Mr. J.
MACDONALD). I have no hesitation in saying
that I am confident that he is sincere in his
opposition, and he may be right ; but I am
not so sure that he represents the wishes of
his constituents. I attended a large and influential meeting of the citizens of the
city of
Toronto before the meeting of this House,
and a gentleman there proposed that the
scheme should not be carried into effect
until it was referred to the peeple, but he
could not get even a seconder to his resolution. For myself, I feel justified by the
result of that meeting in supporting this
scheme throughout. The meeting was extensively advertised—all had an opportunity
to attend, and both sides of the question were
ably argued. I shall record my vote for
the scheme, and shall be happy to see it
carried into early consummation. (Cheers.)
MR. SHANLY said—In rising to address
the House on the great question under
debate, it is not my intention to go minutely
into the subject ; for after all that has been
said, and the great length to which the
debate has dragged on, I cannot expect to be
able to fix the attention of my hearers for
very long, even were the subject one to
which I could speak authoritatively, instead
of being, as it is, one that the ablest and
most statesmanlike among us must in a great
measure accept upon faith—trusting to the
future to develope the excellencies claimed
for it on the one hand, or to establish the
faults that are charged on it on the other.
But though I do not pretend to be able to
say anything new on the subject, or to throw
any light on the uncertain future that lies
before us, still I would be unwilling that in,
perhaps, the most important division ever
taken in a Colonial Legislature, my vote
should be recorded without my first stating
some, at all events, of the reasons that
actuate me in voting as I intend to vote.
One feature has been strikingly observable
in the debate, and that is, that from first to
900
last, as far as it has yet gone, no new thing
has been offered or suggested. The programme of Confederation stands now exactly
as it was presented in a
quasi private form
to the representatives of the people of this
country some four months ago. The
promoters of the scheme have added nothing
to, taken nothing from the original bill of
fare, and they have as good as told us,
frankly and squarely, that they would add
nothing to, take nothing from it if they could.
The opponents of the project on the other
hand, while giving it a sweeping condemnation, offer nothing, suggest nothing to
replace that which they so summarily reject.
Nothing is easier than to find fault with
other men's work ; it is a talent that we all
possess, and that few of us ever think to
hide under a bushel. For myself, though
in favor of the scheme, being equally at a
loss with other honorable members to say
anything new upon it, I, too, will have to
turn to my fault-finding instincts in the first
instance. The honorable member for Montreal Centre (Hon. Mr. ROSE has said in his
able speech that if we could not improve on
the project, we should forbear to find fault
with it. I do not agree with him. On the
contrary, I conceive that even though approving of the resolutions as a whole, it
is
the duty of members speaking to the question
to point out and place on record the faults
that strike them as likely to require correction by and by. And first of all—coming
to
discuss Confederation from my own standpoint—I would say that I have long looked
forward to the time when the whole of the
British North American Provinces would be
united under one stable government ; believing, as I always have believed ever since
I
came to know this country well, that we possess all the elements, in natural resources
and
endowments, and in distinctive geographical
position, to form the ground-work of a power
on this continent. I feared, nevertheless,
when the project was foreshadowed here last
year, that the time was not yet full for
bringing about the desired combination. I
feared that the almost total separation, political and social, which had heretofore
existed
between ourselves and the provinces below,
might possibly cause a premature union to
result in permanent estrangement. It appeared to me that we should first have
cultivated social and commercial relations
with our kindred on the seaboard before
uniting, for better for worse, in a political
alliance. These were the views which I took
of the Confederation project when it was so
suddenly sprung upon us at the close of last
session ; and I confess that I still entertain
grave apprehensions that we may be about to
come together upon too short an acquaintance, before we have an opportunity of
knowing one another, and learning to adapt
ourselves the one to the other. In this consists my broad and general objection, not
to
the principle of Confederation, but to the
hastiness with which it is sought to be carried out—threatening, as I fear, to mar
our
destiny in striving to overtake it. To the
details of the scheme itself I hold one strong
and marked objection, which I desire to
record, though I know that this is not the
time or place for remedying defective details.
I allude to the Federal feature of the project. I own to a rooted dislike, if not
to
the Federal principle or Federal theory, at
all events to the practical results of the
working of the system ; and neither the
warm eulogium which the Hon. President
of the Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN) has passed
upon the system as illustrated by its working in the United States, nor the milder
defence of the system pronounced by my
hon. friend the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. MCGEE), has served to
clothe it in other than most distasteful
colors in my sight. However the Federal
system of government may have tended to
promote the material growth of the United
States—and it would not be safe to assert
that such a country, with such a people,
would have failed to attain to early greatness
under any form of free government—however, I repeat, the Federal form of government
may have promoted the material
progress of the United States, it does not
seem to me to have elevated, politically
speaking at all events, the moral standard
of the people of the United States. One
most marked and evil result of the system
has been to produce politicians rather than
statesmen—swarms of the former to a very
limited proportion of the latter ; and I would
much fear, if we are to see Canada redivided,
that the petty parliaments of the separated
provinces will prove to be but preparatory
schools for that class of politicians who take to
politics as to a trade, and whose after-presence
in the greater Assembly—to which they would
all aspire—would serve to depress the standard
of political worth, to lower the tone of political morality, which we might hope to
see
prevail in a Confederated Parliament of
British North America under a purely legis
901
lative union, which is the description of
union into which I trust to see the present
imperfect Constitution, or proposed Constitution, eventually merge. For the reasons
stated I have looked upon this Federal
scheme of union with dislike and distrust.
But the promoters of the scheme, most of
whom, it must be admitted, have appeared
here rather as its apologists than as its
upholders, tell us that it is a necessity of
circumstances, an unavoidable consequence
of difference in language, laws and local
interests between Upper and Lower Canada
on the one part, and an absence of community of local interests between us here in
Canada and the Maritime Provinces on the
other hand. The latter part of the argument
is undoubtedly correct ; but, admitting the
whole of the premises, for argument sake,
the other question naturally suggests itself :
Is Confederation, even in the faulty form in
which it is laid before us, to be accepted as
a likely remedy for the evils under which
we now labor in Canada, and as a possible
antidote against the greater evils which
threaten us in the near future? I would
answer that question in my own way, and
from my own point of view by and by ;
meanwhile I would ask to be permitted to
say a word in respect of the financial phase
of the Confederation project ; and upon that
point I feel it difficult to agree with my hon.
friend the Hon. Finance Minister, in assuming that the joint expenses of the two local
governments here in Canada may be kept
so much below what we are now paying for
our single form of government, as to leave a
wide margin towards defraying, if not wholly
to cover, our proportion of the expenses of
the General Government. I can hardly
venture to take such a
couleur-de-rose view
of our position as that. I will not weary the
House with estimates and figures, which,
after all, can be but problematical and
conjectural ; but, I would venture to predict
that under our new condition of existence,
with its
quasi national obligations, our
expenditure must increase largely beyond
the present limits that we have hitherto
been accustomed to. I believe that to be
an inevitable result of the Confederation ; but I also believe that there is a future
looming upon us—Confederation or no Confederation—which will involve us in duties
and responsibilities which we must not
shirk—which, in fact, we cannot shirk if we
would. The signs of the times are not to be
mistaken, and I fear we have an expensive
future before us for some time to come.
But if, in bringing about a union of all these
provinces, we were in reality laying the sure
foundation of social, commercial, and political prosperity—if we felt that in reality
we
were laying the ground-work, as it were, of
a new nation on this continent—we might
justly, along with the great benefits we bequeath to posterity—benefits which we,
in
our generation, cannot hope to enjoy in their
fulness—bequeath to them also the financial
burden which would seem to be the ordained
and inevitable accompaniment of progressive
nationality. And if I felt assured in my
own mind that this measure of Confederation,
faulty as it is, promised even a fair chance for
successfully solving a great political difficulty,
I for one would not fear to take my share
of the responsibility of increasing the expenses of government and adding to the
debt of the country. I have alluded to the
expenses attendant on Confederation as
being, to a certain extent, conjectural and
problematical ; but there is one item of its
cost which is not of that character. The
Intercolonial Railway is a vital part of the
Confederation project—the latter could have
no useful, practical existence without the
former. As a commercial undertaking, the
Intercolonial Railway presents no attractions, it offers no material for a flattering
prospectus ; we could not invite to it the attention of European capitalists as presenting
an
eligible investment for their surplus funds.
But for the establishing of those intimate
social and commercial relations indispensable
to political unity between ourselves and the
sister provinces, the railway is a necessity. It
will, therefore, have to be undertaken and
paid for purely as a national work, and it is
right that the people of Canada should know
and understand in the outset what the probable addition to our public debt would be
in connection with the 68th resolution. I
do not think the proportion of the cost of the
railway falling to the share of Canada can
'be much short of what we have already
given towards the construction of the Grand
Trunk Railway—at all events from twelve to
fourteen millions of dollars. If it shall come
about that the sense of the people is to be
taken on the Confederation question, the
Intercolonial Railway feature in the plan
will prove the most difficult to reconcile the
people to, and especially the people of Upper
Canada. In my own constituency—and I
902
may venture to assert that there are not
many honorable members in the House
stronger in their constituencies than I am
—if I were to come before my electors
purely on the Confederation issue, and as
the advocate of Confederacy, I know that
denunciation of the 68th resolution would
be a tower of strength in the hands of any
anti-Confederate opponent who might choose
to measure swords with me in the electoral
field ; but I would be prepared to face that
difficulty, and in the fullest confidence that
I could do so successfully and triumphantly, if satisfied that I could—and I think
I could— show to my people that the
scheme of Confederation, even with the Intercolonial Railway inseparately interwoven
in its web, is essential to our existence as a
British people. (Hear, hear.) Reverting
to the objectionable features I have alluded
to in the resolutions before us, I have asked
myself this question—Is Confederation, as
offered to us, faulty, as the plan may be
likely to work well for the future of the
country? Is it likely to prove a satisfactory
solution of the very grave political difficulties that beset us ? It would be in vain
to
attempt to conceal from ourselves that
Canada is at this moment approaching the
most critical period of her hitherto existence.
Threatened with aggression from without,
we are not in a gratifying condition of prosperity within, let blue books and census
returns say what they will to the contrary.
Great and momentous events are transpiring
just beyond our frontier—events which have
already seriously and injuriously affected us
commercially, and which must inevitably, in
some way or other, affect us politically. A
people until recently devoted only to industrial pursuits and the development of their
country, have suddenly expanded into a
great military power. To use their own
expression, the Americans are " making
history very fast," and it is impossible that
that eventful history can be manufactured in
a territory separated from our own by little
more than an imaginary line, without our
having eventually some part in its pages,
for good or for evil. In fact we cannot
conceal from ourselves that some great change
is impending over the destinies of our
country—a change that will present itself to
us in some form or other, and that before
long, without its being in our power to avert,
though it may be in our power to shape it.
There is fast growing up in England a feeling of want of confidence in Canada. We
see it in the tone of the press, in the parliamentary debates and elsewhere. We are
told that we are giving more trouble to the
Mother Country than we are worth. A similar feeling of want of confidence, amounting
almost to contempt, has always prevailed
towards us in the United States. The
ignorance of everything relating to Canada
—of our political and social conditionof our resources and our commerce—our
growth and our progress—that exists among
our kindred across the border, cannot fail to
have surprised those who have mingled
much among them, and if not altogether
creditable to them is certainly very humiliating to us ; but, great as the ignorance
is
there, it is fully equalled by that which
exists with respect to Canada, and all pertaining to Canada, among our nearer and
dearer kindred in the old world. What can
we do to remedy this unfortunate and humiliating state of things ? What can we do
to inspire confidence in us abroad ; to
command respect ; to defy contempt? These
appear to me to be the practical questions
with which we have to deal. We are plainly
told by England that we must rely more
upon our own resources in the future than
we have done in the past, and it is right and
just we should do so. It appears to me that
there are just three states of political
existence possible for us here, when we
emerge from the chrysalis-form in which we
have hitherto existed. First, there is the
attempt to stand alone as a separate nationality on this continent—that is one alternative.
Secondly, there is the prospect held
out to us in the resolutions—namely, a union
of all the British North American Colonies,
under the flag of England, becoming more
and more every year a homogeneous British
people, and building up a consolidated British
power on this continent. The last and
inevitable alternative, if we reject the other
two, is exactly that stated by my honorable
friend from South Lanark (Mr. MORRIS)absorption into the United States. It is in
vain to shut our eyes to that fact, or that
the time is at hand when we will have to
make our selection. I know that the latter
alternative—and I can speak from as
thorough an acquaintance with the
wants, feelings and wishes of the people
of Canada as any honorable gentleman in
this House possesses—would be most distasteful to the great mass of the people of
this country. (Loud cheers.) To myself
personally, it would be so distasteful that it
903
would amount to a sentence of expatriation,
rupturing the ties and associations of a quarter
of a century. (Hear, hear.) When my honorable friend the Hon. Attorney General
for Upper Canada introduced the resolutions
to the House, he gave us to understand that
the question, or the details of the question,
were scarcely to be considered as open for
debate. He told us plainly and squarely
that the project must be viewed as a treaty
already sealed and signed between the contracting parties, and would have to be accepted
as a whole or rejected as a whole. I felt the
force of the situation then, and when the
same honorable gentleman came down here a
few days since, and, in reference to the new
phase of difficulty resulting from the turn
taken by the elections in New Brunswick,
announced that prompt and vigorous action
was necessary, in a somewhat different direction from that originally contemplated,
I felt
the force of the situation even more fully
than at first. (Hear, hear.) And I would
here ask to be allowed to digress a moment
from the main question. I wish to take this
opportunity of saying that I never had more
than a sort of a half-confidence in the Government as now constituted. When the
leaders of the Conservative party, with whom
I have always acted, saw fit last year to make
certain political combinations which, even
they must admit, astonished and startled the
country—combinations resulting in the present Coalition Ministry—I claimed that I
and every member of the Conservative party,
in this House or out of it, who chose
to dissent from the course adopted by our
leaders, had a right to hold ourselves absolved
from all party ties and obligations whatever.
I claimed then as I claim now, that from
thenceforward I owed no political allegiance,
no party fealty, to any man or any body of
men on the floor of this House. ln electing
to adopt for myself the anomalous and
hybrid position of an " independent member,"
I knew full well that it was to " burn my
ship "—to cast away from me all chances of
political advancement ; but I never had
political aspirations that warred with my own
notions of political honor and consistency, or
with my love of personal independence. But
when great changes in our political relations
are taking place ; when all feel, as I believe all do feel, that a great and momentous
event is impending ; when, under such
circumstances, my hon. friend the Honorable
Attorney General for Upper Canada announ
ces, as he has done, in a frank, bold, manly
and statesmanlike manner, prompt and vigorous policy on the part of the Government
in dealing with an unlooked-for difficulty—I
allude to the difficulty growing out of the
New Brunswick elections—I will tell that
hon. gentleman that he and his colleagues
may now—and always when boldly grappling
with the political emergencies of the country
—count on a cordial, earnest and admiring support from me. (Hear, hear.) Without further
discussion or debate, I cast my vote for and
my lot with the Confederation, and this I do
in the fullest confidence and belief that, however faulty may be certain of the details
of
the scheme, and however awkward it may
be to work out some of its provisions successfully, the resources of the people of
these
provinces, their innate adaptation for self-
government, will be found fully equal to
overcoming all the difficulties and obstacles
that may beset their path. I fully believe
that the faults which I now object to in the
plan of Confederation will, like the diseases
incident to childhood, grow out of our
system as we advance in political strength
and stature, and that when another decade
has passed over us we will be found a strong,
united British people, ready and able, in
peace or in war, to hold our own upon this
continent. (Cheers)
It being six o'clock, the Speaker left the
chair.
After the recess,
MR. SHANLY, resuming his remarks,
said—Before the House rose, I had expressed my belief that the people of this country
would be found equal to any emergency that
might arise in working out the Constitution
embraced in the resolutions, and would
prove themselves capable of altering or
amending it until it worked effectually and
well for the benefit of the whole country.
And in making the choice which I know
the people of this country will make—as
between annexation to the United States and
connection with Great Britain—as between
republicanism and monarchy—as between
Canada our country, or Canada our state
—I believe they will be choosing that
which will best advance the material prospects, and best ensure the future happiness
and greatness of the country. If we were
to be absorbed into the republic, and become
a state of the union, that would in no way
relieve us of the great undertakings that
are before us for the improvement and de
904
velopment of our resources. We would
still have a large debt on our hands, of
which, unaided, we would have to bear the
burden ; our canals and other public works
would be treated, not as national, but as
state enterprises, and the expense of enlarging or extending them would have to be
charged upon a diminished revenue, for
nearly the whole of the revenue we now
raise from customs and excise would go, not
to the improvement of this state of Canada,
but would be poured into the coffers of the
General Government at Washington. I can
not understand how any patriotic Canadian,
even of those who regard political matters
from a material point of view only, can advocate annexation to the United States.
I believe there are many persons in Canada who,
though entertaining feelings of true loyalty to
the Crown of England, imagine that in some
way or other—they cannot exactly tell howannexation would bring about an extraordinary
and sudden state of prosperity. I differ
entirely, even in the material and practical points of view, from the theorists and
visionaries who entertain so false a conviction. How, I would ask, is this country,
with diminished means at its command, to be
enabled to carry out those great works
through which alone it could hope to become
great, but the ways and means for constructing or improving which still puzzle our
financiers ? I have always been of opinion,
since I first came to ponder carefully the
future of Canada, that that future does not
depend so much upon our lands as upon our
waters. The land— the
terra firma—of
Canada is not inviting to those who have
tilled the soil of Great Britain or explored
the vast fertile plains to the west of Lake
Michigan. Our country is just on a par
with the northern part of the State of New
York, and with the States of Vermont and
New Hampshire in respect of climatic conditions and conditions of soil. But we possess
one immense advantage over those countries,
an advantage which gives us a distinctive
position on this continent—the possession of
the noble river which flows at our feet. It
is through that river and our great chain of
inland waters that the destiny of this country
is to be worked out. But we cannot fulfil
our destiny—or the destiny of this country
rather—by standing idle in the market
place ; by, as one honorable member has
suggested, doing nothing to improve our
natural highways or create artificial ones,
trusting to fortune or to Providence for the
development of our resources. I believe
that we have a high and honorable destiny before us, but that it has to be worked
out by hard toil and large expenditure ; and
we certainly would not be in a better condition to work it out were we to be united
to a
country that would at once absorb four-fifths
of the revenue on which we now depend for
our very existence. The improvement of
our internal navigation is the first great
undertaking we should consider, whether for
commercial purposes or for purposes of defence. And as regards the promoting of our
commercial interest in the improvement of
our navigation, what advantage, I would ask,
could we expect to gain by becoming a state
of the American union ? There is not one
of the seaboard states but would be in every
way interested in diverting the western trade
from our into their own channels, and in
endeavoring to obstruct the improvements
calculated to attract that trade to the St.
Lawrence. The Western States, doubtless,
would have interests in common with us, but
they are not in a position to render us material aid for the construction of our works,
being themselves borrowers for the means of
carrying out their own internal improvements. I believe, then, that even from a
material point of view, every unprejudiced
thinker must admit that our future prosperity and importance lie in preserving our
individuality, and in making the most of our
heritage for our own special advancement.
(Hear, hear.) I feel quite certain that nine-
tenths of the people of Canada would not be
deterred from taking their chance as a nation
though the fear that they may some day
have to strike a blow in defence of their
country ; and of all else, whether of reality
or of sentiment, that should be dear to a
brave and loyal people. We stand here the
envied possessors of, take it all in all, the
greatest river in the world ; the keepers of
one of the great portals to the Atlantic ; and
I trust that Canadians will never be found to
yield possession of their heritage till wrested
from them by force ! And that must be a
force, they may rest assured, not merely sufficient to over-match the people of these
provinces, but all the power of the Empire
besides. (Hear, hear.) Now, though I have
said I would not enter into details, I must
claim the attention of the House for a few
moments longer, while I touch upon one
very important point. I refer to the 69th
resolution, foreshadowing the colonizing
by Canada, and at the expense of Canada,
905
of the North-West territory. There is
not in this House one hon. member who
appreciates more fully than I do the great
natural resources and great future value of
that territory ; but I am not of that class of
sanguine and visionary politicians who would
risk losing all by grasping too much, and in
the vast dominion extending from Lake Superior to the shores of Newfoundland, the
Confederacy will have ample scope for the
energy and enterprise of her people for a
long time to come. The North-West territory, from its geographical position as regards
us, is very difficult of access. A broad tract
of barren and inhospitable country intervenes between Lake Superior and the fertile
plains of the Red River and the Saskatchewan, which for seven months out of the
twelve are, in fact, wholly inaccessible to us
save through a foreign country, rendering it
next to impossible for us alone to effect
close connection with and colonization of
that country. We cannot jump all at once
from the position of colonists to that of
colonisers. That great territory can only be
developed, colonized and preserved to us by
the exercise of that fostering care which the
Empire has ever bestowed upon her colonies
in their infancy . The Hon. President of
the Council ( Hon. Mr. BROWN), in the
course of the debate, said he hoped to see
the day when our young men would go forth
from among us to settle the North-West
territory. I harbor no such wish. On the
contrary, one of the fondest hopes I cherish
as a result of Confederation is, that it will
so attract capital and enterprise to the provinces, so tend to develope our internal
resources, as to offer to the youth of the
country a field for the exercise of that
laudable energy and ambition which now
cause so many of them to leave their own
hearths and cast their lot with strangers.
One of the greatest ills that Canada now suffers
from is, that the young men born and brought
up in her midst look abroad for their future,
and bestow their energies and talents on
another land ; and, although an immigrant
myself, I know and admit that a man born
and brought up here is worth any two immigrants for the arduous task of clearing and
settling what remains to us of the public
domain. I hope and trust that the Confederation of the Provinces will create sufficient
inducements to keep the young men of the
country at home. (Hear, hear.) It is in
that hope that I support the measure. I
trust at the same time that the great North-
West territory will be preserved to our flag,
and that, fostered by the Mother Country, it
will in time become great and populous, and
finally extend the British American nation
to the shores of the Pacific. It would be
unfair, at this late stage of the debate, to
enter further into details. I promised that
I would not do so. With details, indeed, it
has all along appeared to me we had little to
do now. If the project as a whole be good,
surely means will be found, as we go on, to
remedy objectionable details. With all its
defects—and I admit there are many defects
—there never was a written Constitution but
had its defects—I feel confident that the
general design set forth in the resolutions
meets with the approval of a large majority
of the people of Canada at all events ; and it
would be an insult to the sound common
sense of a people that have so long proved
themselves capable of judging for themselves and of governing themselves, to
suppose them incapable of adjusting, from
time to time, as occasion arises, the
minor details or defects of a system
of government to which they have resolved
on according a fair trial. (Hear, hear.)
And now, Mr. SPEAKER, what I had to say
on this important subject of Confederation
I have said. I promised that I would not
weary the House by entering into details ;
I trust that I have not done so ; but I may
be permitted to express a hope—a hope
founded in a deep and abiding belief—that
the people of these provinces are and will
prove themselves equal to the great undertaking that is before them ; that aided by
all the commercial power of Britain in time
of peace, by all her military and maritime
power in war, should war unhappily come
about, we will show to the world that we
are not unworthy scions of the noble races
of which we come, but that we are competent to successfully work out to a great end
the task that is intrusted to us—the noblest
and worthiest task that can be intrusted to
an intelligent and enlightened people—that
of making for themselves a name and a
place among the nations of the earth ; that
of building up—to borrow a quotation aptly
introduced into his able speech by my hon.
friend from South Lanark—a quotation from
the speech of a renowned British statesman,
when speaking on a great colonial question
—that of building up " one of those great
monuments with which England marks the
records of her deeds— not pyramids and
obelisks, but states and commonwealths,
906
whose history shall be written in her lanage." (Cheers.)
MB. SCOBLE—If I were to consult my own
feelings or my convenience, Mr. SPEAKER,
I should certainly not rise at this advanced
period of the debate, to offer any observations
on the great question which has now been
so long under discussion ; but having somewhat altered the opinions that I entertained
of the scheme submitted to the House by
the Government, I feel it necessary to make
a few remarks in explanation and vindication of the vote I intend to give. In
approaching the consideration of the question, I shall divest myself, as far as possible,
of all party predilections, of all personal
preferences, and of all sectional jealousies,
and shall endeavor to discuss it upon its
merits, fairly and impartially— first, with
reference to the great difficulties which unhappily exist between Upper and Lower
Canada ; and, secondly, in relation to the proposed union of the British North American
Provinces for purposes and objects common
to them all. These branches of the main
question, or rather these two questions, are
not necessarily connected, and may, therefore, be discussed separately ; for it is
possible
we may not be able immediately to secure
the union of the provinces, and in that case
we shall still have to deal with the difficulties of our own position, and try, if
possible,
to find a satisfactory solution for them.
(Hear, hear.) And first, sir, with reference
to the difficulties which have so long distracted and disturbed us, and which hitherto
we have in vain attempted to remove. If
we may believe the hon. member for Brome
(Mr. DUNKIN), whom I regret to see is not
in his place, the difficulties to which I
have referred are imaginary, not real.
He told us, in his elaborate and exhaustive speech, that in Lower Canada the
Catholic and non-Catholic, the English
and French-speaking populations, were living in the most entire harmony with each
other ; and this statement was confirmed by
the honorable and learned gentleman the
Hon. Atty. Gen. East (Hon. Mr. CARTIER),
who declared that so great was that harmony, that he enjoyed the confidence not
only of the Catholic, but the Protestant section of the community, and in fact represented
them both. Now, sir, I am not
disposed to question the fact proclaimed by
these honorable gentlemen ; on the contrary,
I fully believe it, and ascribe the circum
stance to their having common objects to
pursue, and common interests to maintain.
(Hear, hear.) But the hon. member for
Brome went further. He affected to believe
that no difficulties of any moment existed
between Upper and Lower Canada, and that.
any dissatisfaction that had been manifested
by the upper section of the province, might
be easily removed without resorting to an
organic change in our present Constitution.
At least, so I understood the hon. gentleman. On this point I am at issue with him,
for I believe those difficulties to be of a most
formidable character, and that they threaten
at no distant day, unless they be adjusted,
the peace and the prosperity of the province—perhaps its disintegration—perhaps
its annexation to the United States. Every
lover of his country must deprecate such
results, and ought to strive to prevent them,
or either of them. The House and the
country will sustain me in the view I take
of the danger of our position, and consequently of the importance of the measure
now under consideration, as one means of
removing it. (Hear, hear.) If, sir, we can
ascertain the true cause of our difficulties, we
shall not have to seek far or long for their
remedy. In what do they originate? Some
tell us in difference of nationality, of religious creed, of civil institutions, and
of language.
I am not disposed to ignore these, or to deny
that they may be made to play a conspicuous
part in the non-settlement of sectional questions ; but I utterly deny that they are
the
cause of our difficulties. Take the question of
nationality, for instance. Those among us
who are of French extraction may be justly
proud of their ancestry, of their traditions,
and of their history. They can boast of
the mighty empire which those of kindred
blood with themselves have founded in
Europe, and of the vast influence which it
exerts over the civilization and politics of
the world ; but as they are no longer subject
to France, but are within the allegiance of
the British Crown, and enjoy all the franchises of British freemen, it appears to
me
that the question of French nationality disappears, whilst that of origin only remains
;
and that now the only nationality that
can be recognized among us is a British
nationality, unless indeed we are prepared to sever our connection with the
parent state, commence a new nationality of
our own, or merge our political existence in
the neighboring republic. But who, sir,
907
among us is prepared for either of these
alternatives ? Am I to suppose that the
people of this province of French origin
are less loyal to the British Crown than
those of Anglo-Saxon descent ? Am I to
believe that were the opportunity afforded
them, they would reunite themselves with
France ? These questions, I am assured,
they will answer indignantly in the negative.
At all events, of this I am satisfied, and I believe they are satisfied, that under
no government in the world can they enjoy so large an
amount of civil, political and religious liberty
as under British sway. The Scotch have
their history and their traditions as well
as the French, but where is the Scotchman
now that is not proud of his alliance with
England, or that would wish to dissever the
connection, though thereby he might regain
his parliament or his king ? I believe that
every enlightened French-Canadian is of the
same opinion, whatever hot-blooded and hair-
brained demagogues may assert to the contrary. (Hear, hear.) Take the question of
religious creeds. These are said to present
an insurmountable obstacle in the way of the
settlement of our sectional difficulty. If,
sir, we had established in this province a
non-Catholic or Protestant creed, to which
all would be required to subscribe, or if not
to subscribe, at least to support by compulsory taxation, then, sir, I could conceive
that difference of religious opinion might
operate in the way alleged ; but as among us
the most complete religious liberty is enjoyed—yes, a larger amount of religious
liberty than Catholic Christians are allowed
in France—I can see no valid ground for the
supposition that they would suffer in this
respect, or that they ever had the shadow of
a reason to fear that in doing an act of justice to Upper Canadians they would be
doing injustice to themselves. (Hear, hear.)
We are, all of us, too much and too deeply
interested in the question of religious liberty,
to trespass on the rights of conscience, or to
allow of state interference in matters of such
transcendent importance as our relations to
the Divine Being, and the service and worship we owe to Him. Differing as we do in
our creed and modes of worship, religious
equality is necessary to the peace and good
order of government, as well as to the life of
religion itself among the people. We thus
become the guardians of the most precious
of all liberties, the right to worship God
according to the dictates of our conscience,
without let or hindrance from each other or
the state. (Hear, hear.) But it is said that
the civil institutions of Lower Canada would
suffer, were Upper Canada allowed a representation in the Legislature and the Government
in proportion to its population. I
marvel, sir, much that such a difficulty as
this should ever have been started. It is
well known that the policy of Great Britain
has ever been of the most liberal and comprehensive character in relation to matters
of this kind. Trace her history in connection
with her conquest in any part of the world ;
and when, except with the consent of the
people, has she imposed upon them the body
of her statute laws ? Her Constitution and
her common law of right belong to the
peoples subjected to her sway, and these are
the guardians of personal and public liberty ;
but beyond these she allows the largest freedom in respect of customs, the peculiar
institutions, and the administration of civil
justice throughout the length and breadth
of her dominious. However desirable the
assimilation of the laws between Upper and
Lower Canada may be, uniformity would be
purchased at too dear a rate, if it led to dissatisfaction among any considerable
class of
the people. Time may accomplish what
force might destroy. As an Englishman,
whilst I believe our laws, in the main, as
well as our whole judicial system, are the
best in the world, I do not believe either the
one or the other to be perfect. To improve
them by importing into them whatever is
more excellent in other systems, is the
dictate of common sense, and will always
have my hearty concurrence. The institutions of Lower Canada are perfectly safe in
the keeping of Lower Canadians, for practically nothing could be gained by Upper
Canadians in changing them, supposing they
had the power to do so, which they neither
have nor desire to have. (Hear, hear.)
