962
MONDAY, March 13, 1865.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—When
the House was about to adjourn on Friday
night, it was arranged that we should finish
to-day the proceedings connected with the
Address. I therefore now move :—
That a select committee, consisting of Hon.
Messrs. Attorneys General MACDONALD and CARTIER, and GALT and BROWN, and Messrs. ROBITAILLE
and HAULTAIN, be appointed to draft an
Address to Her Majesty on the resolution agreed
to on Friday last, the 10th instant, on the subject
of the union of the colonies of British North
America.
HON. J. H. CAMERON—Before that
motion is carried, I propose to move—as I
think this is the proper time—the resolution
of which I gave notice some days ago. I
therefore now desire to put into your hands,
Mr. SPEAKER, seconded by Mr. M. C.
CAMERON, that resolution, which is as follows :—
That all the words after " That " be left out,
and the following inserted instead thereof : " an
humble Address presented to His Excellency
the Governor General, praying that His Excellency, in view of the magnitude of the
interests
involved in the resolutions for the union of the
colonies of British North America, and the entire
change of the Constitution of this province, will
be pleased to direct that a constitutional appeal
shall be made to the people, before these resolutions are submitted for final action
thereon to
the consideration of the Imperial Parliament."
I understood the other day that it was the
intention of the Hon. Attorney General
West to raise a question as to the propriety
963
of moving this resolution at the present
stage of the proceedings. I desire to know
whether it is still his intention to raise that
objection, because, if it is, I should confine
myself in the first place to arguing that
point.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I do
object. But I do not mean to enter into
any argument, but merely to ask the decision
of the Speaker on the point of order.
THE SPEAKER—Having learned that
the point of order was to be raised, I have
looked into the matter, and decide that the
resolution is in order.
HON. MR. CAMERON—Then, I will
proceed to offer to the House the observations which I think it necessary to make,
as well on the general subject as on the
particular matter embraced in this motion.
And as the House is aware that I very
rarely trouble it with a speech on any matter, unless I consider it to be one of importance,
and that when I do I seldom detain
hon. members at any considerable length, I
trust they will bear with me in those observations. Considering the length of time
that the subject has been discussed, and the
great desire that exists in the mind of every
one to have this subject brought to a conclusion as rapidly as possible, I promise
on
this occasion to be brief. I have already, so
far as my own individual vote in this House
is concerned, done exactly what I would have
done if I had only been an elector called upon
for his vote. We have pronounced upon the
resolutions submitted to the House, and I
have shewn my own conviction of their propriety by having voted in their favor; and
if I were to exercise my franchise as an
elector, I would do outside the House what
I have done inside the House, and declare
in favor of those resolutions, though not
satisfied that the scheme for the Confederation of the provinces would be so advantageous
as the larger scheme of a legislative
union. But I have always felt that if you
desire to obtain something which you believe
for the benefit