And then, sir, with respect to language, I
can hardly suppose Lower Canadians serious
when they imagine that any desire exists to
destroy the use among them of their mother-
tongue. It may do well enough to excite a
prejudice among ignorant people to say so,
but surely among those that are intelligent
it can have no effect. It remains with
French-Canadians themselves to determine
whether they will abandon the use of their
native tongue, and adopt ours, or not. They
are free to use either, or both, at pleasure.
If, sir, in Lower Canada the English are
908
compelled to learn the French language for
business purposes and for social intercourse,
and in Upper Canada the French are com
pelled to learn English for similar purposes,
surely that need not be a subject for regret
to the one or to the other, inasmuch as both
will gain by it. And this further advantage
will accrue to those skilled in both languages:
they will have access to the literature, the
philosophy and the science of the two foremost nations of the world. No attempt will
be made to ignore the French language
among us, so long as those who prefer it to
all others shall deem it worthy of preservation. (Hear, hear.) Give the people of
Upper and Lower Canada a common object
to pursue, and common interests to sustain,
an all questions of origin, and creed, and
institutions, and language will vanish in the
superior end to be attained by their closer
union among ourselves, or by their wider
union with other colonists under the proposed
scheme of Confederation. (Hear, hear.)
The great difficulty under which we labor,
and which we seek to overcome, is a political
and not a social one. It has its root in the
Constitution imposed upon the province in
1841 by the Imperial Government and
Legislature. That Constitution was founded
on injustice to Lower Canada, and its fruit,
as was then foreseen, has produced the
grossest injustice to Upper Canada. Had the
principle of representation based on population been then adopted, and the line which
separated Upper from Lower Canada been
obliterated, except for judicial purposes,
we should now be working harmoniously
together, instead of seeking organic changes
in the Constitution, in order to preserve
ourselves from revolution and anarchy.
(Hear, hear.) The honorable member for
Bagot (Hon. Mr. LAFRAMBOISE), in his
speech, quoted largely from the report of
Lord DURHAM, to show that that distinguished nobleman was prejudiced against
Lower Canadians, and was indisposed to do
them justice. By selecting here and there
passages from that able document, the hon.
gentleman gave a colorable appearance to
his accusation, but nothing more. I deem
it an act of justice to Lord DURHAM to
supplement the extracts read by the hon.
member, by further extracts which will shew
that His Lordship was governed by exact and
impartial justice in the measures which he
recommended to heal the divisions which
then existed in Canada. With the prescient
sagacity of a true statesman, he said:-
As the mere amalgamation of the two Houses
of Assembly of the two provinces would not be
advisable, or give a due share of representation
to each, a parliamentary commission should be
appointed for the purpose of forming the electoral
divisions and determining the number of members to be returned on the principle of
giving
representation, as near as may be, in proportion
to population.
Where, I ask, is the injustice of this recommendation ? Lower Canada had then the
larger population, and was entitled to the
larger representation in the united Legislature. But the Imperial authorities based
the Constitution which they gave to Canada,
not on representation according to numbers,
but on equality or equal numbers of representatives for the two sections of the province,
and the result we have to deplore this
day. His Lordship goes on to say:-
I am averse to every plan that has been proposed for giving an equal number of members
to
the two provinces, in order to attain the temporary end of outnumbering the French,
because I
think the same object will be attained without
violating the principles of representation, and
without any such appearance of injustice in the
scheme as would set public opinion, both in England and America, strongly against
it; and because, when emigration shall have increased the
English population in Upper Canada, the adoption
of such a principle would operate to defeat the
very purpose it is intended to serve. It appears
to me that any such electoral management, founded on present provincial divisions,
would tend to
defeat the purposes of union, and perpetuate the
idea of disunion.
These are words of wisdom, but they were
not listened to at home, and the consequences have been lamentable. We find
Upper and Lower Canada in a state of
antagonism, and collision imminent. We
find the Legislature brought to a dead-lock,
and our public men driven to their wit's
end. All this was foreseen by Lord DURHAM and provided for in his admirable suggestions
for the future government of this
important province. And then, in reference
to the peculiar institutions of Lower Canada, its religion and its laws, he said:-
I certainly should not like to subject the
French-Canadians to the rule of the identical
English minority with which they have been so
long contending; but from a majority emanating
from so much more extended a source, I do not
think they would have any oppression or injustice
to fear; and in this case the far greater part of the
majority never having been brought into collision
would regard them with no animosity that would
warp their natural sense of equity. The endow
909
ments of the Catholic Church in Lower Canada,
and the existence of all its present laws, until
altered by the united legislature, might be secured
by stipulations similar to those adopted in the
union between England and Scotland . I do not
think that the subsequent history of British legislation need incline us to believe
that the nation
which has the majority in a popular legislature is
likely to use its power to tamper very hastily with
the laws of the peeple to which it is united.
Such were the opinions and such the basis of
that great scheme of union which Lord DURHAM contemplated, and which he aimed to
secure to Upper and Lower Canada. It consisted of two parts: representation based
on
population in the Legislature; and guarantees
that the peculiar institutions of Lower Canada
should be protected, and her rights respected.
But His Lordship had larger views before him
than the union of Upper and Lower Canada.
He was anxious that all the British colonies
in North America should be consolidated
under one government. When His Lordship
received his commission from the British
Crown, he was strongly in favor of the Federal
rinciple in its application to the then state of
Upper and Lower Canada; but a more profound study of the question when in this
country, and from consultation with the leading men in the several American Colonies,
he
arrived at the conclusion that a Legislative
would be preferable to a Federal union of
these colonies. The change in his opinion is
thus stated in the extracts from his report,
with which I shall now trouble the House.
By a legislative union he means " a complete
incorporation of the provinces included in it
under one Legislature exercising universal
and sole legislative authority over all of them,
exactly in the same manner as the Parliament
legislates alone for the whole of the British
Isles." After a careful review of the whole
subject, Lord DURHAM says:-
I had still more strongly impressed upon me
the rest advantages of a united government;
and was gratified by finding the leading minds
of the various colonies strongly and generally
inclined to a scheme that would elevate their
countries into something like a national existence. I thought that it would be the
tendency
of a Federation, sanctioned and consolidated by
a monarchical government, gradually to become
a complete Legislative union; and that thus, while
conciliating the French of Lower Canada, by
leaving them the government of their own province, and their own internal legislation,
I might
provide for the protection of British interests by
the General Government, and the gradual transition of the provinces into an united
and homo
geneous community. But, [His Lordship adds,]
the period of gradual transition is past in Lower
Canada, [and therefore he says,] that the only
efficacious government would be that formed by
a Legislative union.
Having thus dealt with the question in its
application to Upper and Lower Canada, he
extends the range of his observations to the
whole of the British possessions in North
America, and remarks:-
But while I convince myself that such desirable
ends would be secured by a legislative union of
the two provinces, I am inclined to go further
and enquire whether all these objects would not
be more surely obtained by extending this legislative union over all the British possessions
in
North America; and whether the advantages
which I anticipate for two of them might not,
and should not in justice be extended over all.
Such an union woul at once decisively settle the
question of races; it would enable the provinces
to co-operate for all common purposes; and,
above all, it would form a great and powerful
people, possessing the means of securing good
and responsible government for itself, and which,
under the protection of the British Empire, might
in some measure counterbalance the preponderant
and increasing influence of the United States on
the American continent.
His Lordship had no fears that such an union
would lead to separation from the Mother
Country. He rather looked upon it as a
means of strengthening the bonds which
united them, and of its proving an advantage
to both. On this point he says:-
I do not anticipate that a colonial legislature
thus strong and thus self-governing would desire
to abandon the connection with Great Britain.
On the contrary, I believe that the practical
relief from undue interference which would be
the result of such a change would strengthen the
present bond of feelings and interests, and that
the connection would only become more durable
and advantageous by having more of equality, of
freedom, and of local independence. But, at any
rate, our first duty is to secure the well-being of
our colonial countrymen; and if in the hidden
decrees of that Wisdom by which this world is
ruled, it is written that these countries are not for
ever to remain portions of the Empire, we owe
it to our honor to take good care that when they
separate from us they should not be the only
countries on the American continent in which
the Anglo-Saxon race shall be found unfit to
govern themselves. I am, [says His Lordship,]
in truth, so far from believing that the increased
power and weight given to these colonies by
union would endanger their connection with the
Empire, that I look to it as the means of fostering such a national feeling throughout
them as
would effectually counterbalance whatever tendencies may now exist towards separation.
910
His Lordship then strongly recommends
the union of the two Canadas under one
Legislature, and of reconstituting them as one
province; and " the bill," he says, " should
contain provisions by which any or all of the
North American colonies may, on the application of the Legislature, be, with the consent
of the two Canadas, or their united Legislature, admitted into the union on such
terms as may be agreed on between them."
These remarkable passages drawn from Lord
DURHAM'S report, appear to me to embody the
very spirit of the scheme submitted to our
consideration by the Government, and coming
to as recommended by so high an authority,
merit our best attention; and if realized,
though not in the precise form many of us
might desire, we may hope it will heal our
intestine divisions, and open to us a glorious
future. Representation based on population is denied to Upper Canada, unless coupled
with the Confederation of all the British North
American colonies; the separation of Upper
Canada, pure and simple, is not to be thought
of; to return to the positicn we occupied
only a year ago, would be to plunge once more
into political contests, with feelings embittered
by disappointment; and therefore, with reservations affecting details only, I shall
feel it
to be my duty to give the motion before the
House my best support. (Hear, hear.) And
now, sir, I propose to consider the scheme
submitted to us in relation to the larger ques~
tion of the union of all the British North
American Provinces under one government,
for purposes common to them all. I needed
not the arguments or the eloquence of honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches
to
convince me of the immense importance of
such a junction as shall lead to the development of a new nationality, and secure
to
generations yet unborn the advantages of
unity and power. With the permission of
the House, I will read an extract from a
letter which I addressed to the Duke of
NEWCASTLE in 1859, when that nobleman
visited this country in the suite of His Royal Highness the PRINCE of WALES, bearing
directly on this point. Having briefly stated
the grounds which induced me to write to
His Grace, I said:-
The possessions of Great Britain in North
America are not only vast in extent and marvellous in resources, but for facility
of internal communication by lakes and rivers, are unrivalled;
and their geographical position is such as to
make them of the very last importance to the
political and commercial greatness of the British
Empire. Possessing the control of this magnificent part of the American continent,
with comparatively easy access through it from the Atlantic to the Pacific shores,
Great Britain need not
fear the rivalry nor dread the reponderance of
the United States. But in order that she may
derive from it all the advantages it is so well calculated to afford, she must have
a fixed and
determinate policy, wisely conceived, practical in
its details, and perseveringly carried out. In
the planting of future colonies in British North
America, care should be taken to make them as
few as possible. I regret, therefore, that it appears to have been determined to give
the Red
River settlement a distinct political existence.
Canada should have been allowed to expand
westwards to the Rocky Mountains, instead of
being cooped up within her present limits. She
would then have been able to absorb more easily
the outlying colonies of Newfoundland, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island on the Atlantic, and British Columbia and
Vancouver's Island on the Pacific. Consolidated
ultimately under one government, after the model
of the Mother Country, with such modifications
as the circumstances of the case might require, an
empire might be formed over which, hereafter,
some one ranch of the Royal Family might
reign a constitutional monarch, over a free and
united people. In the meantime there is nothing
to hinder the appointment of a Prince of the
blood royal to be Viceroy over all the possessions
of Great Britain in North America, and under
him, lieutenant-governors to administer the
affairs of the separate dependencies, until they
could be gradually and permanently united.
Your Grace will perceive from this statement that
I object to the American system of federation,
and would oppose to it the unification of the
British colonies in this part of the world. One
government, one legislature, one judiciary,
instead of many, with their conflicting institutions, interests, and jurisdictions,
is what I
would respectfully venture to recommend as the
true policy of the Mother Country on this side of
the Atlantic, it has been with the most
splendid results the other. A Federal Government, such as that of the United States,
for
instance, is and must be weak in itself, from the
discordant elements of which it is composed, and
will be found to contain within itself the seeds of
disorganization and dissolution. The multiplication of colonies in a new country like
this is
tantamount to the multiplication of petty
sovereignties, and the creation of rivalries and
antagonisms which, sooner or later, will manifest
themselves, and prevent the develoment of that
greatness, power and prosperity which an opposite policy, wisely administered, would,
my
judgment, effectually promote and secure. By
unification, however, I do not mean centralization.
I am no friend to the bureaucratic system ot
France, Austria, and Prussia. A government, to
be strong and respected, must leave to the people
the largest amount of liberty consistent with the
safety and advantage of the whole, in the manage
911
ment of their local affairs. Such a municipal
system as we have in Canada is all that is necessary to secure that end. With the
political franchise extended to all classes of the community,
whether native-born or naturalized, the national
life could not fail to develope itself in forms that
would give permanence to its institutions, contentment to its people, and strength
to its government.
The opinions which I entertained in 1859 I
entertain now. Now, as then, I am in favor
of the unification of the British American
Provinces. Now, as then, I am opposed to
the Federal principle, as exemplified in the
formation and practical working of the Government of the United States. The greatest
statesmen, the wisest men, who became conspicuous during the American revolution,
were
clearly of opinion that a government to be
strong must be a unit, and must possess within itself, and in all its organs, supreme
power
and a commanding influence. To diffuse those
powers, or even to share them with state or
local governments, they felt would weaken it
in its most vital parts. They would, therefore, have stripped the States of every
attribute of sovereignty, and confined their action
to matters of a purely local or municipal character; but they had not the power, and
the
consequences are visible in the fratricidal war
now raging among them, devastating their
fairest provinces and filling the land with
mourning and woe. The lessons of history
and the experience of other peoples should
not be lost upon us; and for myself, I hesitate
not to say that if, in the proposed Federation of the British American colonies, we
were to follow the example of the framers of
the Government of the United States, or to
copy its Constitution, it would have my most
determined opposition. The scheme before
us, however, is formed after a different model,
and in its essential features is in perfect contrast to that on which the Constitution
of the
United States is based. It is true it creates
local governments with large legislative and
executive powers; it is true it gives those
governments concurrent powers with the General Government; it is true it gives them
possession of the public lands within their several
jurisdictions; it is true it allows two of those
governments to levy export duties on lumber,
coal and other minerals,—and looked at in the
light of an advanced political science, this is
to be lamented ; but looked at in the light of
possible and practicable statesmanship, it was
unavoidable. I am, therefore, prepared to
accept it as a whole, as in fact the best that
could have been produced under the circumstances in which it was framed. (Hear, hear.)
A careful analysis of the scheme convinces me
that the powers conferred on the General or
Central Government secures it all the attributes of sovereignty, and the veto power
which its executive will possess, and to which
all local legislation will be subject, will prevent a conflict of laws and jurisdictions
in all
matters of importance, so that I believe in its
working it will be found, if not in form yet
in fact and practically, a legislative union.
(Hear, hear.) Taking this general and, as I
believe, correct view of the case, I shall abstain from all criticism of its minor
details, in
the hope that what is found hereafter immature or unworkable will be abandoned by
general consent. The Imperial Government
will take care, no doubt, that that part of the
scheme which conflicts with the prerogatives
of the Crown will be removed, or, at all events,
be brought into harmony with them. On one
or two points brought out very fully by the
Catholic members of the House in opposition to the scheme, I shall venture to
offer a few remarks. They take exception to
the power conferred on the General Government in the matter of marriage and divorce.
I think, sir, the power is very properly placed
there. I respect their religious convictions;
as a Protestant, I ask them to respect mine.
We owe each other mutual toleration. If
the Protestant section of this House and this
province do not regard marriage as a sacrament, and, therefore, inviolable and indissoluble,
I believe they will be found to have as
high an opinion of the sacred obligations involved in it, and admit it to be as binding
upon
the conscience of all who enter upon that holy
and honorable state, as their Catholic fellow-
subjects. But quod the state or the civil
government of the country, Protestants at
large, regard marriage as a civil contract
only, and consequently dissoluble on cause
shown. This view ought not to be offensive
to the judgment or the conscience of our Catholic friends, for it will not and cannot
interfere in the slightest degree, either with the
form or the continuity of their marriages;
and surely they, will grant to us, the non-
Catholic section of the province, that liberty
of conscience in this matter which they claim
and enjoy themselves. (Hear, hear.) Another
point touched upon by my honorable friend
the member for Peterborough (Col. HAULTAIN) demands from me a passing remark. I
believe that my honorable friend correctly interpreted the feelings of Protestants
in Lower
912
Canada, when he referred to the probable effect
of the Pope's encyclical on the Catholic mind
of the country. They think that if the
principles inculcated in that letter were acted
upon, their religious liberties and privileges
would be in peril. But it would appear that
my honorable friend had not the true key to
the interpretation of that famous document.
Catholic commentators find it to be perfectly
innocuous when properly understood. Be
that as it may, I rely rather on the good
sense and feeling of Catholics themselves, and above all, on the religious liberty
secured to us in this province, than on the
Pope's encyclical, for the protection of our
liberties, whether civil or religious. Let us
be united in object and in interest as a people, and I have no fear, however diversified
our opinions may be on matters personal
to ourselves, but that we shall grow up to be
a great nation, and that a glorious future
awaits us. (Hear, hear.) As there are yet
several honorable gentlemen to address the
House, I shall not trespass on its attention
much longer, as I am anxious the debate
should be brought to a close as soon as possible, in order that the Government may
be
able, by its re resentatives in England, to
perform those important duties which are so
urgent and so necessary at the present moment. ( Hear, hear.) Before sitting down,
however, I wish to make one or two remarks
on the conflicting opinions entertained by
honorable gentlemen on the permanency of
our relations to the Mother Country. I do
not believe there is any large party there who
desire to separate themselves from us. On
the contrary, I believe the great bulk of the
British people are proud of the connection,
and are prepared to maintain it if we do our part
in cultivating that connection by meeting their
just and reasonable demands. There can be
no doubt that one cause of dissatisfaction expressed in England towards us has resulted
from our policy. I shall venture no
opinion on that policy just now, whether it
was wise or otherwise, but it strikes me very
forcibly that we have it now in our power to
set ourselves right on that point, and to it I
would respectfully invite the attention of the
Government. The question of our defences
is very earnestly pressed on our attention by
the authorities at home; but that is undoubtedly an Imperial as well as a provincial
question, and might be dealt with in this way. If
the British overnment and people really desire to maintain their connection with the
Canadas, they are under the obligation, both
moral and political, to afford them adequate
defence in money, material and men, in case
of necessity; for it is clear that without these
our position, except at one or two points, is
clearly indefensible. On the other hand, if
we are anxious to continue our relations with
the Mother Country, then we are bound by
the highest considerations of policy to adjust
our tariff on imports in such a manner as to
give no real cause of complaint to the people
at home. I am persuaded that if we do this
it will smooth the way for the removal of any
hostility that may have been shown towards
us by any class of politicians in England.
Privileges and duties are reciprocal, and
should be met in a cordial spirit; and let it
be remembered that material interests are, of
all others, the most binding upon nations in
amity with each other, and are the best calculated to maintain our relations undisturbed
with the parent state. (Hear, hear.) With
me, sir, it is a matter cl extreme importance
that our relations with the Mother Country
should be settled on a firm and permanent
basis. (Hear, hear.) I therefore quite agree
with the hon. gentleman (Mr. SHANLY) who
has just sat down, on the necessity of pressing
this point on the attention of the Imperial
Government. Mr. SPEAKER, my most earnest desire and prayer is that by a well-considered
scheme of union—a union that shall
embrace the whole of the British posessions
in North America, from the Atlantic to the
Pacific oceans, under one government—results may follow of the most beneficial character,
both to the colonies and the Mother
Country; and that Providence may so guide
the counsels and influence the acts of those
who now direct our affairs, as to secure to the
people of this country, and to succeeding generations, the blessings of a well-ordered
government and a wise administration of public
affairs. (Cheers)
COL. RANKIN—Mr. SPEAKER, never
has there been an occasion, since I have had
the honor of occupying a seat in this House,
when I have been so deeply impressed with
the importance of the subject under consideration, as I am to-night. Every honorable
gentleman who has addressed the House
during the course of this debate has told you,
sir, that he rose under some degree of
embarrassment. I, too, might give you the
same assurance, but I shall not dwell upon
it; suffice it to say, I only speak because I
think it my duty to explain the reasons
which induce me to take the view I entertain
of the subject before the House. I have
913
listened, sir, with great attention to the
speeches which have fallen from honorable
gentlemen on both sides ; and it is to me a
matter of congratulation to observe, that at
last, something has arisen which has given
a higher tone to the debates of this House,
and to the utterances of our public men.
(Hear, hear.) I attribute this improvement
in a great measure to the fact that we are
discussing a question of greater importance
than has ever before been brought under
our consideration; that we are at length
taming our attention to something worthy
of the consideration of gentlemen who
aspire to establish for themselves the
reputation of statesmen, while it has
unfortunately happened heretofore that too
much of our time has been spent in
discussing questions which ought properly
to be left to the consideration of a municipal,
rather than of a legislative body. (Hear,
hear.) Inasmuch, sir, as I have reasons,
which perhaps are somewhat peculiar to
myself, for entertaining the views which I
hold upon this question, I trust I may be
pardoned if I refer to some of the most
prominent events connected with the progress
of affairs in Canada for some years past.
And here I may remark, that though the
country has become more important, though
our population has increased, and our prosperity advanced, in perhaps as rapid a
degree as any reasonable person could have
expected, there are still some respects in
which we have not advanced, but rather
retrograded than otherwise. I mean that
the tone of feeling among the prominent
men of the country has rather deteriorated
than improved, since the introduction of
responsible government. I, sir, am old-
fashioned enough to believe, that although
there may have been some objections to the
mode of government which existed prior to
the union, there was a higher tone among
our public men in those days than has
prevailed for some years past. Still, no doubt,
there was much cause of complaint on the part
of those who originated the agitation, which
resulted in the rebellion of 1837. And speaking now in the light of the experience,
many
of us would probably be prepared to admit
those gentlemen who took a prominent part
in bringing about that rebellion, and whom
we then considered it a duty to put down,
were in reality true benefactors of the country. Hear, hear} The result has proved
that they differed only from those who
thought it their duty to oppose them, in that
they were in advance of the men and the
sentiment of that day. They foresaw, indeed,
earlier than their neighbors, that the state
of things which then existed could not long
continue—they appreciated grievances sooner
than others. (Hear, hear.) And thence
arose the political struggles, which resulted,
unfortunately, in a resort to arms. That
insurrection was happily suppressed ; and
the statesmen of the great nation of which
we are proud to be subjects, after the rebellion was ended, immediately applied themselves
to the consideration of the best means
of removing the just causes of complaint
which had led to the revolt. The first step
was to bring about a union of the two provinces. That union was distasteful to many,
who were forced reluctantly to accede to it.
There were at that time gentlemen worthy
in every way of the respect of their fellow-
countrymen who denounced the union, and
predicted evil results from it. But is there
an intelligent man in this country who will
now say that those predictions have been
realized? I do not think there is an hon.
member of this House, on either side, who
would expect anybody to believe he spoke
sincerely if he asserted that the union had
been attended by disastrous results. The
time has passed for hostile feelings to exist
between the people of the two sections of
this country—I say the two sections, for
I have never allowed myself to speak of
Upper and Lower Canada as separate and
distinct provinces or countries, as has been
too much the practice. From the moment
the union was consummated, I felt that we
should look upon ourselves as inhabitants of
one country, and not as the people of two
distinct provinces. In some instances legislation might operate with greater advantage
to one section, while in others it would be
more beneficial to the other section. But
whatever was for the benefit of one was for the
good of the whole, inasmuch as it added to the
importance, the wealth and the influence of
the whole. (Hear, hear.) But there were
many people who, for many years after the
consummation of the union, writhed under
the state of things thereby brought about,
and were disposed to sneer at responsible
government, and to speak of it as a misfortune rather than as a boon. Sir, we have
had some severe lessons, such as all individuals passing through the period intervening
between childhood and manhood must to
914
some extent be subjected to, and to which
communities rapidly growing from insignificance to importance must also submit. The
first lesson we were taught under the system
of responsible government was in the passage
of the bill for the indemnification of losses
sustained during the rebellion in Lower
Canada. I, sir, happened to belong to a
class in Upper Canada, at that time, who
would have considered it almost, if not quite,
justifiable to resort to arms in order to resist
the enforcement of that law. But, as time
has rolled on, I have become more capable
of appreciating the course then taken, and
I am now prepared to admit that it was but
just and reasonable that that law should be
enacted. (Hear, hear.) I then sympathised
with those who burned the Parliament House
in Montreal, and am willing to admit, that
if I had been there, I would probably have
been one of the first to apply the torch to
that building, while under the influence of
the feelings which inspired me at that time.
But experience and reflection have since
taught me to regard things from a very
different point of view. We were then
taught practically to feel that we really did
govern ourselves. We were made to taste
the consquences of self-government. We
were taught that questions like these must
be decided by the will of the majority of the
people, as made known through their
representatives in Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
There was no mistake in that case as to
what the will of that majority was; and I
am free to admit that the rebellious spirit
then indulged in, on account of the passage
of that bill, was in some respects more
worthy of condemnation than the conduct
of those who resorted to arms to redress the
real grievances which caused the rebellion;
and, in course of time, many of those who
were most incensed at the passage of this
measure, began to realize the fact that it was
only one of the natural consequences of the
new state of things ; and, step by step, the
people of Canada have come to understand
and appreciate the advantages of self-
government. They have come now to
understand that whatever is deliberately
expressed as the will of the majority of the
people, ought to be submitted to by the
minority. (Hear, hear.) And I hope we
have arrived at that stage in our political
education, that there is no man in Canada
who would now justify a resort to violence
to resist any enactment by this Legislature,
no matter how unpalatable it might be to
the minority, and no matter how important
that minority might be. Mr. SPEAKER,
we are now invited to direct our attention
to another union of a different kind, and on
a larger scale: Of that union I have long
been an advocate. I have looked forward to
it for years, as a desirable event; and in
proof that I have done so, I may be permitted to read two or three lines from the
Votes and Proceedings of this House, so far
back as the year 1856. I do not desire to
claim for myself any special credit in the
matter, but merely wish to establish my
consistency, in being now, as I am, the
uncompromising advocate of this measurein being prepared to go so far, as I declared
was my intention the other day, as to vote for
the motion submitted by the Hon. Attorney
General West for the previous question,
which, under ordinary circumstances, I
should look upon as a very high-handed
and objectionable proposal. Sir, in 1856 I
called the attention of the Hon. Attorney
General West—who, if in his place, would
readily recollect the fact—to a scheme such
as that now under consideration. I urged it
upon him, and prayed him to bring his great
abilities to bear upon the attainment of an
end of sufficient importance to be worthy of
his continued exertions. I endeavored to
convince him that, by identifying his name
with the attainment of some great and important end, he would establish for himself
a
reputation worthy of his talents. I failed,
however, to enlist the sympathies of that
hon. gentleman with my views. His idea
was, that it was premature to entertain any
such project—that it might be well enough,
perhaps, at some future period, but that it
was then quite out of the question ; I nevertheless proceeded to draft a series of
resolutions, and gave notice of them two orthree
weeks in advance of the day I intended
to move them. During the intervening
period, I addressed myself to honorable
members of the House, but, I regret to say,
met with no encouragement from any quarter, with one single exception—the late Hon.
Mr. MERRITT cordially approving of the
idea. Finding that sufficient support could
not be obtained in the House to commend
the idea to the country, I felt it to be prudent—as even leaders of parties sometimes
do under similar circumstances—not to make
an exhibition of my own weakness; I came to
the conclusion that the resolutions would not
915
receive favorable consideration from any considerable number of hon. members, and
that
to move them would only be to attract attention to what might be looked upon as my
own eccentricities. I accordingly abandoned
the idea of pressing them at that time. But,
with the leave of the House, I will now read
the motion, which is as follows:-
Mr. RANKIN—On Wednesday next (30th of
April, 1856)—Committee of the Whole on the
general state of the province, for the purpose of
considering the subject of a union of the British
North American Colonies, with a view to an
address to Her Majesty to recommend the same
to the consideration of the Imperial Parliament.
This, sir, I am happy to say, is the proposal
which the Government are now carrying out.
(Hear, hear.) This was what I proposed nine
years ago, and I shall have the greatest
pleasure now in giving them my hearty support while they endeavor to carry it into
effect ; and I congratulate them on having,
though so long after myself, arrived at the
same conclusion. (Hear, hear.)
MR. RANKIN—Far be it from me to
deny that these gentlemen are entitled to the
credit of having suggested the idea, long
before I was of an age to think of anything
of the kind. But I may congratulate myself
that I had conceived the same idea—without
borrowing it from them—which had been
previously advocated by men so distinguished
and illustrious. (Hear, hear.) The result
shews, however, that in looking upon the
movement as then premature, the Hon. Attorney General was right, and that he correctly
understood the feelings of the country ; for I
am willing to admit that the course of events
has proved that it was premature. But, had
it not been for certain occurrences which I
shall not comment upon (since to do so might
savor of a spirit unbecoming on this occasion)—had it not been for the extraordinary
state of things brought about before the
formation of this Coalition, I am not
prepared to acknowledge that it would have
been thought of, as a practical scheme, for
twenty years to come. But now honorable
gentlemen have taken it up, and it only
remains for me to congratulate them on
having done so. When this Coalition was
proposed, after the vote which resulted in
the defeat of the CARTIER-MACDONALD
Ministry, the honorable member for South
Oxford, the Hon. President of the Council,
and then recognized leader of the Opposition, did me the honor to invite me to a
meeting of his supporters. Though I never
was one of his followers—having been all
my life, in the proper sense of the word, a
conservative—still I was associated, for the
time, with the gentlemen forming the party
of which he was chief ; and I think they
will do me the justice to admit, that while
allied with them, I acted in good faith, and
they all knew that, though I was with them,
I was not of them. (Hear, hear.) At the
meeting of the Opposition, called by the
Hon. President of the Council, the project
now under consideration was submitted ;
and in justice to that gentleman, I am
bound to say he made a frank, clear and
intelligible explanation of the terms which
had been agreed upon between himself and
the other section of the Government. He
informed us fully of all that had taken place
between the negotiating parties, and submitted to us the question whether we would
support him in the step he had taken, and
support the Government which was to be
organized for the purpose of carrying out
this project. Much was said after those
explanations, and to the best of my recollection of what occurred—for I have not since
refreshed my memory by reading the report
of the proceedings—there was a general
assent to the project. Though some hon.
gentlemen did entertain views peculiar to
themselves, and expressed opinions that perhaps did not convey a hearty or cordial
assent, yet there was a unanimous consent that
this Government should be formed. (Hear,
hear.) I think every one assented to that
proposal. I, at all events, fully assented to it
in good faith—(hear, hear)—and in doing so,
my meaning was to allow the fullest latitude
to those hon. gentlemen to concoct the best
scheme they could, and to sustain them in
working it out. I had no trick in my mind.
I did not mean, as some honorable gentlemen seem to have meant, to place them in
a false position, and afterwards assail them.
(Hear, hear.) I honestly meant to empower
them to confer with delegates from the other
provinces, and to endeavor to bring about
an understanding by which a union of some
sort might be accomplished. (Hear, hear.)
It is true that there was one feature in the
explanations given by the Hon. President of
the Council which was not acceptable to me,
but it was not of a character which rendered
it necessary for me to make any remark at
the time. To prevent misapprehension, I
916
however, will explain what I mean. One
idea suggested was, that failing the Confederation of all British North America, the
Federation should be carried out with reference to Canada alone.
HON. MR. BROWN—With provision for
its extension, so as to embrace the other
provinces, whenever they were prepared to
come in.
COL. RANKIN—Certainly ; but though
I did not approve of a Federation of Canada
alone, I did not feel that it was part of my
duty to rise and protest against any such
project. I felt it was right to empower
these hon. gentlemen to frame that scheme,
which they found to be the best and most
practicable—although I certainly had a
mental reservation with reference to the
point I have mentioned ; and I did not then,
nor will I at any future day, assent to a
Federation of the Canadas alone, with a
local government for each section. Rather
than accept such a Constitution, I would prefer to remain as we are ; for I never
can be a consenting party to the making
of two or three paltry provinces out of
Canada. But I am prepared to give my
hearty support to the project now under
consideration—not because I consider it
perfect ; for if I were so disposed, I might
raise many valid objections to the scheme ;
but I am not so disposed. I really believe
the gentlemen who have taken it in hand
have applied themselves to the task committed to them in a spirit of patriotism and
faithfulness to their trust, and I shall not
permit myself to indulge in any remark
with reference to the position they occupied
towards each other previous to the Coalition
now established. While on this subject, 1
may remark that the Hon. President of the
Council seemed most favorable to the idea
of a Federation of the two provinces of
Canada alone, and I am bound to say, when
he made his explanations, he appeared deeply impressed with the gravity of the step
he
was about to take, and perfectly well aware
that he was exposing himself to be assailed
by parties unfriendly to him, on points
where he was, perhaps, open to attack. I do
not say he is not vulnerable, but I, at all
events, shall not assail him now. If I have
any attacks to make upon him, I shall
suspend them till some future time ; and if
he succeeds in carrying out this project,
he will find in me one who will always be
ready to accord to him the highest meed
of praise, and, for the good he will do in
bringing this about, I, sir, will be prepared
to forgive him for all the evil he has heretofore done. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
MR. RANKIN—We ought all to profit
by the lessons of experience. In the course
of this discussion, it has been a pleasure to
me to observe the general spirit of loyalty
which has been displayed by hon. gentlemen
who have addressed the House. Even those
who are adverse to the scheme have not
been behind its greatest advocates in their
declarations of attachment to British institutions and British rule on this continent
(Hear, hear.) And I am not disposed to
insinuate that there is a solitary member of
this House who entertains sentiments of
disloyalty to Great Britain. We all have
a right to express our views, and in
fact it is our duty to do so, since we are
sent here to consider what is best for the
interests of Canada
first ; for though we
owe allegiance to England, Canada is
our
country, and has the strongest and best
claims to our devotion. (Hear, hear.)
I, sir, am not one of those Canadians who
place the interests of England first, and
hold those of Canada in secondary estimation. It would be better if we could regard
the interests of both with the same degree
of concern—and I trust they always may
be united ; but we ought not to permit
ourselves to lose sight of the fact, that with
nations as with individuals, the time does
arrive when it becomes each person to be
responsible for himself, and when he can no
longer look to his parents to give him a
standing in the world. Sir, the time must
come, sooner or later, when this country
must cease to be a colony dependant on
Great Britain; and whatever we do, whatever arrangements for the future we may
make, we ought always to keep the fact
plainly before our eyes, that passing events
are calling upon us, either to commence the
establishment of a nationality for ourselves,
or make up our minds to be absorbed in the
republic lying along our southern borders.
I, sir, do not desire to see the latter state of
things brought about. Nothing could be
more distasteful to me than to become what
is called a citizen of the United States ,
though I admit the enterprise and intelligence
which characterise the people of that country.
Mr. SPEAKER, it is within the recollection
917
of every honorable member of this House,
that some fifteen years since a movement
was set on foot in Montreal, which had as
its avowed object the severance of Canada
from its connection with England, and its
annexation to the United States. The gentlemen who inaugurated that movement
were men of influence and high standing in
the country, and some of them, as we all
know, now occupy prominent positions in
this House ; they claimed then, as they do
now, to be good and loyal British subjects,
and yet they deliberately framed a document
to which they attached their signatures, in
which they prayed their Sovereign to allow
this province to withdraw from its connection
with England, and attach itself to the United
States. Sir, the framers of the document to
which I refer—the
Annexation Manifesto- were not animated by a rebellious feeling
against the Mother Country, but by feelings
of loyalty to the interests of this country ;
their arguments were logical, and founded
upon those material considerations which,
after all, do exercise, and must continue to
exert a more powerful influence over the
minds of intelligent men in the nineteenth
century, than any mere sentiment, or preference for any particular form of government
;
and sir, we, all know that but a short time
after the publication of the annexation manifesto, a new era dawned upon the country.
The Grand Trunk Railway and other important public works were inaugurated.
British capital flowed into the province in
copious streams, the pockets of the annexationists were replenished, and their loyalty
reestablished, upon a basis which has lasted
ever since. The reciprocity, too, contributed
largely to the removal of the depression
which engendered the annexation movement;
and under the operation of that treaty, the
material interests of the country have prospered to a degree that will only be fully
appreciated when we have been deprived of
its advantages. Sir, no conceivable state of
things would have induced me to become a
party to that movement in favor of annexation, but I am free to confess that the
arguments advanced by the framers of the
document to which I have referred were
sound and logical—regarding them from a
material point of view ; and if they were so
at that time, why should they not be equally
so now? For the last ten years, we have
enjoyed all the advantages of free intercourse
and free trade with our powerful neighbors
of the United States. We are now in danger
of being deprived of both—and if we are,
what will be the condition of this country
three years hence ? Shall we not be reduced
to a state more disastrous to our agricultural
and other important interests, than we have
yet experienced ? And am I wrong, sir, in
assuming that similar causes would once
more produce the same effects ? It is all very
well for hon. gentlemen to say " No, no,"
but I maintain that I am right ; and, Mr.
SPEAKER, it is our duty to look the
existing state of things in the face. The
impulses of mankind have been the same
in all ages. We cannot change human
nature, nor make men honest or disinterested, by act of Parliament. But, sir, I
have only referred to the past in the hope
that the recollection of the events and the
state of things to which I have alluded, may
have some influence upon the minds of hon.
gentlemen—may, perhaps, induce some
modification in the course of even a single
member, who has hitherto been prejudiced
against the scheme of union brought down
by the Government. That we have arrived
at a critical period in the history of this
continent, is universally admitted. Events
of the most momentous character are transpiring upon our borders, and I regret to
say
there exists towards us among our republican neighbors a deep-rooted feeling of hostility.
Occurrences have taken place during
the progress of the war which have tended,
step by step, to intensify that feeling, which
has displayed itself in the stoppage of unrestricted intercourse, and the threatened
abrogation of the treaty of reciprocal free trade.
In view of this state of things, Mr. SPEAKER,
if we wish either to continue our connection
with England or to maintain a separate
national existence of our own, it is our duty
to devise some means by which we shall be
enabled at all seasons to obtain access to the
seaboard through our own territory ; to
strengthen ourselves numerically ; to increase
our wealth materially, and to add to our
importance territorially. All these results,
Mr. SPEAKER, may, in my opinion, be
obtained by the union now proposed.
Sir, it is because I entertain this opinion
that I am prepared to accept the proposition
under consideration without criticising its
details. If I were disposed to enter into details, I would most earnestly object to
that
part of the project which relates to the
development of the North-West, and the
918
uncertain period of the introduction of that
territory into the Confederation ; indeed
I should object to the Federal principle
altogether—for what I would prefer, Mr.
SPEAKER, would be a Legislative, rather
than a Federal union ; but, sir, I am willing
to award the highest credit to the Government for having accomplished as much as
they have done. If we are not to have a
legislative union in name, we shall have
something very closely resembling it. In
fact, to have expected that any body 'of delegates, representing a number of different
provinces and a great variety of conflicting
interests, could concoct a scheme which
would prove acceptable to everyone, would
have been most unreasonable ; and I think
it ought to be admitted that the Administration are entitled to the gratitude of the
country, for the great pains and patient labor
they have evidently devoted to the consideration of this project. It must be borne
in
mind, sir, that the scheme of Federation
agreed upon by the delegates is not final ;
and we should remember that the House of
Commons, or Parliament of British America,
will have power to make such modifications
and changes as the interests of the country
may render advisable. If it is found that
the working of the Federal system is
objectionable, that the people would rather
have their local affairs managed by municipal councils than by local legislatures,
they can make their wishes known to the
Federal Parliament in a constitutional
manner, and that body can, and doubtless
will, find means of abolishing the petty
provincial parliaments provided for by the
plan now before the House, and replacing
them by extending the municipal system
throughout the whole of British America.
Indeed, sir, the Federal Parliament will
possess the same power to change, alter or
amend for the whole country, as we now
possess for Canada alone, and therefore it is
that I so willingly accept the present scheme,
believing it to be the best we can now obtain,
and leaving to those who are fortunate enough
to hold seats in the British American Parliament to detect and remedy its defects.And,
sir, we have seen that the opponents of
the union between Upper andLower Canada
were mistaken in their predictions of the
disasters which they insisted would flow from
that union. May we not venture to tell the
opponents of the larger and more important
change which we are now discussing, that
their predictions will prove still more unsound,
their apprehensions still more groundless ?
Mr. Speaker, our destinies are in our own
hands ; by the consummation of this union,
we shall lay the foundation of a great and
important nationality ; while on the other
hand, if we reject this scheme, even if we are
permitted to remain unmolested as we are,
what is there in our present condition that we
can reflect upon with pride or satisfaction,
We are but a province, a dependency at
best ; the reputationof our statesmen is but
local ; their fame is confined to the limits of
the colony ; our Ministers of the Crown, as
it is the practice to call them, are but'the
advisers of a deputy sovereign, upon subjects
purely provincial, wholly unknown to the
rest of the world, and» attracting no attention
beyond our own borders,—while the public
men of the most insignificant European power
would take precedence of them in any other
country—even Mexico, with its mongrel and
semi-barbarous population, enjoys the standing of a nation, and has its diplomatic
representatives, and its foreign relations—and
shall we be content to stand still, while all
the rest of the world is moving on ? Sir,
the most experienced, the most distinguished
statesmen of the Mother Country appreciate
the importance of the proposed change, and
regard the movement as deserving of the
highest commendation ; and a writer in a
recent number of the London
Times remarks
that the Parliament of British America will
exercise away over a larger portion of the
earth's surface than any other legislative
body in the world. Some hon. members
have objected to this project on the score of
expense ; they have argued that some of the
conditions were too favorable to the Maritime
Provinces ; while, on the other hand, the
people of those provinces complain that we
are getting the best of the bargain. I, however, shall not detain the House by discussing
the question, of whether we have or have
not undertaken to' pay a few thousands more
than any of the other provinces, than some
may think they were fairly entitled to ; for I
hold that the advantage to be derived from
this union would be cheaply bought at a
cost far greater than any liability we shall
incur in carrying it out. Mr. SPEAKER
the extent of the British possessions which
it is proposed to unite under this scheme
includes some four millions square milesmore than the whole of the United
States, North and South together, and
919
equal to one-tenth of the surface of the
whole world ; the resources of the Lower
Provinces are of incalculable value, while the
boundless prairies of the North-West, with the
fertile soil and genial climate of the Saskatchewan and Red River may be made the
home of millions upon millions of our fellow
beings. Our population, including the
Maritime Provinces, is at least equal in
numbers, and far superior in intelligence
and enlightenment, to that of the United
States when they asserted their independence ; and under the rule of the proposed
Federal Government we may grow in strength
and importance as rapidly as our republican
neighbors ; for though in some respects they
are more favorably situated than we are,
there are others, and important ones too, in
which we have greatly the advantage over
them—for instance, a far more advantageous
line of communication from the Atlantic to
the Pacific can be established through our
country than through theirs ; indeed so
great is the superiority of our route, that
they never could compete with us for the
through traffic from Asia to Europe, which,
within a few years I trust, will pour
in a continuous stream through British territory from one ocean to the other. Sir,
in
support of these views, I trust I may be permitted to read an extract from an interesting
and instructive pamphlet by an hon.
member on my left ( Mr. MORRIS), in which
he quotes from the words of a distinguished
American statesman as follows:-
The route through British America is in some
respects preferable to that through our own territory. By the former, the distance
from Europe
to Asia is some thousand miles shorter than by
the latter. Passing close to Lake Superior, traversing the water-shed which divides
the streams
flowing towards the Arctic sea, from those which
have their exits southward, and crossing the
Rocky Mountains at an elevation of some three
thousand feet less than at the south pass, the
road could be here constructed with comparative
cheapness, and would open up a region abounding in valuable timber and other natural
products, and admirably suited to the growth of
grain and grazing. Having its Atlantic sea-port
at Halifax and its Pacific depot near Vancouver's
Island, it would inevitably draw to it the commerce of Europe, Asia and the United
States.
Thus British America, from a mere colonial dependency would assume a controlling rank
in the
world. To her other nations would be tributary ;
and in vain would the United States attempt to
be her rival, for we could never dispute with her
the possession of the Asiatic commerce, nor the
power which that commerce confers.
Sir, this is not the language of an enthusiast or a visionary, but the opinion of
one
perfectly acquainted with the subject, and
eminently capable of discussing it—one, too,
whose judgment was certainly not biased by
national prejudice. And again, Mr. SPEAKER,
on a more recent occasion we find the Premier of the United States, the Hon. Mr.
SEWARD, using the following language:-
Hitherto, in common with most of my countrymen, as I suppose, I have thought Canada—or
to
speak more accurately, British America—to be a
mere strip, lying north of the United States,
easily detachable from the parent state, but incapable of sustaining itself, and therefore
ultimately—nay, right soon—to be taken on by the
Federal union, without materially changing or
affecting its own condition or development. I
have dropt that opinion as a nation conceit.
I see in British North America, stretching as
it does across the continent from the shores of
Labrador and Newfoundland to the Pacific, and
occupying a considerable belt of the temperate
zone—traversed, equally with the United States,
by the lakes, and enjoying the magnificent shores
of the St. Lawrence, with its thousands of islands
in the river and gulf, a region grand enough for
the seat of a great empire.
Mr. SPEAKER, the great consideration with
me is how can we best preserve for ourselves and for our children the essence of
British institutions ; by what means can we
best prolong the connection which now so
happily exists between England and ourselves, with mutual advantage and with
equal satisfaction to both parties ; and how
can we best prepare, when the time comes,
as in the natural course of events it most
assuredly will, to assume the responsibility
of a separate and independent nationality ?
Sir, by uniting the scattered and now insignificant British Provinces under one general
government, we shall, in the first place,
consolidate and strengthen British feeling
and British influence on this continent. By
the adoption, on the part of the proposed
Federal Government and Parliament, of a
bold, enlightened and progressive policy,
British America may be pushed forward in
material wealth, in the numbers of her population and in general importance, to a
point
which will qualify her to take her place
among the nations of the earth, in a manner
and with a standing alike honorable to ourselves and creditable to the great country
under whose glorious flag we have been
sheltered, and by whose example we have
been stimulated, while prosecuting that
course of political studies which must in
920
time qualify us to commence a national
career of our own—as I would fain hope,
under the sway of a constitutional monarch
descended from the illustrious Sovereign
who now so worthily fills the British Throne.
But, sir, some honorable members object
to this union from the apprehension that it
will subject us to serious financial embarrassments. If the only effects of the union
were to be the increased extent of our territory, and the addition which the inhabitants
of the other provinces would make to the
number of our population, I should be inclined to admit the force of their reasoning
;
but surely no one can anticipate that the
Federal Parliament will be composed of men
incapable of appreciating their responsibilities, or without the capacity to deal
with
the important interests committed to their
charge. Mr. SPEAKER, no one thing has
done so much to attract emigration to the
United States as the great public works that
have been constantly going on in that country for the last five and twenty years.
We
hear much said about the superiority of
their climate and the other advantages which,
it is alleged, they enjoy in a greater degree
than we do ; but I can assure the House
that those advantages have been greatly
overestimated, and that such considerations
have had but little weight in the minds of
emigrants, compared with the knowledge of
the more important fact, that in that country
the demand for labor was always greater
than the supply, and that the emigrant arriving without a shilling in his pocket need
be under no apprehension about the maintenance of his family, knowing that he could
always find employment at rates of compensation sufficiently liberal to enable him
in a few years not only to secure a home
of his own, but to surround himself with
comforts which would have been far beyond his reach in his own country. Sir,
the construction of the Intercolonial Railway will afford employment to thousands
of laborers, it will open up vast tracts for
settlement, and render accessible an extensive region abounding in mineral wealth
and other natural resources of incalculable
value. Then, Mr. SPEAKER, the next great
public work that should be undertaken is
the improvement of the navigation of the
Ottawa, so as to render that magnificent
river the shortest, safest and most advantageous outlet to the ocean for the products
of the fertile and boundless west, with its
rapidly increasing millions. Mr. SPEAKER,
the expenditure which it would be necessary
to incur to render the Ottawa navigable for
seagoing ships, great as it would be positively,
would be insignificant when compared with
the extraordinary advantages which it would
confer upon the country by the thousands
whom it would attract during the progress
of the work, in the first place ; and, secondly,
by the immense manufacturing power which
it would place at our disposal, thereby
affording profitable employment for a dense
population, throughout a line of some three
hundred miles of country, the greater part
of which is now but a comparative wilderness ; for, considering the unrivalled water
power which would thus be secured along
the main line of communication between
the west and the commerce of Europe, it
is not too much to expect that that power
would attract the attention of men of
capital and enterprise, and that a succession
of mills and factories of every conceivable
description would soon grow up, along the
whole line, which would afford employment
for a numerous, industrious and valuable
population. And then, sir, there is that still
more important and magnificent project, the
Atlantic and Pacific Railway. All the best
authorities agree that a far better, shorter,
and cheaper line can be constructed through
British than through United States territory.
Mr. SPEAKER, it would be impossible to
over-estimate the advantages which any
country must derive from being possessed
of a line of communication destined to
become the highway from Europe to Asia.
Sir, the acquisition of this advantage alone
would be sufficient to justify us in advocating
this measure ; but when we reflect upon the
almost boundless extent of fertile agricultural territory through which this line
must
pass, the millions upon millions of human
beings which that territory is capable of
supporting—when we bear in mind that
by means of this union we shall not only
secure the control of a larger portion of the
world than is now under the sway of
any power on earth, but that, by the
adoption of such a policy as I have
suggested, our population may be more
than doubled within ten years, and that
though our liabilities will have increased, those liabilities will fall upon the
shoulders of so greatly augmented a population, that the burden to be borne by each
individual will be more likely to be deminished than increased—when we remember, sir,
that it will be in our power so to shape the
921
destinies of British America, that even the
census of 1871 may show that we possess a
population of from eight to ten millions. I
must confess, Mr. SPEAKER, that I cannot
understand how any hon. gentleman can
stand up here, and labor to perpetuate our present insignificance, by interposing
obstacles
to the carrying out of the only really great
or statesmanlike idea which has ever been
brought under the consideration of a Canadian Parliament. And now, sir, though I have
already trespassed too long upon the patience
of hen. members, I must crave their indulgence a moment longer, while touching
briefly upon the subject of defence. Mr.
SPEAKER, without discussing the question
of how much or how little we ought to contribute towards the defence of the Empire,
in a war with any other nation than the
United States, I assume that every true
Canadian, whether of French or British
origin, will be prepared to resist the invasion
of his native soil; and if I am right in this,
I take it, all we have to do is to inform the
home Government that we are determined
—not to contribute so much in men, and so
much in money, to the defence of Canada,
but that we are resolved—that every man
and every farthing we can control shall be
sacrificed before we submit to the power of
our republican neighbors, and that all we
ask of England is to pursue a course becoming the glory of her ancient renown. That
she will do this, sir, we have no reason to
doubt; but I regret to observe that Colonel
JERVOIB, in his report upon the subject of
fortifications, seems altogether to have ignored the Western Peninsula, for he makes
no mention of any point west of Hamilton
as capable of being fortified, from which I
infer he must have come to the conclusion
that in the event of war with the United
States, it would be impossible for us to
hold the country above the head of Lake
Ontario. Sir, this may be the opinion
of that gallant officer, and it may be correct; but, as the representative of the
most exposed portion of the western
frontier, I am bound at least to say that
the peeple of that part of the country
would be most unwilling to admit that
they are less able now to hold their own
than their fathers were in 1812. Mr.
SPEAKER, our chief danger lies in the possibility of a reunion with the North and
South, upon the basis of the Monroe doctrine ; for unhappily the course pursued by
England, so far from conciliating either
party, has only on endered feelings of hostility in the min 5 of the people of both
sections; and for the belligerents to combine
their united forces against a common enemy,
and that enemy one whom they both hate
as intensely as they do England, would be
an event which could excite no surprise in
the minds of any one acquainted with the
feeling which prevails among the masses of
republican America. Sir, talking of fortifications and defence, no force we can bring
into the field, no line of forts we can
build, nor, indeed, any course that could be
adopted, would so effectually protect us,
so absolutely guarantee the inviolability of
our soil as the recognition of the independence of the Southern States by Great Britain;
and when the proposed deputation
from this Government reaches England, I
trust they will feel it to be their duty
strongly to urge the consideration of this
fact upon Her Majesty's Government; for
with a powerful British fleet upon their
coast, a formidable, warlike and bitterly
hostile nation bordering them upon the
South, and some half million well armed and
resolute Canadians in their front, depend
upon it, Mr. SPEAKER, we need be under
no apprehension of war's alarms. And new,
sir, it only remains for me to thank honorable
members for the patient hearing they have
accorded me, and to express a hepe that
the deputation to England will not swerve
from the course they have informed us they
intended to pursue, in consequence of anything that has transpired in any of the other
provinces, but that they will impress upon
the home Government the fact that four-
fifths of the people of British America are
represented by this House, which sustains the
scheme of union by an overwhelming majority ; that they will urge the Imperial Ministry
to exert all the influence they can command
in a constitutional manner, to induce the
people of the Lower Provinces to reconsider
their recent course, and to acquiesce in the
project agreed upon by the Quebec Conference as the basis of an arrangement by
which a balance of power may be established
on this continent, the spread of republicanism checked, and our own immediate
prosPerity and future influence insured to
such an extent as to secure for us a higher
degree of consideration while we retain a
colonial position, and qualify us hereafter to
take our place among the family of nations,
still animated by sentiments of reverence
for the great people under whose fostering
922
care we have attained our majority, and with
whom, I trust, we shall always continue to
maintain the closest alliance. (Cheers)
MR. DUFRESNE (Montcalm)—Mr.
SPEAKER, in rising at this moment to express
my humble opinion on the merits of the resolutions now under discussion by this House,
I do not intend to follow the formula or preamble hitherto invariably adopted, by
saying
that I approach the subject with fear and
trembling. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But
though I do not approach the question with
anxiety and hesitation, it is not that I feel
myself more competent than others for the
treatment of it ; it is simply for the good
reason that I rely upon the indulgence of this
House. We all know how difficult it is for
a person who is not an habitual public speaker,
or a member of the legal profession, to express himself with facility before a distinguished
and highly educated body of men
such as I now have the honor to address. I
look upon the resolutions submitted to us as
expressing the sentiments of the people,
through their constitutional organ the Legislature. We ask our Sovereign and the Imperial
authorities to unite, by means of a
Federal union, all these Provinces of British
North America. In examining this question,
and in order to express more clearly and fully
my opinion of these resolutions, I may say
that I accept them for many reasons, but
chiefly as a means of obtaining the repeal of
the present legislative union of Canada, and
securing a peaceable settlement of our sectional difficulties. I accept them, in the
second place, as a means of obtaining for
Lower Canada the absolute and exclusive
control of her own affairs. I accept them,
thirdly, as a means of perpetuating French-
Canadian nationality in this country. I accept them, fourthly, as a more effectual
means
of cementing our connection with the Mother
Country, and avoiding annexation to the
United States. I accept them, fifthly and
lastly, as a means of administering the affairs
of the country with greater economy. Such
are my reasons for accepting the Confederation
scheme submitted to us by the Government.
(Hear, hear.) I shall not undertake to discuss the merits of all the resolutions,
for the
honorable gentlemen who have already spoken
have ably and fully developed the merits of
the whole question ; and, besides, if I may
dare say it without being thought ridiculous,
I have undergone a heavy loss—I have, in
fact, been plundered. The honorable member
for Vaudreuil (Mr. HARWOOD) is the offender
—(laughter)—but I cannot complain much
of this, for the theft has turned to the advantage of the House. What he has stolen
from
me is the history of the Helvetic and Germanic Confederations ; but inasmuch as he
has set forth the facts in a far more able
manner than I myself could have done it, and
as the House has been a gainer thereby, I
must endeavor to practise a proper degree of
resignation under my own heavy affliction.
(Hear, hear.) I intended. to have said something on the Helvetic and Germanic Confederations,
but as I have been thus despoiled,
and as the honorable member for Vaudreuil
has treated the subject so powerfully, I shall
refrain from entering into the matter. And
here again the House will be the gainer.
( Laughter.) As the question of Confederation
itself has already been fully treated with far
more ability than my own feeble powers would
enable me to bring to bear upon the discussion, I will confine myself to answering
certain
statements made by honorable members of the
Liberal party
par excellence. Contrary to
the opinions of the Church, or rather of the
Head of the Church, who declares that the
name Liberal cannot be allied with the doctrine of the Church, we have seen the extreme
Liberals coming forward in this House as the
champions of the Church and of its ministers.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The honorable
member for Richelieu gave us in pompous
terms a sketch of the benefits derived from
the union of the Canadas. I must say that I
listened to him with no little astonishment,
for it was the first time I ever heard a democrat—a demagogue—lauding the union and
the public men whom the country has, since
the union, placed at the head of affairs.
(Hear, hear.) He told us that we had had
statesmen who succeeded in securing a triumph
for the rights of Lower Canada—men who
protected our interests and caused us to advance in the path of progress. " We see
them in their works," he says—" see the progress the country has made under the union
;
look at our primary-school system and our
university system ; look at the establishment
of our ocean line of steamers, bearing our
products to Europe, and returning to us
freighted with the wealth of every foreign
country ! See that magnificent work, the
Grand Trunk Railway, which is without a
parallel in the world ! See our splendid
canals, the finest works of the kind in existence." Really, Mr. SPEAKER, I am utterly
923
astounded at these laudations falling from the
lips of the honorable member for Richelieu,
and more especially at his praise of the Grand
Trunk Railway ; and I feel certain that every
honorable member who heard his speech must
have been delighted with that portion of it.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) And while it
will probably be admitted that other portions
of that speech might well have been omitted,
it is surely a good thing that the honorable
member should have discovered at last that
the statesmen of his country in his own day
had done their duty . (Hear, hear.)
MR. DUFRESNE—The honorable member says that they might have done better
still ; but that was not what he said in his
speech, since he declared that they were men
of the very highest order of merit, and deserved the greatest possible praise for
the
works and improvements they had carried out.
Now this is indeed peculiarly gratifying to one
in my position, after contending for years
with the party of the honorable member
for Richelieu, and opposing them because
they constantly strove to excite popular prejudice against all improvement and every
great undertaking. I shall have occasion to
exhibit to the House the means resorted to
by that party, in order to prejudice the people against every man who labored in behalf
of
real progress, and I shall endeavor to contrast the prejudices they appealed to ten
years
ago with those they are now striving to excite. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member
for Richelieu also stated that since the union
we had advanced the settlement of our townships, and that this is why he wishes us
to
remain as we are at present. He says the
union has not completed its work. He is
right, only it is unfortunate that he and his
party should not have succeeded in making
that discovery a few years ago ; it is unfortunate that they should only make that
discovery now, when they themselves and the
whole people are convinced that a change in
the Constitution is unavoidably necessaryfor we French-Canadians, a minority in the
country, cannot dictate to the majority.
(Hear, hear.) I shall not endeavor to excite
popular prejudices, as the honorable member
for Richelieu has done. I do not desire to
be too severe with the honorable member, or
to condemn him too strongly ; for his mode
of treating this question may be simply the
result of some peculiarity of mental organization ; I merely wish to show that his
views
as to the dangers of the future are not a whit
more sound than the views upon which he
must have acted during the past. He has
exhausted the library of Parliament in order
to show, in black and white, that the people
of England are the greatest oppressors on the
face of the earth—(hear, hear, and laughter)
—in order to demonstrate a fact which is not
true, for he has cited to us nothing beyond
the mere views of certain historians, whose
opinions only go for what they are worth.
(Hear, hear) It is not my purpose to undertake the defence of a people who have no
need of me to defend them, nor to avenge
the insults offered them by the honorable
member ; but I must say that I repudiate all
he has said against the English people and
against England, against the institutions
and government of that country, and against
her system of colonial administration. (Hear,
hear.) What good can result from thus ransacking history in order to hold up a single
page, the record of an evil deed ? What
was the condition of public manners among
nations at the period of the events he
has spoken of, connected with Acadia ?
Why bring up that matter now ? What
good can it do ? Does the honorable member desire to provoke the prejudices of a sensitive
and powerful nation against us ? Does
he want to bring about the ruin of this
country ? The honorable member, in his
youth and inexperience, has rendered us a
very questionable service. (Hear, hear.) He
rakes up an event which occurred one hundred years ago, and taunts a conquering nation
with her mode of dealing with the vanquished ! Surely this is a strange way of
serving his fellow-countrymen—of laboring
to promote their welfare and interests ! Am
I not right in saying that the honorable member has displayed an utter want of tact
and
experience ? I trust, for the honorable member's own sake, that the charge of inexperience
is the heaviest charge to which he may
be held amenable ; for I cannot think it possible that he was in any way actuated
by
malicious motives. (Hear, hear.) But, Mr.
SPEAKER, the honorable member tells us that
"the union has not yet done its work." Is
he not aware that the population of Upper
Canada—that the British population vastly
outnumber our own population in the province ? What then does he mean ? Can it
be that he really thinks because the union
has not finished its work, that it ought to be
preserved, and that we ought to remain as
we are ? I cannot be convinced that he is so
924
completely devoid of information and judgment as really to desire that we should remain
as we are. (Hear, and laughter.) Does he not
perceive that if the present union be continued, the Upper Canada members will unite
together as one man, in order to carry representation based upon population in the
Legislature? Notwithstanding the facts we have
witnessed during the past few years; notwithstanding that he is aware that three-fourths
of the Upper Canadian members were sent here
by their electors in order to secure representation based upon population, he says
the union
has not done its work, and we must remain as
we are! No, I cannot, I repeat, believe him
to be sincere in that. He knows that we cannot remain as we are. We are in favor of
Confederation, not because we believe it to be
the very best possible remedy for our evils,
but because we are convinced of the necessity
of providing a remedy for our sectional difficulties. The honorable member for Richelieu
may play the alarmist as loudly as he likes.
I can assure him that the vast majority of his
fellow-countrymen are too intelligent to be deceived. They know full well that the
minority
cannot control the majority. The duty of the
minority is to better their position as far as
possible, but they cannot pretend to dictate to
the majority—more especially when that majority is composed, if we are to believe
the honorable member for Richelieu, of men who delight in oppressing others. (Hear,
hear.)
The speech of the honorable member for
Richelieu is the speech of a mere youth, and
is devoid of weight and importance; but it is
a speech which would have been extremely
injurious to the best interests of Lower Canada, had it emanated from a man possessing
a
wider reputation or greater importance than
that honorable gentleman enjoys. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) He also stated that
" the cry of representation based upon population had been used in Upper Canada merely
for the purpose of securing the success of
party leaders, of enabling them to get into
power." But we know that commanders are
leaders of men ; that commanders are to be
dreaded when they have followers at their
back ; and the Upper Canada leaders surely
do not lack followers. The honorable member
for Richelieu went on to say :—" But we are
in a good position ! The liberals passed the
Separate School Bill! " I believe he was in
the House when the Separate School Bill was
passed ; but if he was not present, he may be
somewhat excusable for that statement. I
ask the honorable member how many liberals
—how many supporters of the Government of
the day voted for the Separate School Bill?
If he did not know when he spoke, it would
have been better for him to have kept silent
on that point, and not to have referred to the
matter at all.
MR. PERRAULT—It was the MACDONALD-DORION Government that passed the
measure.
MR. DUFRESNE—No. It was not the
Government that introduced the measure, and
carried it in the House; it was an independent member of this House—Mr. SCOTT, of
Ottawa—who introduced the bill. The Government of the day supported the measure,
but only two of their Upper Canada supporters voted for it, and one of the two, the
honorable member for South Wentworth
(Mr. RYMAL), did not do so until I
had called upon him to give his vote, and
forced him to record it. (Hear, hear.) These
are the facts as they occurred, and they are
proof positive that liberalism is no better
here than elsewhere. (Hear, hear.) The
honorable member for Richelieu loudly
accuses the majority of servility and venality.
There was a time when he spoke in a different
tone, when he himself formed part of the
majority, and when he availed himself of that
position to make a little trip to the Saguenay at
the expense of the Government, and to write
a little romance afterwards. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) For my part, Mr. SPEAKER,
as one of the majority at present, I have yet
to learn when and in what I have been servile
towards my friends in the Government ; nor
am I aware how or when the majority have
evinced venality, as the honorable member
asserts. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member for Richelieu has himself experienced
the
mode in which a majority evinced venality,
and the lesson has evidently not been lost
upon him. (Hear, hear.) The honorable
member says—" We have a magnificent public domain in Lower Canada; we have an immense
quantity of land, while Upper Canada
has none left ; we can establish magnificent
settlements, and increase our population. Let
us remain as we are under the union." Now,
for my part, I assert that for that very reason
we ought to accept Confederation in order
that we may get the complete control of that
noble domain, instead of holding it only in
common with Upper Canada. He gives us a
grand outline of all we could do with that
splendid domain, and then says he does not
925
care to have possession of it. Well, for my
part I do desire to have possession of it.
The honorable member also said that we are
to have direct taxation under Confederation,
and that the local governments are to be mere
municipal councils. I shall refer presently to
the question of direct taxes ; but I must say
that municipalities having at their disposal
millions of acres of land, will be something
new in the way of " mere municipalities." I
rather think the honorable member does not
quite do justice to the importance of the
functions of the local governments. (Hear,
hear.) The honorable member compares the
local governments to municipalities. Now, I
find that the Local Government of Lower
Canada will have a tolerably wide range of
matters to deal with ; for besides the public
lands, it is also to have control of the following:-
Direct taxation, and in New Brunswick the imposition of duties on the export of timber,
logs,
masts, spars, deals and sawn lumber ; and in Nova
Scotia, of coals and other minerals.
I call the attention of honorable members of
this House to these provisions, and I will say
a few words with reference to each provision
in its turn. If some do not understand their
importance, others will. " Direct taxation."I know that even your ultra democrat will
cry
out—" But, for my part, I prefer having the
right to tax myself to leaving the power in the
hands of others, for I never will use the right,
and others might perhaps enforce it. I quote
again:-
Borrowing money on the credit of the province.
The establishment and tenure of local offices,
and the appointment and payment of local Officers.
Agriculture.
Immigration.
Education; saving the rights and privileges
which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both
Canadas may possess as to their denominational
schools, at the time when the union goes into
operation.
As to education, the honorable member for
Richelieu has eulogised our system of education; but do those honorable members who
cry out so loudly against Confederation take
a very deep interest in the education of our
youth? Are they really anxious that that
education should be in accordance with our
principles, and the principles they themselves
have advocated since they have constituted
themselves the defenders of the altar and the
throne ? (Laughter.) We are to have the
control of the public laws and of education,
and yet are to be a mere municipality ! Emigration and colonization are mere trifles—the
functions of a mere municipality ! (Laughter.) Be it so, but hereafter we shall be
very
glad to enjoy all this:-
The sale and management of public lands, excepting lands belonging to the General
Government.
Sea coast and inland fisheries.
The establishment, maintenance and management of penitentiaries, and of public and
reformatory prisons.
The establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities and
eleemosynary institutions.
Municipal institutions.
Shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer and other licenses.
Local works.
The incorporation of private or local companies, except such as relate to matters
assigned to
the General Parliament.
Property and civil rights, excepting those portions thereof assigned to the General
Parliament.
Inflicting punishment by fine, penalties, imprisonment or otherwise, for the breach
of laws
passed in relation to any subject within their jurisdiction.
The administration of justice, including the
constitution, maintenance and organization of the
courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and
including also the procedure in civil matters.
And generally all matters of a private or local
nature, not assigned to the General Parliament.
Now, I call the attention of hon. members of
this House to the powers here granted to the
local governments, and which would consequently be granted to us in Lower Canada.
When we opposed representation based upon
population, was it because we feared that the
majority would pass a tariff weighing unequally on the two sections of the province
?
Was it because we feared they would erect
no more light-houses in the Gulf or elsewhere ?
Was it because we feared that Upper Canada, by
means of its majority, would establish a greater number of post-offices, or increase
the rates
of postage on letters ? No, Mr. SPEAKER, it
was not for any of these reasons ; but it was
because we properly and rightly feared that
when Upper Canada obtained a larger number of representatives in the Legislature than
Lower Canada, they would invade our rights
and endanger all that we hold most dear.
That is what we feared. (Hear, hear.) And
at the very moment when the Government
presents a measure securing the safety of all
our rights and institutions, with guarantees
for the minority, honorable members declare
that the union must be maintained, even with
926
representation based upon population. No,
they are not sincere in this ; it is a mere subterfuge on their part, for they cannot
propose
anything to the country in place of the Government project. (Hear, hear) The Opposition
attempt to shew that a Federal union
and a Legislative union are the same thing,
but the whole world knows that the two kinds
of union are not in any way alike. In a Federal union the Legislature cannot go beyond
the rights and powers assigned to it, whereas
in a Legislative union it is vested with all
power—it is sovereign. And is it to be supposed that under a legislative union, with
representation based upon population, the majority would refrain from encroaching
on our
rights, our institutions, and all that we value
as important for our well-being ?
MR. DUFRESNE—The hon. member distinctly sees the mote in his neighbor's eye,
but he cannot in any way discover the beam
in his own ! He forgets that he wearied this
House for five or six hours, reading passages
from history calculated to excite prejudice
against a nation which is in a majority both
here and elsewhere. I can only account for
his having forgotten his own speech so soon,
by taking it for granted that the honorable
member did not himself make the research
required in order to swell it up to its vast dimensions, for it was nothing but a
mass of
scraps with which he wearied the House
during five long hours. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) I do not wish to be severe, but I
trust the hon. member will pay attention to
the remarks I now desire to make. He asserted, on the floor of this House, that the
liberals had struggled to obtain responsible
government. If he said that of the men who
really did do so, it would be all very well ; but
if he asserts it of those who form his own
party, he is greatly in error ; for we all know
that that party has always protested against
the union and against responsible government. (Hear, hear.) That party declared,
at elections and elsewhere, on every occasion,
that responsible government was a deception
and a snare—an insult cast in our teeth by
England. (Hear, hear.) That has been the
cry of his political party ever since we obtained responsible government. How, then,
can he have the hardihood to assert that we
owe it to them? (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member for Richelieu also said that the clergy
were wrong in 1837, and that they are wrong
now in supporting the Government.
MR. DUFRESNE—I made a note of it at
the time, as I did of his remark, that "even
in the episcopacy there were men of talent"
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He thought
that " the bishops themselves might possess
talent."
MR. DUFRESNE—Let the honorable
member retract his words, and I shall be quite
satisfied.
Mr. PERRAULT—You have completely
distorted the meaning of what I said.
MR. DUFRESNE —The honorable member stated that the clergy were wrong in
1837 ; that' they are wrong now ; and
that there were men of talent even among the
bishops.
MR. PERRAULT—Will the honorable
gentleman allow me to say a word in explanation, and in order to set him right ?
MR. DUFRESNE—With pleasure. I do
not wish to take advantage of the honorable
member's blunder, and his words certainly
require explanation.
MR. PERRAULT—I have often heard
words spoken in this House misquoted, but I
must say I have never heard that species of
tactics carried to such excess as it has been
in this instance, with regard to myself, by the
honorable member for Montcalm. (Hear,
hear, from the Opposition.) What I said
with reference to the episcopacy and the men
of talent who adorn it, was this—I stated
that with our present system of public instruction in our rural districts, every child
is
enabled to receive such an education as will
fit him to aspire to the highest position in the
country, and to the highest rank in social
life. I then added, in proof of my assertion,
that we now see in the highest ranks in
society men belonging to humble country
families, whose parents possessed neither the
fortune nor the influence necessary to push
their children forward, and that they had succeeded only through their own talents,
their industry, and the advantages afforded by
our system of education. I also said, in
proof of my assertion, that the children of the
rural population had attained seats on the
judicial and ministerial benches, and even
among the episcopacy. Now, any one who
understands the obvious meaning of words
will admit that it is impossible to interpret
that sentence as an expression of astonishment
that there should be men of talent in the episcopacy, as the honorable member makes
a
pretence of doing. On the contrary, by
reserving the most forcible expression to the
927
last, when I said that even in the ranks of
the episcopacy are to be found the sons of
farmers who advanced themselves by their own
talents, I wished to shew that even the episcopal chair, the first and most elevated
position in our country, was within the reach
of our men of talent, thanks to our system of
education, which enables all to compete for the
highest dignities. And I defy any one capable of understanding the sense and use of
words, to deduce any other meaning from my
remarks, unless it be done with the set purpose
of foisting upon me words I never used.
(Hear, hear.)
MR. DUFRESNE—I have allowed the
honorable member for Richelieu to explain
what he said, or wished to say, but he had no
right to conclude with an unjust insinuation.
However, I am not greatly surprised, for I
am aware that it is the habit of his party,
and that those honorable gentlemen never lose
an opportunity of insulting those who differ
from them in their opinions. (Hear, hear.)
A few days ago, when I begged leave to interrupt the honorable member for Richelieu,
he
consented courteously, and in replying to my
remark—which was not of an insulting nature
—he told me that he was not like me, for my
speeches and my works were as yet things of
the future. It was quite true, though it is
not always well to speak the whole truth,
nor, in fact, to hear it. (Laughter) But I
must tell him that in my humble position,
not being fully informed of all that takes
place in the world, I have neither the means
nor the leisure to bring forth works of such
vast importance as those of the honorable
member. I content myself with coming here
to discharge my duty towards my constituents,
and I do it myself. I do not employ an official in making researches in the library
to
enable me to make long speeches. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) I do not require a paid
employé of the Government to prepare my
speeches ; and, moreover, I have not as yet
found means to live at the expense of the
Government. And if my speeches and works
are as yet things of the future, I am not, at
all events, in the habit of supporting myself,
like the honorable member for Richelieu, by
drawing upon the public chest, with or without any just claim or right. (Hear, hear.)
I have now done with the honorable member
for Richelieu. I have a word to say to the
honorable member for the county of Bagot.
Though his speech was not an excessively
brilliant one, yet he did not weary the House
like the honorable member for Richelieu. He
told us that we did not represent the sentiments of our electors, but that there was
no
danger of our voting for an appeal to the people on the question of Confederation,
because
the people are so strongly opposed to the project that the Government dare not submit
it
for their approval. He was not the first to
make the assertion, and I shall refer to the
point presently. He then told the Government " that it never was their intention to
have the question of Confederation seriously
discussed, and that they did not desire a discussion of their scheme. But how did
the
honorable member expect to be believed?
Was not the Government plan laid before the
House at the commencement of the sessionseven weeks ago ? Have not the Government
and their friends done everything in their
power to promote the discussion of the question, while honorable gentlemen opposite
were
unwilling to do so, and constantly strove to
prevent its discussion ? What was their
motive in so acting ? The honorable member
for Bagot was, therefore, wrong in stating
that the Government did not desire a discussion, and that they stifled discussion
; for it
is perfectly clear that the Opposition did not
desire it, and persistently refused it. (Hear,
hear.) The honorable member for Bagot is
not in his seat ; but when he returns I shall
have a few words to say in reply to certain
points in his speech. The honorable member
for Drummond and Arthabaska (Mr. J. B. E.
DORION) also told us that the movement
throughout the country is so strong that it
cannot be resisted ; that the people are discontented, and that the consequences of
that
discontent will be highly disastrous. He spoke
of the vast number of petitions presented to the
House against Confederation, in order to shew
that the people are opposed to it. Well, if
all the honorable members of this House who
sent petitions to their counties for signature
have followed the same course as the honorable member himself, it is not surprising
that
they should be numerously signed, for we all
remember the honorable member's letter,
which was read in this House a few days ago
by the Honorable Attorney General for Lower
Canada (Hon. Mr. CARTIER). There can be
no two opinions as to the character of that
document. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The
House will bear in mind that he wrote to the
wardens of his county, directing them to get
the petitions he forwarded signed by the men,
the women, and the children! (Laughter)
And when his letter was read in this House,
instead of blushing with shame and confusion,
928
the honorable member. said he gloried in having written it! "It was an energetic step,"
said he, " and I am not ashamed of it."
(Laughter.) I do not desire to make any
insulting remarks, nor to indulge in painful
comparisons ; but it must be remembered
that it is not the hardened criminal that
blushes for his evil deeds ; the rogue that
blushes may still mend his ways but those
who have lost the power of blushing are in
final impenitenee. {Langhter.) The honorable member told us of the astonishing progress
of the United States, in spite of the war
and the enormous expenses it has entailed ;
and he told us that in five years from the
present time New York will have paid off its
debt ; then why not unite ourselves with the
State of New York ? He did not say all
that, but nearly all ; it is the natural conclusion to be drawn from his speech. He
tells
us that the people are discontented, and that
they will rise up in rebellion if we force Confederation on them. But what means does
he employ in order to excite the prejudices of
the people ? We may judge of the means he
resorts to in this instance by those he employed in former days to prejudice the people
against a measure favorable to their own interests, but unjust in some of its provisions,
involving the spoliation of a particular class
in society—I speak of the abolition of the
Seigniorial Tenure. Were it not for the
abolition of the Seigniorial Tenure, the
seigniors would now be extremely wealthy.
The effect, then, of that law was to despoil
the seigniors for the benefit of the peoplewhom the honorable member for Drummond
and Arthabaska pretends to represent. But,
Mr. SPEAKER, how did the honorable member
act at the time ? How did he attempt to
deceive the people, and excite prejudices
against that measure ? I have endeavored to
find the pamphlet written by the honorable
member at the time, but it is not to be found
in the library of Parliament—it has disappeared. However, the democratic journals
of that period are still forthcoming, and as
they published a portion of the honorable
member's pamphlet, I will read a few passages, in order to shew what a pot pourri
it
was. The means then used succeeded so well
with the people, that an attempt will probably
be made to resort to similar expedients now
against Confederation. The people, convinced of the truth of what the hon. member
wrote against the seigniors and against the
Government, were incensed against the " traitors," and in the county of Lotbiniere
they
prevented the commissioners charged with
the preparation of the schedules from proceeding with their duties during a certain
period. It is well to bear in mind the existence of these documents, now that our
adversaries are loading us with abuse ; and it is
time the people should know who are their
friends and who are the "traitors." (Hear,
hear.)
MR. DUFRESNE—I trust I may be pardoned if I have spoken too strongly , but I feel
so strongly on these matters that I must reply
to the statements made. (Hear, hear.) Well,
here is the treatment awarded at the time to
the men who introduced the measure for the
abolition of the Seigniorial Tenure—a measure
exclusively in the interest of the people:-
SEIGNIORIAL TENURE.—PAY, WRETCHED PEOPLE ! PAY ! The people will learn properly to
appreciate the tendency of our political institutions
only by the evil effects that must result from
them, and the day will come when the disease
will work its own cure.
This is a dark day, but the hour is coming when
light shall succeed to darkness.
Such were the writings then distributed
amongst the people.
MR. DUFRESNE—Of course, I do not
expect to see the honorable member exhibit
any sense of shame ; he has got beyond that.
He would find it as difficult to blush as it
would be for a negro to turn pale. (Laughter.)
I quote again:-
TO THE CANADIAN PEOPLE—People! I am one
of your sons ; JEAN BAPTISTE, I am one of your
brothers. When a brother does you a wrong, I
feel that wrong ; when you pay, I pay ; when you
are struck, I feel the blow ; when you are brought
low, I feel myself abased ; when you suffer, I
suffer ; when you moan, I moan ; when you weep,
I weep. [Laughter.] When anything good betides you, I rejoice at it ; when you prosper,
I am
happy ; when you laugh, I laugh ; when you sing,
I sing. [Laughter.]
People! Here I am ; look at me from head to
foot. A simple rustic, living in the midst of you,
I desire to render you a service. I ask but one
favor—that you will read the following pages. I
seek no reward, for if I can only make you understand your position and induce you
to claim the
restoration of your violated rights, to bless what
is good and curse what is evil, I shall deem myself fully rewarded. [Prolonged cheers
and
laughter.]
" Yes, take the cup and drink the poison to
the very dregs," were the words of a democrat
929
and demagogue. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
In these evil days, when political prostitution
holds the place of civic virtue, when feebleness
and sluggishness hold the place of courage and
action, when a flood of demoralization rushes
forth from the very fountain head of power—put
on the armor of patience, be of good heart, be
vigilant and doubly vigilant, so that you may escape far worse evils. Your son,
LE FRERE DE JEAN BAPTISTE.
MR. J. B. E. DORION—That is as true
now as it was ten years ago. (Hear, hear,
from the Opposition.)
MR. DUFRESNE—I shall not read the
whole of it, for it is too long ; but I will read
another short extract:—
Pay ; for your most sacred rights are of no
weight against the privileges, extortions and brigandage of which you have so long
been made
the victims by the seigniors. Pay ; for MIGHT IS
RIGHT, and justice ceased to prevail in Parliament
on the 15th December, 1854. ****
Then we shall have the rehearsal of the legal
farce which is to be played, with a view of convincing Jean Baptiste that he is to
get justice
done him. The fourteen high judges of Lower
Canada will form a special court to decide questions in dispute between the seignior
and the censitaire. If they do not agree, an appeal may be
had to England. The dissent of a single judge
will suffice to cause the matter to be referred to
England. Is not this also an admirable arrangement, more especially when it is borne
in mind
that the judges, who are, in some cases, themselves seigniors, may act as judges in
their own
cause ? What a mockery !
The whole pamphlet is in the same style. I
do not desire to occupy the House any longer
with it, for I have quoted enough to show
how the demagogues acted ten years ago
with reference to a measure of such importance to the country. When the Government
presented a measure for the despoiling
of the seigniors, and voted an enormous sum
for the redemption of the Seigniorial dues,
that was the incendiary and dishonest language in which the people were addresed.
And it is by the use of similar language that
an attempt is now made to excite popular
prejudice against the Government, when they
present a measure giving to Lower Canada
the full and complete control of her institutions, of her public lands and of education.
(Hear, hear.) It is by means of similar incendiary pamphlets that the attempt is now
made to excite the feelings of the people
against those who are working in behalf of
the interests of their fellow-courytrymen.
(Hear, hear.)
MR. J. B. E. DORION—Will the honorable member for Montcalm allow me to say a
few words ? I merely desire to state that I
am not ashamed of what I wrote at that
time, and that so defective was his great
Seigniorial law when I wrote that document,
that it took five years to amend it into anything like proper shape.
MR. DUFRESNE—It is true, nevertheless, that the first law took the burthen of
the Seigniorial Tenure off the shoulders of the
censitaires, and from that moment the seigniors were despoiled of their rights for the
benefit of the censitaires. I admit that the
bill was defective, and in fact I voted against
the Act of 1854 ; but I did not act like the
honorable member, and my only object was
to compel the Government to do better. The
honorable member may say what he likes—I
maintain that the demagogues did everything
in their power to ruin us, in connectioh with
that question, and they are doing the very
same thing now as regards Confederation.
(Hear, hear.) We French-Canadians form
to-day but one-third of the population, and
despite the progress we have made under the
union, any man of sense who reflects on the
position we now occupy, must admit that we
ought to be delighted to accept the scheme of
Confederation, since it will give us the control of our system of education, our institutions,
and all the interests of Lower Canada.
(Hear, hear.) I have made a note with reference to the speech of one of my friends
in
this House—the hon. member for Beauce
(Mr. TASCHEREAU). I was really surprised
to hear him express himself as he did with
reference to this question of Confederation.
I am quite sure he was sincere ; but I must
say I think he might have expressed his own
opinions and refrained from adopting the
false arguments in vogue on the other side
of this House. (Hear, hear.) I feel that
with a friend one must not be severe. Between the honorable members for Drummond
and Arthabaska and Richelieu, and myself,
there need be no such reticence of expression ;
but with the hon. member for Beauce it is quite
a different matter. He told us that Confederation would give the death-blow to our
nationality ; but how can he possibly think so ?
I can easily understand such arguments being
used by honorable gentlemen opposite, because
they are in the habit of distorting facts ; but
I am pained to see the honorable member for
Beauce resort to such tactics, for I am convinced that the legislative scparation
about to
take place under Confederation, cannot fail
930
to have the effect of restoring French-Canadian nationality to the position it oocupied
previous to the union, coupled, moreover,
with all the improvements since effected.
(Hear, hear.) I do not desire to occupy
the time of the House any longer ; but as I
have still a brief extract or two to read, I
trust I may be permitted to say a few words
more. (Cries of " Go on," "go on.") The honorable members opposite reverence as their
special apostles and patrons, LOUIS BLANC,
CONSIDÉRANT, BLANQUI, &c., &c. Now,
as to BLANQUI, I shall quote his own
words to shew what his principles are. His
sentiments are not very edifying, but it is
necessary to read them in order that we may
be enabled to judge of the disciples from the
teaching of their masters. I quote:-
The people planted the red flag on the barricades of 1848. Let no one seek to scout
it down.
It was red solely with the generous blood shed by
the people and by the national guards ; it floats
wide spread over Paris ; it must be upheld. The
victorious people will not remove their flag.
I shall not quote anything from LOUIS
BLANC, who is well known to the Democrats ;
the following passage is from CONSIDÉRANT:-
"Duty, says this singular apostle, comes from
men, and attraction comes from God. Now,
attraction is the free tendency of our passions.
Every attraction is a thing natural, legitimate,
and to which it is impious to resist. To yield to
one's attractions is true wisdom, for the passions
are like a fixed compass which God has placed
within us.
A free run then to your passions! The impulse comes from God! (Laughter) Such
are the doctrines of the democrats, the great
leaders of our demagogues. I now quote
FOURRIER:-
All the passions of our nature are holy, and
good: they are like the notes in music, each one
as its special value.
The passions, then, are to be man's guides.
Good or bad, it is all one. (Laughter.)
These are the principles of the men who have
taken religion under their protection. (Laughter.) I would beg of them not to degrade
the sacred name of religion, by using it as a
political engine ; not to drag the ministers of
the gospel through the mire. The other day
your cry was, "Let them remain in the
vestry ;" why, then, do you drag them forth ?
They know our opinions, and they do not
need you to defend or protect them. (Hear,
hear.) I say, moreover, to the honorable
members opposite—show yourselves French-
Canadians in earnest, and as your country
requires your assistance and that of all its
children to rescue it from its dificulties,
give a helping hand to those who are working
in the good cause. The ship is in danger ;
join hand in hand with the party which
desires to save our nationality and our institutions ; unite with us for the safety
of our language, our laws, and all that we hold dear. I am
aware that a famous demagogue, next to VOLTAIRE, the chief promoter of the French
Revolution, used these words at a public
meeting:-
When the last of the GRACCHI was expiring, he
cast a handful of dust towards heaven, and from
that dust was born MARIUS—MARIUS who earned
his greatness less by defeating the Cimbri, than
by driving the aristocracy out of Rome.
That was the language of a great demagogue,
a great orator, a great citizen—of a man who
might have been great in every way, but who
brought his country to a sad position.
Attempts have often been made to blacken
the reputation of the Hon. Attorney General
for Lower Canada, and to depreciate the fruits
of his labors ; for my part I cannot entertain
a doubt but that posterity will yet say that the
Hon. Attorney General for Lower Canada
was great by his works, great by the codification of the laws, great by the abolition
of the
Seigniorial Tenure, and great, above all, in
that he overcame and routed the demagogues.
(Cheers)
MR. DUFRESNE—As I now see the honorable member for Bagot in his place, I desire to make a few
remarks in English, with
reference to his speech. [Mr. DUFRESNE
having hitherto spoken in French.] The
honorable member for Bagot stated to us in
this House:-
You are robbing Lower Canada of $500,000,
and for what ? To give it to Upper Canada.
Upper Canada will vote almost unanimously for
this scheme of Confederation, because you rob
Lower Canada of this amount for its benefit.
And how so ? Because there are only $100,000
due for public lands in Lower Canada, while there
are $500,000 due in Upper Canada ; and you in
Lower Canada will receive only $100,000, while
you give to Upper Canada $500,000. You are
thus committing a spoliation of Lower Canada
for the benefit of Upper Canada.
The proposition of the honorable member for Bagot is then, if I understand it aright
I took down his language at the time—to
931
take from Upper Canada one-half of the dues
on public lands and apply it for the benefit of
the Local Government of Lower Canada.
(Hear, hear.)
MR. WEBB said—Mr. SPEAKER, in the
consideration of the scheme presented by the
Government for the Confederation of the Provinces of British North America, I must
say
that I find a great deal of difficulty in dealing
with it. It appears to me that before asking
for a vote, the Government should have come
down to the House with a more full and explicit statement of the measure in its entirety,
so that honorable members might be able to
arrive at a reasonable and just conclusion as
to the merits of the case. (Hear, hear.) And
I think, sir, that taking into consideration the
postion in which the greater part of the popuation are placed who live in the section
of
country which other honorable gentlemen as
well as myself have the honor of representing
in this House, this line of argument is of much
greater force coming from us than if it had
been advanced by the people of any other part
of the proposed Confederation. We all know
that if this scheme is adopted, the English-
speaking part of the population of Lower
Canada will be in a very small minority in the
Local Legislature ; we all know that those
who first opened up and settled the country
which I allude to spoke the English language,
and that the great majority of the people now
living there are English-speaking Protestants ;
and, therefore, when their representatives are
called upon to vote for a measure of this kind,
which so deeply and intimately affects their
future position and prosperity, I believe that
all the details of it, all parts of it, should be
fully and clearly placed before them, in order
that they may know exactly in what position
they stand with regard, and how it is to affect
the interests they represent. (Hear, hear.)
The honorable gentlemen on the Treasury
benches, in introducing this scheme and asking our assent to it, have thought proper
to
take a different course ; they merely bring
down the resolutions which consent to Confederation, reserving the all-important details
for future consideration. It may be the right
course, but I doubt it very much. (Hear,
hear.) Although the Government has not
given all the information which I would
desire, I do not, however, think that the people of the section of which I am one
of the
representatives would be justified in opposing
a scheme that may prove beneficial generally,
merely because some of their interests may
possibly be affected by it. I shall, therefore,
vote for the resolutions in your hands, reserving
to myself the right of voting for or against the
details of the scheme for the local constitution as in my judgment may seem advisable.
(Hear, hear.) I consider that by voting for
this measure I do not pledge myself to anything more than the general principle of
a
union of the Provinces of British North America. I admit, sir, that last summer the
political affairs of this country were in a state of
extreme difficulty, and I admit, too, that it
was necessary something should be done to
get rid of that difficulty. I would have
thought, however, that the Conference which
met here in October last, to consider a subject
that has been before the peeple of this country since 1858, would have proposed, for
the
consideration of the respective legislatures, a
legislative union of the British North American Provinces. It appears to me that a
legislative union would be far more effective
in binding the provinces together, and far
more economical than the Federal union proposed. (Hear, hear.) I admit, however, that
there may be very great difficulties in bringing about a legislative union, that may
not
be in the way of a Federal union ; and under
all the circumstances of the case, the scheme
proposed may have been the best that could
have been devised. The greatest objection I
now have to it is that many of the people do
not understand—that its details are not yet
fully comprehended by the country. I believe that if hon. gentlemen had come down
with the scheme in its entirety—presenting
all its details, and the results expected to flow
from them—that there would be far less opposition to it than there is in the country
and
in this House. (Hear, hear.) But as it is
now, they call upon the representatives of the
people to give their consent to a measure that
neither they nor the people thoroughly understand. These objections have been made
to
the scheme, and in my opinion they have
great weight, more particularly in the part of
the country which I have the honor to represent. It is not to be wondered at that
the
English-speaking part of the population of
Lower Canada view it with apprehension, or
rather have fears in their minds as to the
working of it, when gentlemen like the honorable member for Peterborough, who are
far removed from any of the difficulties that surround our position, have entertained
the same
feeling of apprehension. They have thought
proper to express doubts and fears as to the
932
result, and it cannot, therefore, be surprising
that we should have our doubts and apprehensions about it. (Hear, hear.) I take it
that the Protestants of Lower Canada have
no cause of complaint against our French-
Canadian neighbors. We have lived together
since the union on good terms, and all our intercourse has been founded on equity
and
justice. (Hear, hear.) But there is a feeling amongst our community that they
should be removed beyond the possibility of
danger from any aggression by the French-
Canadian population, and it is difficult to satisfy
them that the scheme before the House and
country will permit them to indulge in that
feeling of security. (Hear, hear.) It is not
necessary for me, sir, to enter into any lengthy
remarks upon this subject, nor to follow those
honorable gentlemen who have gone into the
matter thoroughly. I have no doubt that if
a union of all the British North American
Provinces can be brought about on terms that
shall be just and equitable to all sections and
interests, it would be very advantageous to all
of them. (Hear, hear.) I shall not, sir, detain the House any longer, but shall conclude
by expressing my sincere hope that when we
are again called upon to legislate upon this
subject, we shall find that the details of this
important change of our Constitution will be
founded on justice and equity to all, and that
we shall also find that honorable gentlemen
who have now in a great measure the future
destinies of Canada on their hands, may be
found equal to their task, and that Canada,
in connection with the other provinces, may
become the land fit in every respect for the
home of the free. (Cheers) '
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—I have listened, Mr. SPEAKER, with great interest to the
observations of the honorable member for
Richmond and Wolfe, who has just sat down.
There is not the least doubt that the honorable gentleman represents a constituency
and
population, the majority of which is Protestant in its religious belief, and we know
very
well that great efforts have been made by those
opposed to this scheme to create apprehension and distrust in the minds of the Protestant
minority in Lower Canada in regard to
it. But I now reiterate what I have already
stated to this House, as a Catholic and as a
member of the Canadian Government, that
when the measure for the settlement of the
Local Government of Lower Canada comes
before this House for discussion, it will be
such as to satisfy the Protestant minority in
Lower Canada. (Cheers)
Mr. RYMAL said—Mr. SPEAKER, relying
upon the pledge given by the Hon. Attorney
General West, that the members of this
House would have a fair Opportunity of
expressing their views upon all the details
of this measure, I had proposed reserving
what little I had to say till such time as
amendments embodying my views were before the House. But the pledge which I
expected would be carried out in good faith
has been violated by that hon. gentleman,
and I am compelled now to raise m voice,
and in my weak way, to assert what i would
much rather have recorded by my vote.
You are well aware, sir, and every member
of the House is aware, of the circumstances
that called into existence the present Government, and the avowed object for which
it
was formed; and all they asked, so far as I
am aware, was that a certain degree of forbearance should be shown to them, in order
that they might form a scheme that would
remove the dificnlties existing between
Upper and Lower Canada, and, perhaps,
tend to bring about a union of all the provinces. As I understood the policy of the
Government, the Federation of the Canada:
was the first object aimed at, arranging it in
such a manner as to allow the Lower Provinces to come in when they desired to do
so. Mr. SPEAKER, that has by some been
denied ; but reading the memorandum drawn
up and read by the Government at the time
explanations were given to this House, and
understanding as I do the purport of it, I
think there is no loop-hole of escape from
the obligation the Government were under
to carry out the Federation of the Canadss
first, leaving it to the other provinces to
come in afterwards if they saw fit. (Hear,
hear.) I bring, then, two charges against
the Government—one against the Hon.
Attorney General West, and the other
against those hon. friends in the Government with whom I havesolong acted. The
first is, that the Hon. Attorney General West
broke faith with the House in preventing
amendments being moved; and the second
is, that the Reform members of the Government broke faith in not bringing down a
measure for the Federation of the Canadas.
(Hear, hear.) I had hoped, sir, that the
infusion of some pure blood into the Government—the addition of two or three men who
had denounced all sorts of wickedness and
corruption so loudly as the hon. gentlemen
who went into the Government last summer—would at least have brought about some
933
improvement in the other members of the
Administration—(laughter)—and although
I have been deceived and disappointed in my
expectations, had the scheme propounded to
this House been such as to commend
itself to my judgment, and convince me
it would remove the sectional difficulties
long complained of, it would have received my approval. I had hoped, too,
and fully believed, that when it came to be
pronounced upon by the Legislature, it would,
before final adaption, be submitted to the
people for their approval. (Hear, hear.)
That this was the opinion of a large majority
of the people of Upper Canada, in November
and December last, is, I think, beyond doubt.
The local papers in all sections of Upper
Canada asserted that the Government could
not take upon itself the fearful responsibility
of forcing such a measure upon the people,
without asking whether they consented to it
or not. Allow me, sir, to read an extract
from one that has accidentally fallen into
my hands, in order to show the feeling of
the people of Upper Canada upon this point.
I am not in the habit of addressing the
House very often, and when I speak I fear
I do not acquit myself very creditably ; and
feeling on this occasion an unusual sense of
responsibility, I am afraid I shall be worse
than usual, which at all times is very indifferent. But I am impelled by a sense of
duty to give my views upon the subject, and
the House, I am sure, will overlook any
shortcomings that I may exhibit. (Hear,
hear.) The extract to which I have alluded
reads as follows:-
Whatever mode may be finally chosen to bring
the matter before the public, we feel certain that
the people of this province, and of either of the
Maritime Provinces, will tolerate no proceeding on the part of any one that has a
tendency
to despotism. The Canadians have battled for a
long series of years for the liberties now enjoyed
by them, and we greatly mistake if they allow
the present or any other Government to make
such sweeping alterations in the Constitution of
the country without consulting them. The members of the respective governments were
not
appointed to frame a new Constitution ; neither
were the members of the various legislatures
chosen for that purpose.
Mr. SPEAKER, I feel that in my own case
in its fullest force. (Hear, hear.)
The question, as we have already said, was not
even hinted at during the last election.-
I never, sir, heard it mooted. (Hear, hear.)
Nor was the voice of public opinion in its favor
so strong, that it was forced upon the Government or Legislature. So far as Canada
is concerned, it was the conception of the Government
itself, and was taken up by its members to serve
a necessity. This being the case, we contend
that the people have a right to be asked to say
yea or nay on the subject.
MR. RYMAL—It is the
Norfolk Reformer, a paper the several issues of which, for
the months of November and December last,
were full of sentiments like those I have
quoted ; but, looking over the numbers that
have appeared since that magnetic or mesmeric circular was sent out from the
Provincial Secretary's Office, I see that it
has sung dumb. (Laughter.) I fearlessly
assert that the Confederation of the British
North American Provinces has taken no
strong hold of the public mind of Canada.
It never was demanded, and I believe as
certainly as that I am now speaking, that if
this matter were submitted to the peeple,
and fully understood by them, they would
reject it. (Hear, hear.) I have endeavored
to obtain from the leading men in the riding
which I have the honor to represent, an expression of their Opinions with reference
to
this scheme. At the time the resolutions
were printed here, I secured from twenty to
twenty-five copies, and mailed them to my
constituency, asking an expression of opinion
as to the propriety of adopting them. Only
two sent anything like a favorable verdict,
and all they were able to say in their favor
was, that they thought the scheme might
be advantageous in a national point of
view, but they feared the expense of
carrying it out would more than counterbalance the advantages. These are the most
favorable expressions of opinion I have got,
while in other instances they are denounced
in toto. Allow me to read an extract from
a letter I have received from one of the
most" influential gentlemen residing in South
Wentworth, and who is withal a strong
practical reformer, having received a part of
his political education from the
Globe.
(Hear, hear.) He says:-
I did at one time allow myself to fancy that
Confederation was destined to afford a means of
escape from most of the evils which surround our
political fabric. When I glanced over the printed
resolutions now before the Legislature, I thought
that we, the strongest member of the proposed
Confederation had, in some respects decidedly the
934
worst of the bargain. I now feel satisfied that
this is the case.
Mr. SPEAKER, I am glad to find that
I am not the only man resident in the
South Riding of Wentworth who questions
in a very slight degree the honesty of
purpose of some members of the Government in bringing down a scheme of this
kind, while, at the same time, refusing to
give the House that information by which it
ought to be accompanied. My correspondent
goes on to say:-
I do not believe there is so much patriotism as
is pretended among the advocates, or at least the
parents of the scheme. I fear they see in it a
nice arrangement by which they can extend their
term of office, either in the General Government
or in the present one. Their departure from the
plan proposed by themselves last session ; their
hurrying the resolutions through the House without giving the country time to consider
them ;
their great reluctance to give information on the
subject, and some other things, lead me to doubt
whether they are actuated solely by patriotic motives. I should not have been so uncharitable
as
to doubt their sincerity, had not their conduct on
former occasions been characterized by a lack of
that quality.
And I must say, Mr. SPEAKER, that to a
certain extent I entertain the same opinion.
I do not propose to go over the whole ground
in discussing this scheme. I do not feel
competent to that task. But since this
debate commenced, I have listened carefully
to almost every speech that has been made,
with the view of receiving that light which
would qualify me to give a vote satisfactory
to myself and to my constituents. And I
have come to the conclusion that taking this
scheme all in all, I am not in a position to
approve of it. (Hear, hear.) The refusal
on the part of the Government to submit it
to the people of this country, who have the
deepest interest in it, proves conclusively to
me that there is something in it which they
do not wish the people to know. Their
refusal, also, to give the fullest information
on a matter of such importance, imparts to
me a suspicion, that to use a homely but
expressive phrase, " there's a nigger in the
fence." (Laughter.) It has been contended
that with a view to our security, it was necessary to combine our strength. Now the
strength, in my humble judgment, which we
would obtain by consummating this union, is
just that kind of strength which a fishing rod
would obtain by fastening to it some additional joints. (Hear, hear.) If you can,
by some convulsion of nature, bring Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward
Island and Newfoundland, and place them
where the uninhabitable mountains, fifteen
or twenty miles north of this place, now are,
or leave a couple of them in the bosom of Lake
Ontario, we might have additional strength.
But, under our actual circumstances, you
propose merely to add to us several hundred
miles more of length, without any additional
hands to defend them (Hear, hear.) I
must allude to one matter, which is to-
bring upon us almost unlimited and unknown expenses, if this union is consummated.
To undertake the construction of
the Intercolonial Railroad is, in my judgment, to start upon a career of extravagance
which will swamp this young country. As
one of the agriculturists of Canada, and
speaking in their name, I beg to assure the
House—if it needs any assurance on a point
so palpable—that the agriculturists of Canada
are not in a very flourishing condition. The
failure of the crops, with low prices, and
the heavy burdens they have hitherto borne,
have left them in a bad position to bear
increased burdens. (Hear, hear.) The
balance-sheet of our public financial operations, I think, should be a warning to
every
one of us, that no uncalled-for or unnecessary
expense should be entered upon, but that
our means should be economised, and that a
balance should, if possible, be shewn in our
favor for the first time in ten years. We
also see many of our business men at present
rushing into the bankrupt courts. I find
no fewer than 905 insolvent notices in the
Canada Gazette, from the 1st September to
the 24th December last. (Hear, hear.)
MR. RYMAL—I cannot say. They at all
events gave the notice during the year. And
I believe the misfortunes which have befallen these men will, in each case, affect
at least
half a dozen, making an aggregate of 5,000.
(Hear, hear.) I am satisfied, therefore,
that this is not the proper time for these
increased burdens being thrown upon the
people of Canada. I think hon. gentlemen
must agree with me, that we have lived as
it were too fast, that we have gone beyond
our means, and that we are reaping now the
bitter fruits of this in the heavy debt which
we at present bear. Without enlarging upon
the reasons why I feel it my duty to oppose
this measure, I may mention some half
935
dozen which to my mind justify me in
opposing it. In the first place, I oppose it
because this is not the scheme which the
Government pledged themselves to submit
to the House this session, nor the one which
has been considered by the people of Upper
Canada. I oppose it also, because I was
not sent here to change the Constitution, or
to enter into partnerships, without those
who sent me here having an opportunity of
pronouncing their opinion concerning them.
I oppose it, because of the arbitrary conduct
of the promoters of the scheme in endeavoring to wrest from the people privileges
which they have enjoyed without abusing,
and which they do not wish to give up. I
refer here to the proposed mode of appointing the Legislative Council. I oppose it,
because the expenditure which this scheme
involves, in my opinion, far outweighs
the advantages to be derived from
it. Further, I oppose it, because I do
not believe it will settle the sectional difficulties we have complained of, but,
on the
contrary, will multiply them to the same
extent as we take in new partners, and will
leave Upper Canada the victim, not of one,
but of several smaller provinces. (Hear,
hear.) In conclusion, I think honorable
gentlemen will agree with me, that in 1850
Canada was the admiration and the envy
of most of the people who were acquainted
with our position. I would compare the
position of Canada at that time—and I
think I may without impropriety—to that of
a young man of eighteen or twenty, handsome in figure, with a good constitution, of
robust strength, and under the care of a
tender and loving parent (as I presume
England is to Canada), and this parent has
committed the health of this child of histhis lovely youth—to the care of a family
physician, who, however, has transferred him
from time to time to the care of other
physicians of different schools. Some of
them were allopaths, some were homœopaths,
some were hydropaths—but they all bled(laughter)—they all blistered—they all
sweated. (Continued laughter.) Under
such treatment this lovely youth became
pale and sickly. The ruddy hue of health
passed from his countenance, and instead of
his step being firm and bounding, he began
to stagger in his gait. Then the parent began to call the physicians to account, for
they were acting or pretending to act under
responsibility for the result of their treat
ment. And what answer did they make ?
Each one of them protested that his own
nostrum was sufficient to cure the malady,
although it was evident that he was sinking
under the treatment. But in order that he
might have the benefit of the craft, and themselves not be dismissed for want of skill,
they
agreed to join, and, making an admixture of
their several nostrums, to administer that to
the patient. (Great laughter) Under this
treatment, however, the kind parent began
to think that his son had but a poor chance.
He remonstrated—as I presume our parent
(England) has done—and declared that this
could not be allowed, that the patient would
die, and that the neighbors were wondering
at the amount of the patient's endurance,
and the parent's folly in permitting this
bleeding, blistering, sweating process to go
on so long. And what do you suppose
the quacks, in order to satisfy the parent,
proposed to do? After acknowledging, as
they could not help but acknowledge, that
they had brought the lovely youth to the
brink of the grave, they proposed now to
the parent that he should hand over three
or four other members of the family, that
they might experiment upon them also.
(Laughter.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I am
glad to say, that when they heard of this
proposition, the other children said —
" We will have none of it—no quack doctors for us from Canada—we will manage
our own affairs and select our own physicians for ourselves." (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
I have spoken in a figurative manner,
but I trust my language has conveyed the
sum and substance of our present position
to the minds of hon. gentlemen. (Hear,
hear.) It conveys exactly, at all events, the
opinion I entertain of the treatment which
Canada has received at the hands of her
rulers for a number of years past. They
have been playing their parts, one arguing
" I am right," and the other, " You're
wrong "—each party arrogating to itself the
greatest amount of wisdom—until Canada
has been reduced to a state of poverty—I
won't say how low ; I do not like to describe
it—but to a position in which every one
admits we cannot remain. And now the
men who have brought her to that position,
who have been instrumental in creating the
sectional difficulties and religious strifes that
have embroiled the people of Canada, are to
be the doctors who are to cure this malady !
If they can do it, I shall be happy to assist
936
in my humble way. But believing the
nostrum they are about to administer will
aggravate the evil rather than cure or alleviate it, I feel it to be a duty I owe
to my
constituents and to my own conscience to
vote against the scheme, be the consequences what they may. (Cheers.)
DR. PARKER—Mr. SPEAKER, before
the debate closes, I desire to make a few
observations in explanation of the vote it is
my intention to record on this question. I
shall not trespass on the indulgence of the
House, but will compress in a few sentences
the explanations I desire to make. It is
pretty well within the knowledge of the
House that I entertain strong objections to
the Address on the table—not only objections
of principle, but detail—objections not only
as an Upper Canadian, but as a British North
American, and objections as to the time and
manner in which it is sought to give to these
resolutions the force of law. If it was possible to propose or secure certain changes,
I
would make them or warmly support them.
The motion of the " previous question " by
the leader of the Government precludes all
amendments ; for it I am not responsible, but
by it I am forced to give a yea or nay vote
on the Address as it now stands. I have no
choice but to accept or reject these resolutions
as a whole. If I could take the responsibility of the latter, I would state my
objections to the basis of Confederation
fully, perhaps strongly. I refrain from this
expression, because, under the circumstances
to which I have alluded, it would serve no
good end or purpose. It has been persistently urged during this debate that the
opponents of this measure should propound
a better. A sufficient answer to that argument is, that they are not allowed to do
so.
But aside from this, the opponents of a public
measure are not always called upon to submit
an alternative proposition, but may stand
on their strict logical and parliamentary
right of proposing nothing and conceding
nothing, not even attempting to prove the
particular measure to which they are opposed
had, but that its supporters have not proved
it to be good. Upon all questions of ordinary
magnitude and importance from which l
dissented, I would feel justified by that
answer. But, sir, this is not a question of
ordinary magnitude and importance ; our
domestic and external difficulties are
pressing and importunate, and I feel
in rejecting this measure, I am bound
morally and in duty to the country
and the people I represent, to see my
way to something better. On this part of
the issue I am entirely with the Government.
I believe the period has arrived when it is
necessary to remodel our institutions, even
for the purpose of conducting the civil government of the country. The time has come
when it is necessary to carry some measure of
constitutional reform. The public opinion
of the country—all the events of the last
year—the reconstruction of the present
Administration expressly to settle this
question, places us in a position whence we
can neither recede nor stand still. The
status quo is impossible. Under these
circumstances, the practical question isCan a better measure than that now before
us be secured ? Better measures could,
perhaps, have been devised, but it is
doubtful if they would have secured general
concurrence or be carried. The only question, however, I have to determine is, that
under the necessities of the time and the
restriction from all choice—for neither of
which I am in any way responsible—I can
see my way to nothing better, and I have
therefore determined to record my vote for
these resolutions. (Hear, hear) Conceding, as I honestly do, the necessity of
constitutional changes, I accept this as the
only practical measure at the present time.
If I could see a reasonable probability of
securing anything better, I would vote
otherwise. But from some of the remarks
made by leading members in opposition to
this Address, the changes which they would
probably propose I could under no circumstances support ; because then, sir, circumstances,
over which I have no control, make
this the only practicable change possible ;
and, as the necessity is urgent, I accept
these resolutions as a necessity of the time
and situation. In voting for this Address,
however, I reserve to myself the right of judgment on every question in these resolutions,
which may hereafter become the subject
of deliberation in Parliament, should
I have the honor to hold a seat in this House.
In voting for these resolutions, I hold myself
in no way committed to any proposed improvement ; and will vote on them, and particularly
the Intercolonial Railway, as though
they Were in no way mentioned in these
resolutions. Should this measure fail, either
in the House of Commons or by the persistent refusal of the Maritime Provinces to
937
make good their contract, I shall consider
the Government still bound to find some
other solution for our difficulties. Reasonable time and allowance being made for
the
difficulties of their task, I will continue to
hold them responsible for some satisfactory
measure of settlement. Should British
North America become united on the basis
of these resolutions, a serious responsibility
will rest on those public men who will be
called in the first days to administer these
several governments. Should they fall into
prodigal hands, the most serious injury, even
ruin, may be entailed on the country.
These dangers may be averted by prudence
and economy in our future legislators, by
which happier results may be achieved.
But, sir, under the most favorable auspices,
I believe difficulties and embarrassments will
grow up under this new Constitution. I
hope it will not then be considered a finality,
but capable of amendment as time goes on.
I sincerely trust that so far as its future
defects may have their origin in matters of
law, they will be redressed by wise, legal and
enlightened means ; and, so far as they may
have their foundation in matters of sentiment
or opinion, that they will be redressed by the
cultivation of better and more fraternal feeling between the people of the different
provinces. I trust and believe that by such
happy means, although it is not now such a
Constitution as we can all approve, that it
may in the future be so modified and administered as to meet the requirements and
expectations of the country, and that under
it all the residents of these six provinces
may become one united, firm, prosperous
and happy people. (Hear, hear.)
Hon. MR. HOLTON said—MR. SPEAKER, I endeavored to catch your eye in the
early part of the evening, with the view of
offering a few observations, both upon the
merits of the subject referred to in the motion in your hands, and of replying to
some
of the arguments adduced by the friends
of the measure ; but, knowing the extreme
anxiety that existed on the part of many
others to speak to the resolutions before the
vote is taken, and feeling that there would
be another opportunity to address the House,
when the motion, of which notice has been
given by my honorable friend from Peel,
comes up, I have determined not to claim
the attention of the House for any lengthened remarks at the present time. There
are, however, just one or two points to
which I feel that I ought briefly to refer,
before a division is taken. My honorable
friend from Granville (Mr. SHANLY), in
the course of his very interesting speech
—a speech to which I listened with a
great deal of attention—took occasion to
remark upon what be characterised as the
bold and manly course adopted by the Government, on learning of the rejection of
this scheme by the people of New Brunswick. Sir, on that point, I join issue with
that gentleman. The course of the Government ought to be bold and manly, to entitle
it to the support of a bold and manly mind
like his, that was so much in doubt as to
what course to pursue before this bold and
manly policy was adopted. But, sir, instead
of its being a bold and manly course, I hold
that it was a mere running away from the
difficulty which the defeat of those resolutions
by the people of New Brunswick presented.
What was the position at that moment ? We
were discussing the desirability and feasibility
of having a union of all these colonies,
founded upon resolutions adopted by a
conference of delegates from the various
colonies, which met in this city in October
last. These resolutions were to be concurred
in by all the provinces, and were represented
to us as being in the nature of a treaty.
Suddenly we hear that the Province of
New Brunswick, the only one whose territory adjoins ours, had, in effect, refused
to
ratify that treaty, and hence the treaty falls
to the ground, and the refusal of that
province to join the union renders a union
impossible. My hon. friend says it was a
bold and manly course to insist on going
on with that which it had become impossible to carry out ; but, sir, I maintain,
as I said before, that their course was
merely a method—cunning and adroit,
perhaps, but neither bold nor manlywhich they adopted of running away from
their duty. (Hear, hear.) The refusal of
New Brunswick to join the union, or to
ratify the treaty, having destroyed it, a new
duty then devolved upon our Government—a
duty growing directly out of the obligation
under which those gentlemen placed themselves in the reformation of their Government
in June last. That obligation was to settle
the Canadian difficulty this session, either by
a Confederation of the provinces, or by a
Canadian Federation. The one now under consideration for the former object being dead,
they
were bound to deal with the Canadian question apart altogether from that relating
to the
Federation of all the British North American
938
Colonies. Instead of dealing with it, however,
I say that they have run away from it. And
that is what is called a bold and manly course.
(Hear, hear.) Instead of that it was, in my
opinion, a most cowardly course to pursue.
(Hear, hear.) It was a stratagetic course,
the effect of which was to avoid the difficulty,
and hold their places in the Government ; but
was anything but a manly one. The honorable gentleman spoke of this as a treaty. I
am surprised that a gentleman for whose
astuteness I had learned to entertain a very high
estimation, should be carried away by such a
fallacy as that. I maintain, sir, that no treaty
has been submitted to us. It is not found in
the resolutions, nor yet in the despatch of the
Governor General transmitting them to this
House. Neither the resolutions nor the despatch contain any intimation of there having
been a treaty between the respective provinces,
and certainly we have had no correspondence
laid before us purporting to relate to a treaty
between this and the other provinces. (Hear,
hear.)
MR. SHANLY—The treaty was constructed in Conference, and therefore no correspondence was necessary.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Well, we know
that there was correspondence between the
colonial governments which has not been submitted to us. It was referred to in the
resolutions submitted to the Legislature of Nova
Scotia. That correspondence, though moved
for in this House on the first day of the present
session by my hon. friend from Hochelaga, has
never to this day been brought down, and
yet, sir, it has been pretended that it is a
treaty. If it is a treaty, why did not the
Government submit the treaty or the correspondence which proved the existence of a
treaty ? The seventeenth clause, sir, is the
only one that can be quoted as having any
bearing whatever on the question of a treaty.
It reads as follows:-
17. The basis of representation in the House
of Commons shall be population, as determined
by the official census every ten years ; and the
number of members at first shall be 194, distributed as follows—Upper Canada, 82 ;
Lower
Canada, 65 ; Nova Scotia, 19 ; New Brunswick,
15 ; Newfoundland, 8 ; and Prince Edward
Island, 5.
Of course, sir, the honorable gentlemen undertook to bring before their respective
parliaments the propositions which they had
agreed upon in conference, and which, if acceptable to all the legislatures, were
to serve
as a basis of a Constitution for the contemplated union. But there is nothing in that
clause to show that the governments, or the
provinces which they represented, were to be
bound to regard this whole scheme as a treaty,
and to lay it before their respective legislatures
as such. On the contrary, we find Ministers
in the Lower Provinces stating that the whole
of the scheme might be modified. (Hear,
hear.) And, sir, if it is a treaty, and the
governments were bound as by that treaty to
stand or fall by it, that treaty has been
violated by the other parties thereto. What,
sir, was the course pursued in Newfoundland ?
Why, the leader of the Government himself
moves a resolution in the Legislature, to the
effect that the consideration of the whole
question be postponed until next session, with
a general election intervening If there was
a treaty binding on all parties—and there
cannot be a treaty unless it is binding on all
parties—that is the very nature and essence of
a treaty. If honorable gentlemen are justified
in their statement that it is a treaty, do they
not, by necessary implication, thereby charge
the governments of all the other provinces
with a breach of faith ? (Hear, hear.) But,
sir, there was no treaty, and it was never intended to consider these resolutions
as being
in the nature of a treaty. It was simply intended that these heads of agreement—for
they are hardly worthy of the name of resolutions, so clumsily are they strung togethershould
be brought before each Legislature in
the shape of propositions, to be considered
and voted upon separately, at the same time
keeping in view the importance and expediency of adhering to the agreement arrived
at in the Conference. Any other agreement in
a conference composed of members of the
Opposition, as well as of the governments of
the Lower Provinces, would have been simply
absurd ; but our Government were shrewd
enough to see the difficulties that were likely
to arise in considering the resolutions separately, and that it would be impossible
to
obtain the assent of this House to all of the
self-contradictory, and, in some cases, absurd
propositions, contained in this scheme ; and,
therefore, they hit upon this expedient of proclaiming it to be in the nature of a
treaty, of
using their strength as a Government in its
favor, and of asking the honorable members
of this House to vote for it en masse—to
vote in stultification of all their antecedents
upon every question that has engaged the
attention of this Legislature, or that has been
the subject of discussion in our Provincial
Parliament during the last quarter of a cen939tury. (Hear, hear.) Sir, up to a recent
period there might possibly be said to have
been some little life in this debate ; but during
the last week it has been to me not without
its ludicrous aspects. When I have heard
honorable members get up day after day and
argue gravely for union with a people who
we now know will have no union with us, and
arguing that that union will be a means by
which we could emerge from our sectional
difficulties here in Canada, it has presented
to my mind a most ludicrous aspect. I cannot conceive why hon. gentlemen, in the face
of the intelligence we have had from New
Brunswick and Newfoundland, and for what
we know is likely to be the action of Prince
Edward Island and Nova Scotia, should go
on gravely arguing in favor of this as a live
scheme, from which anything else could come
than the perpetuation of the official life of a
few hon. gentlemen, brought together by
means that I shall not now allude to more
particularly, but which I shall take another
occasion to characterise in such terms as I
think are appropriate. Their Confederation
scheme is dead, sir, and they know it is dead ;
and yet they go on and ask their supporters
here to vote for this string of seventy-two
propositions. The hon. gentleman who has
just taken his seat, said he was going to vote
for the motion, but wished it to be distinctly
understood that he was not in favor of any
one of the propositions which the motion embraces. I tell my honorable friend that
he is
going to record his vote in favor of every one
of these propositions. I tell him that the
Government will not give to him, or to this
House of Parliament, the privilege of recording a vote on one proposition alone, unless
it
is recorded in favor of the whole scheme.
DR. PARKER—What I said was this- that I reserved to myself the right of voting
as I pleased on every resolution which might
become the subject of parliamentary action
on another day.
HON. MR. HOLTON—I understood my
honorable friend perfectly ; but notwithstanding any declaration that he may make
in
reference to the subject, the fact still holds
good that by his vote he will place himself on
record as being in favor of those seventy-two
resolutions. That is the inevitable result of
the mode in which these resolutions are put
to this House—a very unsatisfactory mode, a
very unparliamentary mode, and a mode
which I maintain is an insult to this House
as a free Parliament, representing British
freemen—and I trust that before the final
passing of the resolutions and Address, this
House will resist this endeavor to tamper
with its freedom, andcondemn with it the men
who have been the authors of the attempt.
Well, sir, the scheme is dead, and yet it is to
keep the men alive. (Laughter) That is
the whole object of this discussion. The honorable gentlemen know very well that the
scheme is dead. (Hear, hear.) They know
perfectly well that I am uttering the simple
truth when I say that when they came down
with their new programme, they were in the
greatest possible difficulty ; and it was to retire from this difficulty, and not
to force it,
that they hit upon the expedient we saw them
resorting to—proclaiming the refusal of the
Lower Provinces to come into the union as
the strongest reason why they declared in
favor of the union. ( Hear, hear.) These
are the few observations I proposed making
to-night, reserving any further remarks I may
have to make for the debate which will probably arise on the motion of the honorable
member for Peel (Hon. Mr. CAMERON. But
while I am up, I desire to call the attention
of the House to a somewhat startling statement which appears in the English newspapers
that arrived today. I hold in my
ands the
Times of February 21st, containing
the extended report of the debate in the
House of Lords, of which we received a summary by telegraph a few days ago, and in
respect to which some information was recently
conveyed to the House by a member of the
Government, on the authority of a telegram
which had been received from New York. It
will be remembered that the first telegraphic
report we had of the conversation in the
House of Lords represented an appropriation
of £50,000 as having been made towards the
defences of Quebec. Although we had applied for this information, it was refused us,
but it was given unhesitatingly by Lord DE
GREY, the Secretary at War, in the House of
Lords, connected with some other statements
respecting the share in the defences of the
country to be undertaken by the people of
this country. The honorable gentlemen,
however, improved the opportunity which the
news afforded them in their own way. They
made it the basis of a new flank movement.
It served as an excellent excuse for moving
the previous question, in order that they
might close this debate at the earliest possible
moment, and start for England with the
greatest haste, in order to save the country
from impending invasion. The telegraphic report created a good deal of excitement
in the
940
House. It will be remembered that when
my honorable friend from West Middlesex
(Mr. SCATCHERD) was making some remarks
in reference to this subject, the Hon. President of the Council rose in his place
and told
the House that either he himself or some
other party had telegraphed to New York to
learn the precise facts as to the alleged appropriation by the Imperial Government
of
£50,000. The honorable gentleman stated
he had learned that the sum was not £50,000.
HON. MR. HOLTON—£30,000, or £50,000—it was variously stated—but £200,000.
Well, sir, we have the extended report at
length, and it appears that £50,000 is the
sum to be placed in the estimates this year.
They look to the expenditure of £200,000 in
the course of four years, beginning this year
with an appropriation of £50,000. It appears
from this that they do not consider the case
as so very urgent—not, at all events, so urgent
as to require the business of the Parliament
of this country to be suspended, in order that
Ministers may hasten thither to make provision for the defence of the country. (Hear
hear.) So much would follow from the fact
of their spreading the £200,000 over four
years. But that is not all. Very startling
statements on the subject of the defence of
Canada were made in this debate in the House
of Lords. We know how persistently our
own Government have refused us the necessary
information to guide us on the subject—seeking, in the absence of that information,
unfairly to use the subject of defence as a
means of persuading honorable gentlemen to
support their measure of Confederation.
(Hear, hear.) Now I hold this doctrine, that
quoad Canadian affairs, our Ministers are
bound to furnish us with the same ample
information as the Imperial Government are
bound to furnish the Imperial Parliament,
quoad Imperial affairs, when it is not inconsistent with the public interest so to do.
(Hear,
hear.) Well, we find that weeks ago this debate
came up in an incidental manner in the House
of Lords, on a motion of a noble lord (Lord
LYVEDEN) , for information on the subject,
and that the Government at once entered into
the fullest explanations, in the course of which
they made some rather startling statements
as to their negotiations on the defence question with this Government, and in respect
to
which all information has been withheld from
us. In answer to Lord LYVEDEN, Earl DE
GREY said:-
The Government undertook to provide for the
necessary improvements in the defence of Quebec,
which had always been considered as an Imperial
fortress and which, though formerly of great
strength , like other fortifications, required improvements to meet the altered circumstances
of
warfare. They had proposed to the Canadian
Government to undertake the fortification of
Montreal and the western points. The Canadian
Government was well aware of the obligations
which rested on them, and when they had received the necessary answer from the Canadian
Parliament, were ready to undertake these works.
Mark this, that the Canadian Government
are ready to undertake the fortification of
Montreal and the western points. (Hear,
hear.) Such is the information which we
get from Earl DE GREY, that our Ministers
have entered into this understanding, provided
that they can get the assent and authority of
the Canadian Parliament to incur the whole
expense of permanent defensive works westward of Quebec. (Hear, hear.) And yet, sir,
although information on this subject has been
soughht for at almost every stage of the debate
—aImost daily—they have persistently withheld it from us. But now fortunately before
this debate is closed, we learn from the lips of
the Secretary at War that in so far as in them
lay, they pledged the resources of this country to an untold amount for the construction
of fortifications throughout the province,
with the exception of Quebec. They have
agreed to this, I say, subject to the approval of Parliament, and which approval
they dare not ask until this scheme, the
whole of the seventy-two resolutions, with all
their clumsy contrivances, is adopted by
this House—in order that their official existence may be lengthened out for a few
months
longer. (Hear, hear.) The whole amount
which will be required for permanent fortifications, as stated in a leading article
in the
the Times, is £1,300,000 sterling—about
$7,000,000, of which the Imperial Government propose to expend £200,000, or about
$1,000,000. We therefore learn that our
Government have really bargained for the
expenditure by Canada of $5,000,000 to
$6,000,000 towards the permanent defences of the country, in respect of which we
have had no information whatever. (Hear,
hear.) There can be no doubt that they
have made this bargain, because I have
quoted the words of Earl DE GREY stating in
precise terms that the Canadian Government
had agreed to it, subject to the approval of
our Parliament. I say that this is a startling
fact, and I hope that the humble gentlemen
941
who intend voting for these seventy-two
resolutions, which in reality sanction this
arrangement—because the Government have
insisted upon it and urged it throughout this
debate—will pause before they add other
$6,000,000 to the untold millions to which
we shall be pledged by the adoption of the
scheme now before the House. ( Hear, hear.)
MR. FORTIER—In rising to speak at
such an advanced stage of the debate, it is
not my intention to occupy the attention of
the House for any lengthened period, especially as the topic of Confederation which
has been under consideration for several
days past, has been pretty thoroughly exhausted. I do not, however, consider that
I
should be doing my duty were I to allow
this question to pass without remark, and
without stating to the House and to the country the reasons which have brought me
to
the determination to vote as I have resolved
to vote on this great question of Confederation. What, I would ask, Mr. SPEAKER, do
Ministers call upon us to do on this occasion ?
To pass an Address to Her Majesty, praying
Her by a single stroke of the pen to cancel
our present Constitution, and to substitute
another based on the seventy-two resolutions
adopted by the Conference at Quebec, held
on the 10th October last. and which resolutions are now before the House. I am convinced
that the Quebec Conference, when
they framed the basis of our new Constitution, far from being actuated by any sentiment
of disinterestedness, were on the
contrary influenced by the desire of personal
advancement. I may be deceived, Mr.
SPEAKE, and I sincerely hope that I am.
I hope that the electors of New Brunswick,
who have just rejected the scheme of the
Quebec Conference, and at the same time
passed a direct vote of censure against the
most illustrious men in that province, for
having agreed to this scheme, and, by so doing,
compromised the interests of their countryI hope, I say, that these electors have
also
been mistaken, knowing, as I do, that obedience must be yielded to the majority, and
that, in spite of their triumphant opposition,
Confederation will be imposed upon us as
now projected. It is sought by a single
stroke of the pen to abrogate our Constitutional Act, and to substitute for it a Constitution
of the details of which we are altogether ignorant, of which, indeed, every
effort is made to keep us in ignorance. We
are urged to exchange what we now have
or something that they propose to give us.
FRANKLIN has told us that "a bird in the
hand is worth two in the bus ." I am one
of those who would prefer the bird in the
hand, and for that reason I am not prepared,
without further guarantee, to change the
Constitution of the country. (Hear, hear.)
I hold to the Constitution of 1840, because
it consecrates a great principle in favor of
Lower Canada, that of equality of representation in the Legislature ; and I adhere
the
more firmly to it, Mr. SPEAKER, when I
bear in mind that it is one of the express
conditions of my presence in this House as
the representative of the county of Yamaska,
and I do not intend to betray the confidence
reposed in me. In relation to this subject,
I will take the liberty of reading to the
House extracts from two letters which have
been addressed to me by two electors of
great influence in my county:-
ST. MICHEL D'YAMASKA, 29th Jan., 1865.
MY DEAR FRIEND,—From the little information
l have been able to obtain in relation to what has
taken place in the House since the beginning of
the session, I observe that the true patriots, far
from being able to avert, will not even have the
satisfaction of delaying, the storm which threatens our unhappy country. The French-Canadian
egotists are, as usual, in the majority, especially
in this nineteenth century—the age of progress it
may be, but the age of selfishness, of hazardous
speculations, in which conscience (now, alas! only
a by-word) takes no part—the age of usurious
loans, to the great detriment of the poor people,
whom, not content with pillaging and ruining, it
is now proposed, with the view of securing a few
years of power and position, to deprive of their
nationality, their laws and their religion.
What ought we to do under these circumstances, when we see our country threatened
by
its own children, allied with its bitterest foes?
Treat the traitors with disdain, and maintain with
firmness (no matter how few in numbers we may
be) an energetic and constitutional opposition.
It may be that at last the Catholic clergy will
awake from their dream, and will manfully aid
the Opposition, whose sole object is the preservation of its most cherished rights.
Mr. SPEAKER, I read such language with
pride, and I now proceed to read the views
of another of my electors, no less patriotic
than the one whose letter I have just read:-
RIVIÈRE DAVID, 21st Feb., 1865.
DEAR SIR,—I have received a copy of the resolutions in relation to the projected,
union of the
Provinces of British North America, and after
having examined and studied them, and having
read with care all that the papers on either side
have to say for and against them, I beg to state
as my opinion, that they are very far from meeting with my approval . Even were they
better
942
than they are, I should be very sorry to see them
adopted before an Opportunity has been afforded
to the electors to pronounce upon them, and to
authorize their representatives to vote in favor of
them. I shall abstain, in view of the want of
space in a simple letter like this, from discussing
the reasons which have led me to form this
opinion. Suffice it that I unite my voice with that
of the best friends of our country in telling you
that you were not elected to destroy, but rather to
promote the working of our Constitution.
These remarks, Mr. SPEAKER, are so true
and so reasonable, that I should be ashamed
did I not agree with them ; yet if I had reason
to anticipate that our country would be
endangered by the refusal of this House to
pass the scheme of Confederation now proposed to us, I would not hesitate to vote
in favor of it. But I am very far from
believing that our Constitution cannot be
made to work with benefit to the country
for many years to come. If the TACHE-
MACDONALD Government had not been
defeated last year, and if it could have
retained a majority of one or two votes only,
as has been so well observed by the hon.
member for Beauce, Confederation would
still be in the clouds, and the hon. member
for South Oxford would still be at a great
distance from his long-sought haven. It is,
however, to be hoped that the offspring of
the present Administration—composed, as it
is, of such heterogeneous elements—will not
be the victim of premature birth, and that
the Government will have something else to
present to the country than a still-born child.
(Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, that great
principle of sectional equality was consecrated anew by the Legislative Council Act
of 1856. And by whom was it consecrated ?
By the men who are now in power. On the
14th March, 1856, the hon. member for
Montmorency, seconded by the Hon. Mr.
SPENCE, moved the adoption of a law establishing equality in the Legislative Council
between Upper and Lower Canada, and rendering that branch of the Legislature elective.
The principle of that law was assented to by
eighty-three votes against six. I read from
the Journals of this House as follows:-
The order of the day for the second reading
of the bill to change the constitution of the
Legislative Council, by rendering the same elective, being, read, the Hon. Mr. CAUCHON
moved,
seconded by the Hon. Mr. SPENCE, and the question being put, that the bill be now
read a second
time, the House divided, and the names being
called for, they were taken down as follow:— YEAs.—Messrs. Aikins, Alleyn, Bell, Belling
ham, Biggar Bourassa, Brodeur, Bureau, Cartier,
Casault, Cauchon, Cayley, Chapais Chisholm,
Christie, Conger, Cooke, Cook, Chas. Daoust,
Jean B. Daoust, Darche, Delong, Desaulniers,
DeWitt, Dionne, J. B. E. Dorion, A. A. Dorian,
Dostaler, Att . Gen. Drummond, Dufresne, Felton, Ferrie, Foley O. C. Fortier, Fournier,
Frazer, Freeman, Gamble, Gould, Guévremont,
Hartman, Holton, Jobin, Labelle, Laporte, LeBontillier, Lemieux Loranger, Lumsden
Lyon,
John S. Macdonald, Atty . Gen. Macdonald
Mackenzie, McCann, Marchildon, Masson, Mattice, Meagher, A. Morrison, Munro, Papin,
Patrick, Poulin, Pouliot, Powell, Prévost, Price,
Rhodes, Sol. Gen. Ross, J. Boss, Sanborn,
Shaw, Sol. Gen. Smith, S. Smith, James
Smith Somerville, Southwick, Spence, Stevenson, Thibaudeau, Turcotte, Valois, and
Wright.
—83.
NAYS—Messrs. Bows, Brown, Cameron, Crawford, Robinson, and Yeilding.—6.
So it was resolved in the affirmative.
Thus, on this exciting question of representation by population, eighty-nine members
from
Upper and Lower Canada voted and took
part in the discussion, forty-four from Upper
Canada, of whom only six demanded representation by population (the Hon. Mr.
BROWN being one of them), and forty-five
Lower Canadians, ten of English and thirty-
five of French-Canadian origin, constituting
eighty-three votes against six. Observe the
immense majority who voted upon the constitution of the Upper House, and ratified
the Constitutional Act of 1840 to which I
have just referred. Not only was this principle consecrated by a large majority in
both
branches of the Legislature ; as I have just
shewn, it was also confirmed by the Government of the Mother Country, for whose
sanction this law was reserved, at most eight
years ago. And, Mr. SPEAKER, these two
Constitutional Acts have been the means
of establishing the peace, happiness and
prosperity of the country since the troubles
of 1837 and 1838 ; behind these two acts
the French-Canadians have sheltered thems
selves as behind an impregnable rampart,
and yet these two acts the present Administration, sustained by a majority of French-
Canadians in this House, are ready to scatter
to the four winds. (Hear, hear.) For the
last quarter of a century, Canada has enjoyed
responsible government and the advantage
of equality in the representation. What then
is there to complain of, and by whom are
complaints made ? Who have complained
during the last ten years—have the French-
Canadians, have the Upper-Canadians ? No,
sir, it is the hon. member for South Oxford
943
(Hon. Mr. BROWN), and on what ground ?
On the question of representation based
upon numbers. Why has that hon. gentleman
created such a turmoil in Upper Canada,
and why has he tried to tread under foot
that which the French-Canadians hold most
dear—their religion ? It was to attain power,
to reach the seat which he now occupies on
the other side of the House, supported by
the honorable members for Kamouraska and
Dorchester, like altar posts on each side
of a statue. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Who are those who have opposed that hon.
member in this House ? All the members
for Lower Canada, both French and English
without distinction. Never have the members from Lower Canada been divided on
this vital question. Bleus and Rouges, Mr.
SPEAKER, have united as one man to preserve that which guaranteed to them their
future as descendants of old France. And
what was the cause of this union of French-
Canadians against the hon. member for South
Oxford ? To refuse him that which the
present Administration has conceded to him,
by the Quebec Conference. What was the
reason given by the Hon. Attorney General
for Upper Canada, during the session of
1863, to the member for South Oxford, who
reproached him for having governed Upper
Canada by a Lower Canadian majority ? He
replied—and his words are still ringing in
my ears—" Never," said he, " has Upper
Canada had to complain of anything which
my Government has imposed on Upper
Canada by means of a Lower Canadian majority. You have no grounds of complaint,
and you will never obtain your extreme demands." This was the language used at
that time. But things are changed, and
unfortunately autre temps autre chose,
O tempora ! O mores ! And afterwards,
the honorable member for Montreal East
added expressions more or less ironical,
more or less founded, comparing the Grits
of Upper Canada to so many codfish in
the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It was then,
Mr. SPEAKER, that the honorable member
for South Oxford took an activepart in the
discussion. (Hear, hear.) You, no doubt,
remember the occasion, or then you yourself, Mr. SPEAKER, were, in the eyes of the
hon. member for Montreal, only a codfish
eager for the bait. Mr. SPEAKER, I have
always admired the energy displayed by the
hon. member for Montreal East in resisting
the hon. member for South Oxford ; his courage and boldness were boundless, and there
was such a vast difference of principles, and
so much animosity existed between those
two hon. gentleman and their respective
supporters, that you could never for one
moment have imagined that they could
endure each other as neighbors on the
Treasury benches. This mutual reconciliation, Mr. SPEAKER, reminds me of the effect
produced on my mind by the happy family,
which I had an opportunity of seeing at New
York a few years ago, when the rat was to be
seen between the paws of the cat, the monkey
running after the rabbit, and the sparrow coquetting with the owl. (Hear, and laughter.)
How long have the men to whom I have
just referred paid any attention to the
claims of the hon. member for South
Oxford ? How long have they listened to
him ? It is only since those hon. gentlemen
have found themselves in a minority in this
House, since the TACHE-MACDONALD Government have resolved per fas aut nefas
to retain office—never before. Now, all this
has not tended to inspire me with any confidence in the plan of Confederation, and
has
indeed made me resolve to vote against the
whole, because this scheme is to be accepted
in toto or not at all. (Hear, hear.) The
Government tells us, Mr. SPEAKER, that
these resolutions cannot'be amended in any
particular ; the seventy-two resolutions, they
say, must be voted all together, so as to give
no ground for complaint on the part of the
Maritime Provinces. It is a treaty from
which no deviation can be allowed. But
how is it that the Honorable Mr. TILLEY,
of New Brunswick, offered to allow the
Opposition in that province to amend this
treaty ? And did not the Government
declare, at the end of the last session, that
they intended to propose an amendment of
some kind to the Constitutional Act, and
that they would submit it to the people for
their consideration before seeking its adoption ? And now they refuse to do this.
Ah l
I repeat, all this is very far from inspiring
me with the least confidence in the scheme
of Confederation, and in the present Administration. You must swallow the whole
scheme without hesitation, without power to
offer a single amendment. Let those who
please vote for such a measure, the humble
member for Yamaska assuredly will not.
I therefore declare that I am prepared to
vote against the measure now under consideration. (Applause.)
HON. MR. EVANTUREL said—Mr.
SPEAKER, in return for the indulgence
944
extended by the House, I have to say that I
do not rise to make a long speech, but that
I shall content myself with giving a silent
vote. However, before recording my vote
upon the measure which is submitted to us,
I wish to put a question to the Government.
I acknowledge that if I confined myself to
consulting my own ideas, I should not put
this question ; but I do so in order to meet
the wishes of several of my friends, both
within this House and beyond its precincts.
Those friends have expressed alarm in relation to one of the clauses of the resolutions,
and have requested me to ask an explanation
from the Hon. Attorney General for Upper
Canada, as to the interpretation of that
clause. I have therefore to ask him whether
article 46 of the resolutions, which states
that " both the English and French languages may be employed in the General
Parliament and in its proceedings, and in
the Local Legislature of Lower Canada," is
to be interpreted as placing the use of the
two languages on an equal footing in the
Federal Parliament ? In stating the apprehensions entertained by certain persons on
this subject—and I consider that it is a
mark of patriotism on their part, and that
their apprehensions may be legitimate—I
hope the Government will not impute to me
any hostile intention and will perceive that
the course I adopt is in their interest, as it
will give them an opportunity of dissipating
the apprehensions in question (Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I
have very great pleasure in answering the
question put to me by my hon. friend from
the county of Quebec. I may state that the
meaning of one of the resolutions adopted
by the Conference is this, that the rights of
the French-Canadian members as to the
status of their language in the Federal
Legislature shall be precisely the same as
they now are in the present Legislature of
Canada in every possible respect. I have
still further pleasure in stating that the
moment this was mentioned in Conference,
the members of the deputation from the
Lower Provinces unanimously stated that it
was right and just, and without one dissentient voice gave their adhesion to the
reasonableness of the proposition that the
status of the French language, as regards
the procedure in Parliament, the printing of
measures, and everything of that kind, should
be precisely the same as it is in this Legislature. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. DORION-I do not rise to
offer any lengthened remarks, but to draw
for a moment the attention of the members
of the Administration, with a view to obtain
some information in connection with this
scheme ; but before doing so, I would say a
word in reply to the explanation given by
the Hon. Attorney General West to the question put by the hon. member for the county
of Quebec (Hon. Mr. EVANTUBEL), with regard to the use of the French language. The
Hon. Attorney General West stated that the
intention of delegates at the Quebec Conference was to give the same guarantees for
the
use of the French language in the Federal
Legislature," now existed under the present
union. I conceive, air, that this is no guarantee
whatsoever, for in the Union Act it was provided that the English language alone should
be used in Parliament, and the French language was entirely prohibited ; but this
provision was subsequently repealed by the 11th
and 12th Victoria, and the matter left to the
discretion of the Legislature. So that if,
to-morrow, this Legislature choose to vote
that no other but the English language
should be used in our proceedings, it might
do _so, and thereby forbid the use of the
French language. There is, therefore, no
guarantee for the continuance of the use of
the language of the majority of the people
of Lower Canada, but the will and the
forbearance of the majority. And as the
number of French members in the General
Legislature, under the proposed Confederation, will be proportionately much smaller
than it is in the present Legislature, this
ought to make hon. members consider what
little chance there is for the continued use
of their language in the Federal Legislature.
This is the only observation I have to make
on this subject, and it was suggested to me
le; the answer of the Hon. Attorney General
est. '
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I
desire to say that I agree with my hon.
friend that as it stands just now the majority
governs; but in order to cure this, it was
agreed at the Conference to embody the provision in the Imperial Act. (Hear, hear.)
This was proposed by the Canadian Government, for fear an accident might arise
subsequently, and it was assented to by the
deputation from each province that the use
of the French language should form one of
the principles on upon which the Confederation should be established, and that its
use,
as at present, should be guaranteed by the
Imperial Act. (Hear hear.)
945
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—I will
add to what has been stated by the Hon.
Attorney General for Upper Canada, in reply
to the hon. member for the county of Quebec and the hon. member for Hochelaga,
that it was also necessary to protect the
English minorities in Lower Canada with
respect to the use of their language, because
in the Local Parliament of Lower Canada
the majority will be composed of French-
Canadians. The members of the Conference
were desirous that it should not be in the
power of that majority to decree the abolition
of the use of the English language in the
Local Legislature of Lower Canada, any
more than it will be in the power of the
Federal Legislature to do so with respect to
the French language. I will also add that
the use of both languages will be secured
in the Imperial Act to be based on these
resolutions. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. DORION—I am very glad to
hear this statement ; but I fail to see anything in the resolutions themselves which
gives such an assurance, in proof of which
we have the honorable member for Quebec
county asking how the matter really stands.
But it is not simply for the use of the French
language in the Legislature that protection
is needed—that is not of so great importance
as is the publication of the laws and proceedings of Parliament. The speeches delivered
in this House are only addressed to a
few, but the laws and proceedings of the House
are addressed to the whole peop1e, a million
or nearly a million of whom speak the French
language. I now beg to address one or two
observations on a different subject. When
the question was first brought before us, I
drew the attention of the Government to the
discrepancy between the printed resolutions
which are now submitted to us, and the resolutions which were despatched to the members
of the Legislature, during the recess, by
the Hon. Provincial Secretary. The discrepancy consists in the wording of the third
section of the 29th resolution. In the resolutions which were sent us by the Hon.
Provincial Secretary, the 29th read as follows:-
The General Government shall have power to
make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the Federated Provinces (saving
the
Sovereignty of England), and especially laws
respecting the following subjects .—[The subjects,
37 in number, follow, the 3rd reading thus]:3. The imposition or regulation of duties
of
customs on imports and exports, except on
exports of timber, logs, masts, spars, deals,
and sawn lumber, and of coal and other minerals. [The 43rd of the same resolutions
states]:
The local legislatures shall have power to
make laws respecting the following subjects :Direct taxation and the imposition of
duties on
the export of timber, logs, masts, spars, deals,
and sawn lumber, and of coals and other
minerals.
So that the General Government are forbidden
to place export duties on lumber, coals, and
other minerals found in any of the several
provinces, such right being reserved to the
local legislatures. But in the resolutions
submitted to the House in English, there is a
most important and invidious distinction, and
I drew the attention of the Hon. Finance
Minister to it early in the debate. It states:-
The General Parliament shall have power to
make laws, etcetera, respecting the following
subjects :— * * * 3. The imposition or regulation of duties of customs on imports
and
exports—except on exports of timber, logs,
masts, spars, deals, and sawn lumber from New
Brunswick ; and of coals and other minerals from
Nova Scotia.
By the first of these series of resolutions
the General Government was deprived of the
right of imposing export duties on lumber,
coals, and other minerals in regard to all the
provinces ; whilst by the resolutions now before
the House, the General Government is allowed
to impose such duties except on lumber exported from New Brunswick, and coals and
other minerals exported from Nova Scotia.
Then the 43rd resolution now before the House
says:-
The local legislatures shall have power to make
laws respecting the following subjects :— 1. Direct taxation, and in New Brunswick
the imposition of duties on the export of timber, logs,
masts, spars, deals, and sawn lumber ; and in
Nova Scotia, of coals and other minerals.
That is to say, in New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia they have a right to impose duties, for
local purposes, on the expert of lumber, coals,
and other minerals, whilst in Canada and the
other provinces that power is withheld ; and
while the timber and minerals from Canada
can be taxed by the General Government for
general purposes, the timber of New Brunswick, and the coal and minerals of Nova
Scotia, can only be taxed by the local governments of these provinces, and for local
purposes only. This is a most unjust arrangement for both Upper and Lower Canada.
Now, sir, I find in an official document, published in Nova Scotia under the sanction
of
946
the Government of that province, and submitted to parliament now sitting, that the
powers
of the General Government and of the local governments in respect to the export duties
upon
lumber, coals, and other minerals, are exactly
the same, word for word, as are set forth in
the printed copy sent to the members during
the recess. (Hear, hear.) It has been asserted that this was a treaty entered into
by
the delegates of the several provinces ; but it
seems to be a treaty in which alterations have
been made. (Hear, hear.) I called the attention of the honorable gentlemen opposite
to
this discrepancy, and asked which was the
true and correct copy of the resolutions, and
I was told that it was the copy which had
been submitted to the House. There has
been an alteration somewhere ; and in a matter
of this serious importance, the Government
ought to tell us how and where it occurredthey ought to inform us if it is not the
case
that the treaty was changed after the Conference had ceased to meet, and at whose
request
and by whom the change was made. It is
evident that we are called to vote for a scheme,
here, different from that submitted to the
Legislature of Nova Scotia, and one more unfavorable to us than that which the delegates
from Nova Scotia have reported to their Government. While on this subject, I will
also
remark that there is also a discrepancy between
the French and the English versions of the
resolutions submitted to the House, the
French version being the same as the one communicated to the members by the Hon. Provincial
Secretary, and also to those submitted to
the Nova Scotia Legislature. This would
indicate that the change has been made in
these resolutions submitted to this House, and
it is well that we should have some information, and know what has taken place about
this pretended treaty since the separation of
the delegates. (Hear, hear.) There is another important matter which demands the attention
of the House. It has been stated here
that the whole of the delegates had agreed to
the resolutions of the Conference. (Hear,
hear.) The name of Mr. PALMER was mentioned as being an exception, and to that the
honorable gentlemen opposite declared that
all the delegates had agreed to these resolutions. Is not that what was stated ?
Hon. MR. DORION—But I find that
besides Mr. PALMER, who asserted publicly
that he had signed the resolutions of the
Conference to authenticate them, and that he
had not agreed to these resolutions, there is
also Mr. DICKEY, another delegate, who has
taken the same course. Mr. DICKEY even
went so far as to address a letter to the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, Sir
B.
GRAVES MCDONNELL, in which he says:-
The Honorable Provincial Secretary has
submitted for my inspection a report to Your
Excellency , dated 5th December last, and signed
by himself, the Honorable Attorney General,
the Honorable J. MCCULLY, and A. G. ARCHIBALD, Esq ., of the result of a mission with
which
we were charged by Your Excellency, to attend a
Conference at Quebec upon the subject of Inter-
colonial union. In that report I am happy to
be able cordially to concur, except as to that
portion of it which would seem to imply the
unanimous action of members of the Conference.
As I had the misfortune to differ from my
colleagues in several important details of the
scheme submitted to Your Excellency, I feel
myself constrained to withhold my signature from
the report, unaccompanied by this explanation.
My regret at this circumstance is greatly diminished by the reflection that the Right
Honorable
the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his
despatch of 3rd December last, sustains my view
that the scheme is susceptible of modification and
improvement.
(Hear, hear.) These are two points which I
think are very important, and the honorable
gentlemen opposite ought to offer some explanation—on the first point, at all events.
In the return of correspondence presented to the
Nova Scotia Legislature, I find also a very
important letter which was addressed on the
9th of January last, by the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia to the Governor General
of Canada. That letter has never been communicated to us, although an Address for
all
the correspondence in reference to this Confederation scheme was proposed and carried
several weeks ago. This letter of Sir R. GRAVES
MCDONNELL was in answer to a despatch
from Lord MONCK of the 23rd December,
1864, and the third paragraph reads as follows:-
It is evident from the communication of the
Right Honorable the Secretary of State, that Her
Majesty's Government expects to be aided in the
preparation of a bill embodying the suggestions
of the Quebec Conference, by deputations from
the several provinces. It also appears to myself
and the members of my Government, that to
avoid the probable multiplied divergence of opinion in each Legislature, inseparable
from discusing a great variety of details in several independent parliaments, despite
of a general agreement
in the main objects and principles of the general
scheme it is better for these provinoes to avail
themselves of the friendly arbitrament of the
947
Queen's Government and send delegates to consult with the latter during the preparation
of the
proposed Imperial Bill. The peculiar " views"and this is the point—of each legislature
might,
if necessary, find expression in instructions to
the delegates from each.
(Hear, hear.) So we find in this letter,
which has been withheld from us, a suggestion that amendments can be made to the
scheme in the form of instructions to the delegates from each of the several legislatures
;
and yet honorable gentlemen have stated that
these resolutions were, in point of fact, a
treaty, which this Legislature could not alter
or amend in the least important particular,
but that honorable members must say " aye"
or " nay" upon them precisely as they stand !
(Hear, hear.) There are three material circumstances here cited—first, the discrepancies
in regard to the export duties on lumber,
coals and other minerals ; second, the discretion which is reserved to the Lower Provinces,
by their legislatures, to alter and amend
the resolutions ; and third, the dissent by two
of the delegates to the so-called treaty, although we have been informed by our own
Government that the Conference was unanimously in favor of it. (Hear, hear.) I desire
explanations from the Ministry on these
important points. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. GALT.—As to the first point, I
can only say that full explanations have already been given on several occasions ;
with
reference to the second point, the Canadian
Government is not responsible for the Opinions of the delegates after they left this
country ; and as regards the third point, His Excellency the Governor General sent
down the
correspondence to this House as fully as he
thought proper, and I presume the lieutenant-
governors of the other provinces did the
same.
HON. MR. DORION—I will remind the
honorable gentleman that there is another
discrepancy. The French copy of the resolutions before the House is exactly in accordance
with the printed document sent from
Nova Scotia, and with the copy sent to members by the Hon. Provincial Secretary ,
while
the English copy, now before the House is
different. Now, of these different versions
which is the correct one, and where has the
alteration been made ? The importance of
the question is, I think, very great ; for if
the version given in this
Blue-Book from
Nova Scotia, and in the French copy, be correct, we in Lower Canada will have a right
to impose, for local purposes, an export duty
on all timber, either from Upper or Lower
Canada. (Hear. hear.) The resolution is in
plain terms, and declares that the General
Government shall have no right to impose
an export duty on timber, but that the local
governments shall.
HON. MR. BROWN—The right copy is
that in the Speaker's hands, of course.
HON. MR. DORION—But there are two
versions of it—the one in English differing
from that in French.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD — I
moved the resolutions in English, and if there
is any difference in the French copy, it is an
error in the translation.
HON. MR. DORION—Well, if the English
copy is the right one, the General Government
will have the right to impose an export duty
on all timber except that exported from New
Brunswick, and on all coals and minerals
except from Nova Scotia.
MR. DE NIVERVILLE—Mr. SPEAKER,
as the junior member of this honorable House,
it was proper that I should be the last to
speak on the question which now engages our
attention. A very few days before the commencement of the present session, I did not
know that I should fill the seat which I now
occupy in this chamber, and should be called
on to vote on the question of Confederation,
and take part in the debate upon it. Accordingly, I have not had time, as most of
the
honorable members who have spoken on the
scheme submitted to the House have had, to
prepare myself to treat it in a political and diplomatic sense, and to examine the
basis on which
it rests. If, on the other hand, I had had the
time necessary to make myself thoroughly acquainted with it in all its bearings, I
should
have acted not otherwise than I shall now act.
I should have left, as now, to other members
of this House better qualified than I am in respect of knowledge, and the discussion
and
consideration of great political questions,
which are the fruit of a long service in Parliament—I should have left to such honorable
members the office of viewing the question in the various aspects which distinguish
it. (Hear, hear.) As member for the chief
place of the district of Three Rivers, and a
French-Canadian, I ought to speak in explanation of my views. The difficult position
of
the country for the last few years, arising
from the equal strength of the two parties in
the political arena, and rendering the administration of public affairs arduous to
the va
948rious ministries which had, one after another,
come into power—that position, I say, necessitated a change which might put an end
to such a deplorable state of affairs. Our situation was like that of the Roman Empire
when near its fall. The union, as the Hon.
Attorney General for Lower Canada (Hon.
Mr. CARTIER) so well said, had lasted its
time ; it now became necessary to try something else. It was necessary that the nation
which, of all the different races which inhabit
the British Provinces in North America, is
foremost in duration, energy and prosperity,
should take the lead and initiate that measure
which was to deliver the country from its difficulties. Well, Mr. SPEAKER, the most
natural
remedy which occurred was the scheme for the
Confederation of the English Provinces on this
continent, and as the opponents of the measure
—men who have thrown all their powers, courage and perseverance into their oppositionhave
never moved any other, it seemed to be
the only one which found acceptance. This
scheme has not had the effect of producing
fear in my mind, as it has in several members
who have spoken before me. After careful
examination, I have arrived at the conclusion
that it is practicable, and that it ought to be
adopted. I am well aware that it is not perfect, for there is nothing perfect in this
nether
world. It was not possible to take every
advantage for Lower Canada, and to leave
nothing for Upper Canada and the Maritime
Provinces. Some concessions were necessary
to be made in common justice, as we were
obtaining great material advantages, together
with the preservation and protection of our
dearest interests. In short, it was necessary
that we and they should make what is generally termed a compromise, and that compromise
was such as to be in our favor in every
respect. I do not profess to be a religious
man, but I may venture to assert, without
transgressing the bounds of modesty, that I
love and revere my religion as much as any
other man in this House. Before, therefore,
I could form any decided opinion on the
question that is now before the House, and
give my vote in favor of it, I did not omit to
consult our priests. I have always blamed
the conduct of those priests who interfered in
elections and matters of policy, acting the
parts of canvassers and ultra-partisans, instead
of endeavoring from the pulpit—the very
abode of truth—to calm the animosities of
parties, and to aid the people in making an
honest, free, independent and judicious choice,
and turning in a manner the pulpit of truth
itself into a political tribune, from which they
promulgate principles which might be termed
seditious. Such conduct I have always condemned. I love to find in the members of
the clergy those virtues which ought to characterise them ; and as now the business
in
hand is not the election of a member of Parliament, but a complete change in the Constitution
of the country, it is my opinion that
they ought to be considered citizens, and to
enjoy as fully and completely as any other
class the endowments and privileges which
belong to others, and that, as others have, so
should they have a right to examine the new
Constitution which we are to receive, and to
give their opinion on its merits and imperfec
tions. Relying on the judgment and the intelligence of certain of this order, I thought
it
right to consult them. I had recourse to two
members of the clergy of the districtof Three
Rivers—men of great learning, and eminently
qualified to give an opinion on the scheme of
Confederation—men who were perfectly free
from the spirit of party, without political bias
or personal ambition to be gratified in preference to the interests of the country,
and whose
opinions were entitled to respect as being the
fruit of a life of study and labor constantly
employed to increase the happiness and prosperity of their fellow-citizens and their
country, and to protect our religious institutions.
(Hear, hear.) I have no intention to name
these two venerable men, who are known
throughout the country as two of the most
distinguished members of our Canadian
clergy and most eminent citizens. Well, Mr.
SPEAKER, I consulted those two men, and
both agreed in making answer that they were
favorable to the project of Confederation of
the British North American Provinces on
this continent. Resting, then, on my own
convictions that Confederation is the best
means we have at hand of escaping from the
present difficult position of the country, and
on the authority of members of the clergy
—an authority which I take pleasure in
mentioning , because the opponents of the
Ministerial plan have affected to believe that
all the clergy in the country are opposed to
the measure—thus supported, Mr. SPEAKER,
I hold it to be my duty, and I do not hesitate
to give my vote in favor of the principle and
the project of Confederation. Certain apprehensions have arisen in the public mind
relative to the project in question ; these fears, I
need not say, have been excited by the
opponents of the measure, who make themselves hoarse with crying that French-Canadian
949
nationality would be swallowed up by Confederation, and that in twenty-five or thirty
years' time there would not be a single French-
Canadian left in Lower Canada. Well, Mr.
SPEAKER, I appeal, to prove the falsehood of
these declarations, to the men who in 1840
—the time of the union of the two provinceslabored with so much zeal and cue to
guard the natural depository of our social and
religious rights from danger—I appeal, to
prove it, to those men who applied all their
energy, their abilities, and their patriotism
to prevent the union; to those men who,
endowed with a singleness of mind at least
equal to that which animates the opponents of
Confederation, procured numerous petitions to
be signed against the union of Upper and
Lower Canada ; to those men, in short, who
predicted that in ten years' time there would
not be a single French-Canadian left—these
men I summon to the bar of public opinion,
and I ask them—" Gentlemen, did you predict
truly? What has become of that French-
Canadian nationality which was to be swallowed up by the union ? Has it disappeared,
as you said it would ? See and judge for
yourselves." That nation, which was doomed
to be annihilated, has built up Montreal, the
first commercial city in the two CanadasMontreal, on which the honorable member for
Richelieu (Mr. PERRAULT) pronounced such
a pompous eulogy in his speech the other
evening—an eulogy that be extended to
the country generally—praising its immense
resources and growing prosperity. It was
under the union and through the union that
the splendid Victoria Bridge was erected, the
most magnificent work of the kind in the
world. Under its auspices, also, we constructed those immense canals which have received
honorable mention from the lips of the
honorable member for Richelieu; and everybody knows that that honorable member is
eminently qualified to pronounce a judgment
on such matters, having seen and examined
the canals constructed in Europe. Accordingly we are justified in saying that our
canals are immeasurably superior to the canals
of Europe, as he tells us in respect to several
of our canals, that a boy in the smallest of
skiffs could touch the
revêtement walls with
his two tiny oars. I must say that I do not
accept the interpretation put on that part of
the honorable member's speech by the honorable member for Montcalm (Mr. JOSEPH
DUFRESNE), in which he said that there were
men on the bench of bishops as well informed
and as eminent as any that were to be found
in any ministry. This is the interpretation I
put on that phrase of the honorable member
for Richelieu, and I do not think I mistake
in saying that it turns against those who, at
the time of the union of the two Canadas,
did everything they could to prevent it. In
1840 those men, those good and zealous
patriots, told the people, by way of serving
their cause, that in twenty-five years there
would not be a single French-Canadian left in
Lower Canada; and now the honorable member for Richelieu comes out and gives them
the
lie direct by saying that at this present time,
the Roman Catholic bench of bishops numbers among its members men—of course
French-Canadians—who are as eminent for
their talents and acquirements as the most
distinguished members of our political world ;
and that religion is amply protected by the
present Constitution, which was nevertheless
destined, according to those great patriots, to
swallow us up and sweep us from the face of
the continent.
MB. DE NIVERVILLE—One word to
comfort those French-Canadians who are
afraid of suffering wrong in the Federal
Parliament, being as they say an insignificant minority of that body. Ever since
nations began to comprehend their true
interests, a certain equilibrium has been
established which it will always be their aim
to maintain. This constitutes the protection
which the union of two weak parties affords
against a strong one, which would aggrandize itself at their expense. This law of
equilibrium is reproduced in all times and
places—among nations and among individuals: it is found even among animals.
For what purpose did the two first nations
in the world, France and England, unite
together to resist the invading forces of the
powerful despot of the north—the Emperor
of Russia, and what was the object of the
campaign in the Crimea? Was it to reap
the barren glory of shouting that the French
soldiers rushed to the assault with the impetuous speed of the thunderbolt ; that
the
English soldiers received the enemy's fire
without yielding a foot; that they marched
with the cool determination of a wedge of
iron against the enemy's squares, and that
nothing could resist their onward movement? By no means. Those two powers
were perfectly acquainted with the qualities
which distinguished their respective armies,
and did not need to put them to the proof.
Their intention was simply to prevent the
950
Emperor of Russia from extending the frontiers of his states indefinitely, to the
detriment
of the surrounding nations. Why did the
present Emperor of the French go to war
with his cousin the Emperor of Austria?
For exactly the same reason. I will go
even further, and ask why the beast grazing
in a pasture drives away the first strange
animal which enters it? It is a mere
instinct of self-preservation. (Hear, hear.)
Well, Mr. SPEAKER, as that instinct of
self-preservation prevails among all created
beings on the earth, why should it not
be produced among the different provinces
of the Confederation? If Upper Canada
should ever seek to act unjustly towards
Lower Canada and the Lower Provinces, the
latter would naturally and instinctively
strike up an alliance to resist the encroachments and injustice of the sister province.
I am certain, therefore, that in this respect
we have nothing to fear. As a French-
Canadian, it is my business to speak of what
concerns us most nearly: our religion, our
language, our institutions and our laws
Well, then, with respect to our language, I
ask whether there is the least danger of our
losing it in the Confederation? Far from
being in danger, I believe it will be more in
vogue under the new
régime, as it can be
spoken and made use of not only in the
Federal Parliament and local legislatures,
but also in the supreme courts which will
be hereafter instituted in the country. I
say that when that time arrives—that is to
say, when the Confederation is established,
we shall have a fuller use of our language.
For what liberty have we in its use in this
chamber? That liberty which the liberals
have vaunted so highly, which cannot be
touched without destroying it, in what way
have we it here? Has it been conceded to
us in the full acceptation of the word ? By
no means, Mr. SPEAKER ; we have it, but it
is as TANTALUS had the water—he was
thirsty, but he drank not ; though the water
bubbled to his lips, the water receded as
soon as he attempted to receive it. (Hear,
hear.) In truth, what kind of liberty have
we, who do not understand the English
language? We are at liberty to hold our
tongues, to listen, and to understand if we
can. (Hear, hear, and continued laughter.)
Under the Confederation, the Upper Canadians will speak their language, and the
Lower Canadians theirs, just as we do now;
with this diflerence, that they who count a
large majority of their countrymen in the
House, may hope to hear their language
spoken the oftenest, as new members will
use the language of the majority. I intend
no reproval to the honorable members who
have spoken in English on the question
now before the House, thus depriving us of
the pleasure of understanding them, and,
therefore, of enjoying their eloquence, and
being convinced by their logic. What they
have done on the present occasion is a
simple act of justice due to the majority of
this House, and one which the French-
Canadians have always rendered with pleasure.
But if we follow the example of most French-
Canadians in days gone by, we shall not keep
our language long How often do we find
in the towns, nay, even in the country parts,
Canadians who have no sooner caught up
two words of English than they run off with
delight to repeat them to their neighbors.
Emigration to the United States, which will
cease under Confederation (for we shall have
the management of our public lands), has
been a principal cause of that stupid mania
with which all seem to be seized who have
lived some time among our neighbors and
returned to Canada. To give you an idea
of that lamentable mania, I shall relate a
circumstance in which I was one of the
actors. Not two months since, I was on the
platform at the station where the branch
from Arthabaska to Three Rivers leaves the
Grand Trunk, when two young men, dressed
in the American fashion, came to the hotel
One, as he came in, called out in a loud
voice, " Where is the ostler ?" The man,
who was a stout Canadian, soon made his
appearance, and as soon as he set eyes on
the gentleman, called out in his turn,
" What! Joe, is it you ?" (
Tiens! c'est toi,
Joh !) Of course our pretended American
was taken aback, and for the moment dumbfounded. Seeing his embarrassment, and
willing, in pity to the poor victim of affectation, to relieve him from it, although
it had
its comic side, I called to the stableman and
said, " Go and take the gentlemen's horses;
don't you see they are Americans, and that
they don't understand you." Well, Mr.
SPEAKER, such scenes frequently occur;
nay, those who move now and then from
home may see them every day. So if
we do not wish our beautiful language
to lose its influence, we must not fail to
discountenance the affectation of Canadians
talking English when they hardly know
a word of it. Otherwise we must take
to talking English, and let our own language
951
sink into disuse and oblivion. For our
religion I have no fears. The experience of
the past is a guarantee for the future. We
live no longer in those times when Paradise
was the promised reward of all who ill-treated
those of a religion different from their own.
These are not the days in which wars and
troubles between nations were begotten of
religious hatred. The world is too civilized
to renew the scenes which were then constantly exhibited. Every man is free to
practise his religion as he pleases, and this
tolerant spirit is especially to be noted as
characterising the English nation. True,
we find some fanatics both among the English and the French population: unfortunately
we had two instances of the working
of this spirit in one evening in this Housethe one from a Catholic, the other from
a
Protestant. The former cried out loudly
that Confederation would be a mortal blow
to the Catholic religion, while the other
cried as loudly that it would be the ruin of
the Protestants. I must confess, Mr.
SPEAKER, that I am not one of those who
live in fear and distrust of British domination. As long as we live under the sway
of
free England, I have not the least doubt
that our language will be fully protected,
and that in fifty years from this present time,
good Catholics will be allowed the exercise
of their religion as freely, as safely and as
piously as this day, and that the wicked will
not be compelled to be more religious than
they now are. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member for Bagot told us that there are a
great number of Catholics in England, and
that they are perfectly at liberty to exercise
their religion at their pleasure, but that they
are not represented in the English Parliament.
This, far from being a proof of intolerance,
I take to be a proof of their tolerant
character, since, although able to oppress
the Catholics, they leave them at full liberty
to fulfil the pious exercises of their religion.
I repeat it, Mr. SPEAKER, there are fanatics
in all religions ; happily for humanity, they
are but a small minority, and men of good
sense hold them in contempt. (Hear, hear.)
Our institutions are secured to us by our
treaties with Great Britain; our laws by the
articles of Confederation. What coercion,
what restraint or opposition have we to apprehend from the Mother Country, when the
subject of the British Government is acknowledged throughout the whole world to be
of
all men the most free? Most free in the
exercise of his rights as a citizen ; as free in
speech and action as he is secure in his person, wherever he may find occasion to
assert
his rights, to uphold them and defend them.
I say " wherever," because the English people can, with as perfect freedom and perfect
confidence, state their grievances before any
tribunal and all authorities, from the highest
to the lowest, as they can in the bosom of
their families or in a circle of intimate
friends. We, moreover, possess one infallible means—based on the laws of Nature
herself—of preserving to the French-Canadians in all their purity their language,
their
religion, their institutions and their laws;
and that means is education—the education
which we receive first from the authors of
our existence in our childhood, and which is
afterwards continued in our elementary
schools and our seminaries; that educationChristian, moral and religious—which is
so
carefully, wisely and anxiously instilled into
us in our youthful days by the masters and
tutors of our colleges ; that practical education which we acquire in the course of
our
dealings and transactions with men of business. That education it is, Mr. SPEAKER,
which renders nations prosperous, rich and
great, which elevates them to the rank of
which they are worthy, and maintains them
in it. It never fades from the mind on
which it has been impressed—it remains
fixed on the memory, like the characters
which we engrave on the bark of a
young tree, and which are found long
years after, when it falls under the woodman's axe. As the representative of
the city of Three Rivers, I may be allowed
to say a few words relative to the advantages
which Confederation will bring to that district. Every one knows that it possesses
immense tracts of land not yet opened out
to the settler, magnificent forests of timber of
all kinds, and mines of inestimable value.
It is beyond question that Three Rivers
yields the best iron in the country. This
was proved at the Great Exhibition at
London, where the first medals were awarded
to the Radnor Ironworks Company for the
best iron-wheels, in respect of durability,
elegance and quality. The St. Maurice has
been grossly neglected by the various Administrations which, during the last ten
years, have held office, although the district
yielded a revenue of $30,000 or $40,000 to
the public chest, which might have entitled
it to some compensation. Nevertheless, the
952
district of Three Rivers is not behind other
districts in the country, either in industrial
success or in the energy and enterprise of
its inhabitants. The Arthabaska Railway,
which it was said would not pay running
expenses, is at present more productive than
any part of the Grand Trunk Railway. We
need colonization roads and railways, and
I am convinced that under the Confederation, when we shall have the management
of our own funds without the interference of
Upper Canada, we shall build railways in all
parts where the requirements of trade and
industrial pursuits call for them. We shall
then offer to the settler well-made and well-
kept roads, and the district of Three Rivers
will derive precious results from them, as
'well as other districts of the country. (Hear,
Hear.) We have a proof of the rapidity
with which the district of Three Rivers
would grow, if it were encouraged. This is
found in the parishes of St. Maurice, St.
Etienne, Ste. Flore and Shawinigan. It is
nearly twenty-five years since St. Maurice
was a mere forest ; now it is a large,
rich, and beautiful parish, of which the
district of Three Rivers has reason to
be proud. It numbers upwards of five hundred voters with the parish of Mont Carmel,
which is an offset from it. The extensive trade
in timber which is carried on in the valley of
the St. Maurice, and which employs thousands
of laborers, is an important element in
the commercial business of the country,
exporting to a great amount the lumber
which is taken from the extensive territory—if I may be allowed the expressionbelonging
to the district of Three Rivers;
and these vast tracts which await the settler,
those iron mines so rich and so well known,
those mines of other minerals still hidden
in the mountains and valleys of the St.
Maurice, those riches of all kinds which
abound there await only the hand of man
to render the district and city of Three
Rivers an important part of Lower Canada.
(Hear, hear.) The Ministers of the Crown
in Canada have been accused of bringing up
the question of Confederation only as a
means of retaining power and increasing it.
The Hon. Attorney General for Lower
Canada has been accused of moving that
measure only that he may become Lieutenant-
Governor of Lower Canada. Well, Mr.
SPEAKER, I am thoroughly convinced that
that honorable Minister has too much energy,
is too laborious, to seek or to accept an office
in which he would have nothing to do.
(Hear, hear.) For my part, I make a
present to the Opposition of all the profit I
am likely to derive from places or dignities
under Confederation, when we have it. I
repel the idea that Canadian statesmen
allowed themselves to be influenced by paltry
notions of personal interest, when they set
about devising means to extricate us from the
difficulties in which we were involved. They
had in view only the interests of the nation,
and never had a thought, as some have insinuated, of delivering the country up to
ruin and
desolation. I conclude, Mr. SPEAKER, by
declaring that I am in favor of Confederation,
and opposed to the appeal to the people,
because I believe it to be perfectly useless.
An hon. member who spoke yesterday told
us that the clergy are not qualified to form a
judgment on the project of Confederation.
Now, I ask you, if the clergy are not
qualified to form a judgment on such a question, how the people can form one who have
not the necessary education ? How can
they comprehend the aggregate and the
details of the scheme, and ascertain whether
it would be beneficial to them or not ? I
repeat that I am in favor of the project now
under consideration—first, because I declared myself favorable to the measure when
I
presented myself to my constituents ; and,
secondly, because I think it necessary and
even indispensable, and calculated moreover
to promote the interests of the country in
general, and those of Lower Canada and the
district of Three Rivers in particular.(Cheers)
MR. GAGNON — Mr. SPEAKER, the
scheme of a Confederation of the provinces
now before this House is one too deeply
interesting to be received in silence. If I
rise to speak on this occasion, it is for the
simple purpose of justifying my opinion on
the subject, by stating my reasons for entertaining it ; and as I am not in the habit
of
making speeches, I crave the indulgence of
the House. It is the opinion of members
on the other side of the House that the
country will derive great advantages from
this union ; but those advantages depend, as
most people think, on the contingencies of
an unknown future, and by others, are looked
upon as the doubtful results of a hazardous
and dangerous speculation, which will involve the ruin of our credit. Not only, Mr.
SPEAKER, do we risk our capital, which will
be lost in the execution of this great scheme ;
953
not only do we ruin, by this new union, the
credit of our country, but we Lower Canadians risk everything that is dear to us,
even our nationality, while knowing that we
can gain nothing by the change. As an
inducement to Lower Canada to accept this
scheme, we are promised a railway to open
up an intercourse of commerce with the
Lower Provinces, and we are given to believe
that this great commerce to be opened up
by the grand line of communication will be
a vast benefit to us ; but those who will take
time to reflect may come to a different conclusion, without any danger of being mistaken,
for those provinces have nothing to
exchange with us. We have the same productions as they have, and in greater
abundance than any of them. They have
nothing but coal which we do not possess,
and that is not transported by railway. This
railway will, as a matter of course, load to
the expenditure of enormous sums for building it, and will afterwards cost us a great
deal
in repairs and working expenses, and after
all, will only be of use as a substitute for a
few schooners which carry down our produce
to the Gulf Provinces every season. This,
Mr. SPEAKER, will be a dear price to pay
for the complete destruction of our little
inland navigation, which ought rather to be
protected. The amount of expenditure
involved in the building of this railway, if
wisely applied to the opening of colonization
roads, to the improvement of roads and
bridges, and the clearing of the public lands,
would be much more beneficial to the people of
this province, who would find in these things
a degree of satisfaction and happiness which
would enable them to do without Confederation, which would be no cure for our political
troubles. A little more good-will and
calmness in discussing the question, would
have stifled the cry for representation based
on population, and our country would have
been able to go on under the actual union,
which is less dangerous and less expensive
than that which is now proposed by the
Government. I should have had other remarks to offer, Mr. SPEAKER, but I am
obliged to postpone them, as hon. members
must be worn out with their long sittings,
and the lateness of the hour. (Cheers.)
HON. MR. HUNTINGTON said—I do
not intend, Mr. SPEAKER, to occupy the
time of the House in any lengthened remarks ; and yet as a member representing a
constituency of this country, I do not feel
disposed to give a vote on this question,
without saying at least a word upon it.
And it occurs to me—and I say it in the
best spirit, and with no intention to cast a
reflection upon honorable gentlemen opposite
—that if there is so great a desire as appears
to exist tonight on the part of honorable
members to express themselves upon this
question—many of them who are favorable
to the scheme as well as opposed to it—and
if it is found that the opportunity is curtailed, the responsibility does not at any
rate rest upon this side of the House. (Hear,
hear.) I do not as I have said, prppose at
this late hour to enter at any considerable
length into a discussion of this measure;
but there are points that present themselves
to me as possessing considerable importance,
that have not, I believe, been brought out
during the progress of the debate; and if
an opportunity is subsequently given for
remarking upon them, I may avail myself
of it. But I cannot forbear remarking
now, in reference to the announcement
made by the Government the other night,
that in a certain sense I consider it was
a step in the right direction. I believe
it was then stated that a mission would
be sent to England to consult with the
Imperial Government with a view of arranging definitely the question of the defence
of this country, and the proportion of
the cost of defence to be borne by the respective countries. Now, without desiring
or intending to occupy the time of the
House by raising a debate upon this point,
I cannot help observing that it was desirable, before this scheme of Confederation
was
adopted at all by the Conference, that this
arrangement should have taken place with
the Imperial Government—that it should
have been preliminary to the plan of union
proposed, and that the Conference should
have taken upon itself to arrange with
the Imperial Government the proportionate
expense which is to be borne by the two
countries in relation to the defence Of these
provinces; for, let it be borne in mind that
this question has been forced upon us in
Canada as the only means of preparing the
country against the aggression of our neighbors; and yet we are asked in adopting
this
scheme, to go to a great extent in the dark.
We are asked to adopt it, and at the same
time it is known that the result must be a
change in respect to the proportion of defence we in this country will be called upon
954
to bear. It has been said that the disposition in England to take part in our defence
was owing to the fact that Canada had
manifested a disposition also to make provision for defence. Now, supposing we
should fail at any time hereafter to hear what
may be considered in England a fair proportion of this cost, what would be the consequence?
Why, we might be placed again
in precisely the same position in which we
find ourselves to-day. England might withdraw her troops from this province, and
refuse to engage in any defensive works,
unless we undertook more than in the opinion of the people of this country we are
able
to bear ; and hence it is my opinion that if
it was desirable that this question of Confederation should be submitted to the people
at all for their adoption, the first and indispensable step to have taken was to arrange
with the Imperial Government the terms
and conditions as regards the question of
defence upon which we are to enter this
new state of political existence. ln this
sense I do not regret that the scheme, as far
as the Lower Provinces are concerned—judging from recent events in New Brunswick
and the utterances of public men in the
other colonies—is likely to be delayed in its
accomplishment ; and I am not sorry that
the Canadian Government, by this action of
the Lower Provinces, will be compelled to
consult with the Imperial authorities and
arrange with them the proportion we are to
bear of the cost of maintaining the defence
of the country. (Hear, hear.) It may be
almost providential that we are compelled,
by the force of circumstances in the Lower
Provinces, to take this step now ; and I must
say that heretofore there has been a disposition manifested on the part of the Government
to keep the people in ignorance upon
this subject ; but I trust that when these
negotiations shall have taken place with the
Imperial Government, we shall know precisely what the Government has done and
what it has agreed to do, and that the exact
proportion of expense that we are expected
to bear will be laid before this House and
submitted to the opinion of the people of
this country. (Hear, hear.) I make these
remarks, sir, merely because to me the
point appears to be a very important
one, and because I believe the fullest
information will be indispensable to this
House in the future discussions that may
take place upon this subject. (Hear, hear.)
There is another point that has suggested
itself, to which, perhaps, I may be permitted
to allude in a few words. I wish to do so
without reflecting upon any hon. member
of this House ; but I cannot help feeling
and expressing extreme regret, as a Canadian
and a British subject, at the spirit that has
characterized this discussion upon Confederation and defence on the part of those
hon.
gentlemen who support this scheme. Sir,
in a British Legislature, where it is proposed
to build up a great monarchical- constitution
on this continent, on the model which has
flourished in England, I regret that any
honorable gentleman should have found it
necessary to charge a seditious and disloyal
intention upon all those who cannot agree
with them in supporting this scheme.
(Hear, hear.) For myself—I say it sincerely
and earnestly, though I have boasted less of
my loyalty and attachment to the British
Crown and Constitution than some hon. members of this House—I think I may say there
is
no one who loves more than I love the British constitutional system, no man who desires
more than I desire to see copied here
that British constitutional—monarchical system, and no man who believes more firmly
than I believe that it would give to the
people of these colonies that greatness,
prosperity and freedom that have distinguished the people from whom we have
sprung on the other side of the water.
(Hear, hear.) But if this debate is considered to be of sufficient importance to have
a
place among the records of the country—to
go down to posterity as the serious utterances of our public men, I think it is a
cause of deep regret that hon. gentlemen
opposite, in view of that great patriotism of
which they have boasted so much, and which
they affirm has induced them to sink minor
considerations of party and personal antagonism for the sake of carrying a principle
of which they profess to be the
disinterested and self-denying exponents,
have not seen fit, in the discussion of this
question, to discuss it like statesmen, and not
brand as infamous, traitorous and rebellious
those who differ from them in their view of
it. (Hear, hear.) I think the people of this
country, whether belonging to the Conservative or the Reform party, will feel a deep
regret at this ; and if there is one thing more
than another that indicates that the present
like past coalitions is going to result in advantage to the Conservative at the expense
of the Reform party—if there is one thing
more than another that makes me fear that
955
the Reform members of the Government, for
whom I have a strong political as well as
personal sympathy, will be overwhelmed by
their conservative colleagues—it is this cry,
this bugbear, this
bête noire of annexation
raised by hon. gentlemen on the other side
of the House. Why, sir, it is only a few
months since we had the great Constitutional
party organized in this country, and baptized
with an amount of eloquence and parade such
as never attended the birth of a party in any
other country. We were told by the leaders
of this great Constitutional party that the
British Constitution in this country must be
defended; that the country was divided into
two parties—the Annexation party and the
Constitutional party—and that the reformers
composed the former, while the conservatives
desired to perpetuate British connection.
My hon. friend the member for Lambton
was singled out for attack, and told that he
and those with whom he acted desired to
hand the country over to the Americans ;
that he was unfaithful and untrue to his
allegiance ; that he carried the sign of
democracy on his face ; and the whole Reform party was branded last summer by the
Conservative leaders as annexationists, who
desired to uproot and overthrow the British
institutions of this country. Well, sir, what
do we find now ? We find the same charges
hurled at the minority in this House—my
hon. friends who sit around me—by the
leaders of this same great Constitutional
party ; and we find the Honorable Provincial
Secretary, the Honorable Postmaster General, and the Honorable President of the
Council— for all of whom, I confess, I
yet feel a strong political sympathy—sitting
silently by, while their old friends and former colleagues are suffering the same
abuse
that was dealt out to them by their present
colleagues only a few short months ago.
Have they suddenly turned to view these
charges as just, or do they still think, as
they thought last summer, that they are
unfair and unfounded ? If they were unfair
then, is it right now that, without a word of
expostulation, they should allow them to be
hurled at us without a word of expostulation
from the great Liberal party of Upper
Canada, that has suffered with us from these
disgraceful, foul and slanderous imputations?
(Hear, hear.) Is it liberal, is it just, is it
fair, is it manly, sir, that they should now
sit silently by and see the handful who compose the minority in this House—honorable
gentlemen with whom, but a short time
since, they acted and in whom they had
confidence—branded, as they themselves
were branded six months ago, with the name
of annexationist and democrat ? (Hear,
hear.) I have thought, as I have heard
these charges reiterated, that they might
have interposed ; I have thought they might
have pitied us a little for the sake of former
associations. I have thought that the great
Liberal party of Upper Canada might have
come a little to the rescue of their former
colleagues, and said to those who uttered
these false accusations—' Don't hound down
these men too much ; we know and have
acted with them : they are not annexationists, they are not rebellious, and we know
that your accusations against them are unfair and ungenerous." But, sir, throughout
this debate these members of the Government
have listened to attacks of this kind—the
great Reform party of Upper Canada, which
only yesterday, as it were, was smarting
under the lash that is now cracked over our
heads, which only yesterday writhed under
the odium of these false representations—sat
silently by, without a word of expostulation,
without a word in defence of their old
friends, whom they know to be unjustly and
slanderously accused. (Hear. hear.) Now,
why I speak of this matter is because I fear
that these gentlemen, who have long been
the exponents of that great Liberal party,
which has gained for us responsible government and everything worth living for under
the political system we now enjoy, will be
overwhelmed by the preponderance of conservative feeling in the Government and
conservative influence in the country. I
know that they do not feel comfortable
under the present state of affairs. I know
how the MCKELLARS, the MACKENZIES, who
have been so long the victims of conservative sneers, and others who have long fought
the battle of reform, must feel ; but I fear
that the conservative leaven is about to
leaven the whole lump.
HON. MR. HUNTINGTON—My hon.
friend, in the able speech he made upon this
subject, excepted himself, and there is no need
for me to except him. I say, sir, it is but
yesterday since the organs of hon. gentlemen
opposite, who lead the Constitutional party
of this country, denounced us all as Americans and annexatiouists ; and I warn the
hon. members of the Liberal party, who sit
quietly by while these charges are still made
against the minority, that the measure which
956
is meted out to us now, and to them last
summer, may again be dealt out to them
without mercy. (Hear, hear.) I repeat,
sir, I have, since this Coalition took place,
seen no sign so perfect and so convincing to
me, that the conservatives have had the
best of the bargain, as this—to see those
hon. gentlemen sitting tamely and silently
in their seats, and not rising to say a word
while the old cry under which they had
writhed for so many years is fulminated
against their former allies, and we have no
indication from them that they are not the
party which they once were. With these
remarks, and reserving to myself the right
of speaking more at length on the scheme,
which I would be glad to discuss somewhat
fully if time had been allowed, I have simply
to say that the constituency which I represent is not disposed to permit me to vote
for
this scheme. I say this from knowledge,
having been compelled to be a good deal
among them while attending to my business.
In the Eastern Townships, both among the
French and English, the general opinion
is strongly against this scheme. I have had
such opportunities of learning the views and
wishes of my constituents with reference to
this matter, as few other hon. gentlemen
have enjoyed for learning the opinion of
those whom they represent, and I come back
to this House very much strengthened in
the conviction that in the Eastern Townships, and especially in the constituency
which I represent-
HON. MR. HUNTINGTON—The hon.
member says " Hear, hear," but lthink I
may speak in behalf of a large number of
petitioners in the county of Compton(hear, hear)—there is a large majority of
the people opposed to this scheme. I have
felt it to be my duty, as no one had risen to
speak from the point of view I have taken,
that I should say a word for those who were
opposed to the scheme, and that as there
was no one here to speak for the Eastern
Townships, where so strong a feeling pervaded the masses against the scheme, I
would but discharge my duty in rising to
state what I found to be the feeling in those
townships. (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt
that the Conservative party have large following in the Eastern Townships. I have
no doubt that a great many of those who
follow the hon. member for Sherbrooke are
disposed to follow him in supporting the
scheme ; but I speak for the Liberal party
of those townships, with whose opinions
I have had an excellent opportunity of
becoming acquainted. I do not say that
the hon. member for Compton is not supported by that party in the position which
he has taken, but I do say that those people
in the Eastern Townships, as a general
thing, who sympathize with the Liberal
party, are opposed to the scheme in the
circumstances under which it has been presented to the people. I was not a little
surprised by a remark which fell from my
hon. friend the member for Richmond and
Wolfe ( Mr. WEBB). I know perfectly well
the hon. gentleman's sincerity, and therefore
I was singularly struck with the position he
took. While he seemed to admit the general feeling of apprehension which prevailed,
and the unpopularity of the scheme in the
Townships, yet he would vote for the whole
scheme, reserving to himself the right to
deal with details. The scheme having been
adopted by this House as a whole, there
is no probability whatever of the honorable
gentleman getting a chance to vote upon the
details a second time.
MR. WEBB—The resolutions have not
been adopted, nor yet concurred in by the
other provinces.
HON. MR. HUNTINGTON—Well, I am
speaking of them as if they had been adopted. It makes no difference whether they
are
adopted or not in the other provinces for
some time to come. So far as Canada is
concerned, the scheme will be carried before
this House rises, and there will be no further
opportunity of dealing with its details. But
suppose we should get the opportunity hereafter of voting on those details, in what
position would be my hon. friend from Richmond
and Wolfe, or my hon. friend from North
Wellington (Dr. PARKER)—in what position
would they stand when they rose to move
amendments to resolutions which they had
only so short a time previously voted for ?
Would they not be reminded by honorable
gentlemen opposite that they had swallowed
the whole bait, hook and line, bob and
sinker ! (Laughter.) They say they will
oppose the details in future ; but if the
details are incorrect, and they believe so, and
they say they do, why not oppose them now ?
It was said by the honorable member for
South Grenville (Mr. SHANLY) that we
ought to carry the whole scheme, let the
details be ever so unsatisfactory, trusting to
the Federal Legislature to detect and remedy
them hereafter. Now I think that Canada
957
has had some experience in that way of
doing things. Those details become vested
right, and the sections benefited by them
claim them as such. and tenaciously cling
to them. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, I
have not time to go into this subject at this
point, and show how objectionable are many
of the details ; but I maintain the position
that it is most absurd and illogical to ask us
to accept the scheme as a whole, and leave
such objectionable details to be regulated
hereafter. When the union of these provinces took place in 1841, the discussion in
relation to it in the British Houses of Parliament showed that the framers of the
Union Act expected that any difficulties that
might grow out of it would be easily regulated by the united Parliament of Canadathat
such questions as representation by
population could be dealt with at any time.
But what happened ? Why ! Lower Canada
treated equal representation as a vested right,
and stood firmly on that right. This being the
case, there was no process provided by which
the evil could be regulated. The result was
that a great struggle came on, the difficulties
arising out of which, honorable gentlemen
opposite tell us, have proved our Constitution to be a failure. From this experience
of the past, we ought to learn that it is very
bad policy to deliberately put errors in our
Constitution and trust to the future to remedy
them. If you speak of a union of all British North America, nobody objects. Everybody
is in favor of a union, provided the
details are satisfactory ; but providing imperfect details and trusting to the future
for
rendering them what they ought to have
been made at the outset, reminds me of an
incident a friend related the other day.
A carter was about to take a friend of mine
with his baggage to the railway station, when
my friend observed that one of the tugs was
nothing but a piece of rope. Says my friend,
" You are not going to take me through these
twenty miles of woods with that string, are
you?" "Oh ! never mind," says he, "I have
more strings in my pocket with which I can
regulate that on the road." So hon. gentlemen
on the Treasury benches ask us to follow
them in their rickety concern, assuring us
that they have a pocketful of strings with
which they can regulate things on the way.
( Laughter.) But, sir, they will find no little
difficulty in bringing their pocketful of
strings into operation. They will find almost
insurmountable difficulties in the way of removing the vested rights that will grow
up
under any system that may be established.
I believe that a number of circumstances
connected with this scheme, a discussion of
which I cannot now go into, render it the
general opinion of those whom it is my business to represent on this floor, that in
its
present shape this scheme ought not to be
carried into effect. First of all, so sweeping
a measure as this—one for sweeping away
our entire Constitution and substituting a
new one unknown to the British flag—ought
not to be carried out until it is submitted to
the people; and, secondly, the multitude of
details which it embraces ought to be calmly
and critically considered, with a view to
their amendment, where found defective, before being incorporated in our Constitution.
I do not say that this is the feeling of the
Conservative party of my own constituency, or of the Eastern Townships ; but
I do say that even among that party
there are grave apprehensions of difficulty growing out of such a jumble as is
presented for our adoption, when no time
is to be allowed even for their consideration,
to say nothing of their amendment. And
many of that party have no hesitation in
giving expression to those feelings. I have
not met with a man, conservative or reformer, during my absence from this session
of the House, who has not been ready to
contend that it was the first duty of the
Government to provide for consulting the
people, and ascertaining from them, in a
definite manner, whether they desired the
change proposed or not. (Hear, hear.)
Having thus briefly expressed my views,
Mr. SPEAKER, in order not to weary the
House at this late hour of the night—or
rather of the morning, for it is now after
three o'clock—I will conclude by stating
that I feel it my duty, as a true representative, to record my vote against the resolutions.
(Cheers.)
MR. COWAN—Mr. SPEAKER, the honorable member for Shefford says that he and his
friends sympathised with the Reform party of
Upper Canada when they were branded as
rebels and writhing under the charge of disloyalty, and blames us for not extending
the
same sympathy to him and his friends when
laboring under a similar accusation. I don't
deny, sir, that the reformers of Upper Canada have often been branded as rebels, but
I
do most emphatically deny that they ever
writhed under the false accusation. Conscious
of their fealty to both their Queen and country, they treated with the most sovereign
con
958tempt every such foul, unfounded imputation
against their loyalty. And I would advise
the hon. member for Shefford to keep equally
cool under similar provocation. If he and his
friends are really loyal—and I have no doubt
they are—all such aspersions of their loyalty,
instead of affecting them, will only recoil on
the heads of their accusers.
MR. T. R. FERGUSON said—Feeling
and knowing as I do, Mr. SPEAKER, the great
desire that is felt by the honorable gentlemen
on the Treasury benches, and also, I am ready
to admit, by the large majority of the honorable members of this House, that discussion
should not be continued unnecessarily, and
that no obstructions should be thrown in the
way of an immediate decision on the question
before us, I beg to state that it is not from
choice but from necessity, that it is not from
any desire of self-gratification, but from a deep
sense of duty, that I rise to say a single word
upon this occasion, particularly as so much
has been said, and as the night is now so far
advanced. I hope, therefore, that as I have
remained silent during the debate up to the
present moment, the House will bear with me
while I briefly express my views on this all-
important matter, and assign a few of the
reasons that induce me to record my vote in
the manner which I design. Sir, I would
say that I stand here in a different position
from that of many honorable members who
submitted the resolutions embodying the
Confederation scheme to their constituents,
and who held public meetings on the subject,
and who received from them positive instructions as to how their vote should be recorded.
I received a circular from the Government,
marked " Private," but took no action to
ascertain public opinion on its contents, so
that I am, I regret to say , without a single
word of advice as to how I should act in the
matter. I may say, sir, that after reading
the resolutions over again and again, I found
many things in them that I could not endorse.
I felt that they were not that which we had
expected from the Government, when we gave
our assent to the Coalition that was formed
for the purpose of bringing down some proposition for the settlement of our sectional
difficulties. I had expected that if a union
of the colonies took place at all, and a change
of our Constitution in that direction was proposed, we would not have had a Federal
but
a Legislative form of Government. It has
been stated, since we had the pleasure of
meeting together in the present session, that
the honorable gentlemen who went to the
Conference to represent Canadian views, and
engage in preparing a scheme of union, could
not obtain that union without its being
based upon the Federal system. Sir, I feel
that this is very much to be deplored, as I
believe that with a union based on the Federal system, we shall have constant dissension,
and before very many years, if this
scheme goes into operation, we shall again
have agitations for constitutional changes of
various kinds, and that the ultimate result
must be a perfect union under one Legislative Government for the whole country, and
that now was the best time to settle the matter finally. If in the end, however, that
should be the result of the long discussion we
have had upon this Constitution, then I shall
feel that though no amendments have been
allowed on the floor of this House, yet the
discussion has been productive of some good
purpose. (Hear, hear.) I had resolved upon
offering amendments upon various points in
the scheme before us, but the motion for the
"previous question" has shut them out,
which I very much regret. It is too late now
to enter into an explanation of these several
amendments I was about to move, or to state
what I contemplated accomplishing by proposing them. It is sufficient for me to say
that the previous question having been proposed, I feel that there has not been that
opportunity for the full consideration of the
scheme in all its parts that was expected, or
that ought to have been given to this House,
in view of the fact that the people are not to
be consulted in any other manner than by a
vote of their representatives. (Hear, hear.)
Being one of those, sir, who earnestly sought
for a constitutional change, and who joined
in the very just complaint of Upper Canada
that she was compelled to labor under great
grievances—the lack of equal rights with
Lower Canada on this floor, man for man,
while she also contributed much the larger
proportion of the revenue—it is needless for
me to say that I earnestly desired some
change, that I sympathized with the prevailing sentiment of Upper Canada, and
used my best endeavors, in the House and
out of it, to assist in bringing about a
remedy for our political and sectional ills.
But, sir, we found we could not get representation according to population ; and since
the present scheme was announced, and knowing the strong feeling which exists against
it
on the part of many of the Lower Canada
members, I endeavored to ascertain, on coming down here, the opinion of hon. gentlemen
959
from Lower Canada, and I found that, notwithstanding their opposition to the scheme
of
Confederation, which they were willing to do
almost anything to defeat, they were still persistent in denying to Upper Canada a
single
shadow of a hope that her grievances would
be redressed, if this scheme were rejected, by
the granting of representation according to
population. (Hear, hear.) Before coming here,
too, I entertained the opinion that those hon.
orable gentlemen from Upper Canada, who
had fought so long and so uselessly for representation according to population, would
join
with me in endeavoring to get an amendment
to the scheme before us adopted, giving us a
Legislative instead of a Federal union. I
soon found out, however, that there was little
hope of getting such an amendment carried,
because nine-tenths of them were determined
to accept the scheme as it stood, simply because their leaders were in the Government.
(Hear, hear.) My hon. friend the member
for Shefford (Hon. Mr. HUNTINGTON), complains of this measure being forced upon the
country ; but if there is one hon. gentleman
more than another chargeable with bringing
about this state of affairs, it is that honorable
gentleman. He once held a high and honorable position in the Governmentpf this country.
He is possessed of great ability, and
being highly popular with his constituents,
could well have afforded to have lent a helping hand to those who were desirous of
having the union as it was work satisfactorily.
I am satisfied that when he held the reins of
power, if he was so anxious for the good-will,
as well as for the reputation of the great Protestant and Reform party of Upper Canada,
and so desirous of maintaining and protecting
the rights which he now desires to have given
to his friends, he would have used his power
in the Government and his eloquence in the
House to obtain even-handed justice for Upper Canada, and to relieve his friends in
that
portion of the province from the difficulties
under which they labored. But, instead of
doing that, he joined a Government that denied its members the privilege of voting
for
representation according to population — a
Government that made it a close question,
and which, instead of dealing with it as they
ought to have done, or even giving us reason
to hope well of the future, took such a course
in relation to that great question as left a
dark and dismal future before those who had
been struggling for their rights on that question. As regards the position of that
Government, after it was reconstructed, I believe I
am right in saying it was thoroughly understood that its members were not to vote
for it.
MR. FERGUSON—Well, whatever may
have been their privileges, we all know that
there was nothing done in the matter, although they might have seen that it would
be better to come out honestly and say that
even-handed justice should be done to both
Upper and Lower Canada. As this was my
impression, Mr. SPEAKER, and seeing that no
change could be made in the Constitution
that would benefit Upper Canada, I felt I
had a duty to perform—I felt that if they
would not give us a change in the mode we
desired, it was not for me to say that I would
play the part of the dog in the manger. I feel
it would be better to have almost any scheme,
than to endure the difficulties we had labored
under for so many years past ; and I told the
honorable gentlemen from Lower Canada that
if that were the course they were to pursue,
they would change my mind to a considerable extent. Another thing which had a
peculiar effect on my mind, was the report of
Col. JERVOIS on the defences of our country.
It is impossible for me to deny that the
speeches which have been made in the English Parliament, expressive of a want of sympathy
with the Canadian people, and of a desire
to get rid of Canada, have not been pleasant
to me ; and although I think I have a loyal
heart, and am bound by powerful obligations
to maintain British supremacy, I find it hard
that English statesmen should express a willingness to shake us off and leave us in
the
power of a foreign nation. (Hear, hear.) But
Col. JERVOIS was sent out to ascertain what
defences were necessary, and what could be
done to defend this country if at an unfortunate moment a difficulty might arise.
When
I see that his report declares that we have a
difficult country to defend—that it would take
a large number of men to put us into a
condition to defend ourselves—and when I
see that the British Government, true to its
real instincts, is resolved to aid us in our defence—this, I say, has a great effect
upon my
mind, and makes me think it would not be
my duty, under the circumstances, to refuse
assent to the Government measure at a moment when I feel that the lives and property
of my constituents, 30,000 in number, are
open to an attack at any time from the powerful armies a foreign people might choose
to
bring up against them. (Hear.) The scheme
seems to me to be an expensive and trouble
960some one ; but I do not think it would be
right for me to reject any measure calculated
to ensure to us that assistance of which we
stand so much in need. The United States
are, perhaps, more willing to injure their
neighbors than other countries are, owing to
the universal idea that they must carry out
the Munroe doctrine of complete domination
over at least the American continent. They
are at this moment a war-making and a war-
loving people. For four years they have
been practising the art of war upon their
own flesh and blood, and have shown little
sympathy with those who have been in congress with them and jointly concerned in
every great enterprise—who grew with their
growth, and strengthened with their strength ;
and I feel that they would have very little
sympathy indeed with us in the event of any
trouble arising either between us and them,
or between them and the Mother Country.
We are in a very difficult position. The
Americans have done a great deal to revoke
the wrath of England and to insult Canada.
At this moment they want to abrogate the
Reciprocity treaty, and talk of doing away
with the bonding system. They lately imposed a passport system, which has only just
been removed. Well, seeing that there was
no redress for the grievances of Upper Canada, one Ministry falling after another
without doing anything, and viewing our condition relatively to the United States,
I feel it
my duty to forego opposition to this new arrangement. When I saw the telegraphic despatch,
too, relating to the debate in the House
of Lords a few days ago ; when I saw that
there people were so interested in Canadian
affairs, that on the question being put in the
House of Lords it was declared by the leader
of the House that no steps should be taken
respecting the Hudson's Bay Company until
some information should be received from
Canada respecting the Confederation system ;
when I found that they were willing to be
with us in peace and with us in war ; when
they said " Help yourself and we will help
you" ; when they said, in language stronger
than words can convey, " Not a hair of
your head shall be touched without returning the injury tenfold," I felt that we must
support these new resolutions. (Hear.) I
do not think, with my honorable friend who
spoke today, that in three years there will be
a cry for annexation. I think that in three
years we shall be a stable people—that in
three years we shall have sufficient defences
to resist aggression—that in three years
we shall have risen in the estimation of
England and the world at large—that our
boundaries will extend from Canada to the
Red River and the Saskatchewan. I agree
with another honorable gentleman who has
spoken to-day, and do not desire to see the
young men of this country sent away into
another country , when we have spacious limits
of our own. I desire to keep our young men
among us, and our old men too, as long as
they live. (Hear, hear.) When I think that
England is going to do much for us in other
respects, I think she will be willing to open
up that country ; she will not be an unkind
mother to us, and demand from her children
that, when she has placed us in a position
of difficulty, we should bear all the burdens.
I believe, however, that we ought to put our
shoulders to the wheel and do something for
ourselves. That is the true spirit of Britons ;
for if we did not, we should be open to insult
—and insult is worse than injury. Rather than
have to bear with it, I am willing to risk the
consequences of even a larger debt than we
yet have—to give some of the means that I
possess ; and in saying and acting thus for
myself, I am speaking and acting for my
constituents too, who sent me here without
any other pledge or bond than that I should
do for them the best I could. I have made
this the land of my adoption, and it is evident
that any injury I impose on their children I
impose on my own too. (Hear.) Whatever
may be the result of the scheme—and I trust
it will not turn out so badly as some hon.
gentlemen seem to expect, and which I much
dreaded myself—I trust we shall have such
arrangements made with the Maritime Provinces, if arrangements are made with them,
that we shall have a real union—not union
mixed with disunion. (Hear, hear.) I believe that in the course of the summer we
shall see millions of British capital spent here
for our defence, and I see clearly that we shall
have to contract debt for this purpose ourselves. But we have another duty to perform
: we have to prepare the strong-hearted
yeomen of this country to man our fortifications. England cannot supply us with all
the men and money necessary to defend the
province—that is the duty of our young men,
and our middle aged men too. If we do not
perform this duty, we shall not be worthy of
the name of a people, not be worthy of the
rights, liberties and privileges we enjoy. I
will not detain the House much longer ; but
I must say that one remark I heard addressed
to this Chamber to-day, seemed to me very
961
uncharitable. This House will believe me
when I say that I was as much astonished as
others to see a Government formed, composed
of men of different parties ; but, sir, I came
to the conclusion that the state of parties at
that time, and the conduct of some so-called
friends of the Ministry then in power, led to
such an event ; and I do not blame the Conservatives who were in that Government for
taking in other gentlemen, if by that course
they could advance the interests of the country. I have heard it said that some members
of the present Government were actuated in entering that Government by the greed
of office, its emolument and its power ; but I
will not be so uncharitable as to make such
an accusation against them. I believe they
suffered a good deal personally in making the
arrangement, and I should be sorry to say
they did it for any other object than to satisfy
the obligations of their conscience. Their
object, sir, was, no doubt, the good of the
country, not the small gain or the temporary
pleasure of holding for a few years the position of Ministers. (Hear.) I trust they
will discharge their duty as Ministers in such
a way as to enable the people of the country
to regard their advent to power with satisfaction—not to condemn them for wrong-doing
as traitors to their country. (Hear, hear.)
I think, sir, there are Ministers in the Cabinet
who could make far more money in the pursuit of their various avocations than in governing
the country, and I trust they will be
as economical as they can in all their expenditure, while not losing sight of one
great aim
—that the people of this country must be prepared to defend themselves, so as not
to be
afraid of the threats and alarms that reach us
every day. If in the end we arrive at a union
of the colonies, good results will flow from it.
I think we have no evil results to fear, though
I would at this moment, if I could, remedy
some of the faults in these seventy-two resolutions. I am sorry, for instance, for
one
thing—that the clause relating to the general
education of the people of this country was
inserted in its present shape into the resolutions. I am sorry the separate school
system
is to be retained for Upper Canada. I am
sorry that bone of contention is to be incorporated into the permanent Constitution
of
this country. Though 52,000 Roman Catholic children in Upper Canada attended
school in 1863, no more than 15,000 of them
ever availed themselves of the separate schools.
A VOICE—You are wrong.
MR. FERGUSON—No, I beg the honor
able gentleman's pardon, I am not wrong.
I take the figures of the Superintendent of
Education, Dr. RYERSON. And of my own
knowledge, in places where separate schools
have been established and are still existing,
the Roman Catholics have grown weary of
them, and I am satisfied they would now be
willing that their children should get their
education along with the children of the rest
of the community, without any fear that their
respect for their own religion would be interfered with, or their consciences injured.
(Hear,
hear.) I trust the day will come when they
will all take the right view of it, and the
question with them with reference to education
may be—not what church they belong tobut how their children may receive the best
education, and grow up with other youth in
peace and harmony. I regret that the subject
is mentioned in these resolutions. I had a
resolution prepared on that matter, as well as
another with regard to our canals, and I am
sorry I have not had an opportunity of moving
them. I trust, however, that the assurances
given by the Honorable President of the
Council will be carried out, and that a canal
and a direct and unbroken communication
from Lake Huron to Quebec will be an accomplished fact at no distant day. The people
of Western Canada will be dissatisfied and
bitterly disappointed if the honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches neglect this
;
and if they do, they may rest assured that
another cry will come, by and by, from Upper
Canada which will remove them from their
seats, as others have been removed from those
seats before. (Hear, hear.) While money
contributed by the west is spent in the east,
we insist that the improvements necessary for
the prosperity of Upper Canada should also
receive the attention of the Government ; and
there is not a man in Upper Canada who does
not see the necessity of having our navigation
improved and a sufficient channel for seagoing vessels made to the seaboard. If this
is attended to, there will not be so much
to complain of about the Intercolonial Railroad being built, although we should like
to
have it built at a cheaper rate. In conclusion,
I would say, that notwithstanding all the
objections I may have to details—yet, in view
of the relations in which we stand to the
neighboring country—the urgency of the
defence question, and the threatening aspect
generally of our present position, I take upon
myself, though with great reluctance, the
responsibility of voting for this scheme.
(Cheers.)
962
The House then divided on the motion for
the previous question, " That that question
he now put," which was agreed to on the
following division:-
Yeas—Messieurs Alleyn, Archambeault, Ault,
Beaubien, Bell, Bellerose, Blanchet, Bowman,
Bown, Brousseau, Brown, Burwell, Cameron
(Peel), Carling, Attorney General Cartier, Cartwright, Cauchon, Chambers, Chapais,
Cockburn,
Cornellier, Cowan, Currier, De Boucherville,
Denis, De Niverville, Dickson, Dufresne (Montcalm), Dunsford, Ferguson (Frontenac),
Ferguson (South Simcoe), Galt, Gaucher, Harwood,
Haultain, Higginson, Howland, Irvine, Jackson,
Jones (North Leeds and Grenville), Jones (South
Leeds), Knight, Langevin, LeBoutillier, Attorney General Macdonald, MacFarlane, Mackenzie
(Lambton), Mackenzie (North Oxford), Magill,
McConkey, McDougall, McGee, McGiverin, McIntyre, McKellar, Morris, Morrison, Pope,
Poulin, Poupore, Rankin, Raymond, Rémillard,
Robitaille, Rose, Ross (Champlain), Ross (Dundas), Ross (Prince Edward), Scoble, Shanly,
Smith (East Durham), Smith (Toronto East),
Somerville, Stirton, Street, Sylvain, Thompson,
Walsh, Webb, Wells, White, Willson, Wood,
Wright (Ottawa County), and Wright (East
York).—85.
Nays—Messieurs Biggar, Bourassa, Cameron
(North Ontario), Caron, Coupal, Dorion (Drum mond and Arthabaska), Dorion (Hochelaga),
Duckett, Dufresne (Iberville), Evanturel, Fortier,
Gagnon, Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gibbs, Holton,
Houde, Huntington, Huot, Joly, Labreche-Viger,
Laframboise, Lajoie, Macdonald (Cornwall),
Macdonald (Glengarry), Macdonald (Toronto
West), O'Halloran, Pâquet, Parker, Perrault,
Pinsonneault, Pouliot, Powell, Rymal, Scatcherd,
Taschereau, Thibaudeau, Tremblay, and Wall-
bridge (North Hastings).—39.
Yeas—Messieurs Alleyn, Archambeault, Ault,
Beaubien, Bell, Bellerose, Blanchet, Bowman,
Bown, Brousseau, Brown, Burwell, Cameron
(Peel), Carling, Attorney General Cartier, Cartwright, Cauchon, Chambers, Chapais,
Cockburn,
Cornellier, Cowan, Currier, De Boucherville,
Denis, De Niverville, Dickson, Dufresne (mont
calm), Dunsford, Evanturel, Ferguson (Frontenac), Ferguson (South Simcoe), Galt, Gaucher,
Gaudet, Gibbs, Harwood, Haultain, Higginson,
Howland, Huot, Irvine, Jackson, Jones (N. Leeds
and Grenville), Jones (South Leeds), Knight,
Langevin, Le Boutillier, Atty. Gen. Macdonald,
Marlane, Mackenzie (Lambton), Mackenzie
(North Oxford), Magill, McConkey, McDougall,
McGee, McGiverin. Mclntyre, McKellar, Morris,
Morrison, Parker, Pope, Poulin, Poupore, Powell, Rankin, Raymond, Rémillard, Robitaille,
Rose, Ross (Champlain), Ross (Dundas), Ross
(Prince Edward), Scoble, Shanly, Smith (East
Durham), Smith (Toronto East), Somerville,
Stirton, Street, Sylvain, Thompson, Walsh,
Webb, Wells, White, Willson, Wood, Wright
(Ottawa County), and Wright ( East York).—91.
Nays—Messieurs Biggar, Bourassa, Cameron
(North Ontario), Caron, Coupal, Dorion (Drummond and Arthabaska), Dorion (Hochelaga),
Duckett, Dufresne (Iberville), Fortier, Gagnon,
Geoffrion, Holton, Houde, Huntington, Joly,
Labreche-Viger, Laframboise, Lajoie, Macdonald
(Cornwall), Macdonald (Glengarry), Macdonald
(Toronto West), O'Halloran, Påquet, Perrault,
Pinsonneault, Pouliot, Rymal, Scatcherd, Taschereau, Thibaudeau, 'l'remblay, and Wallbridge
(North Hastings).—33.
The House then adjourned.
This individual participated in:
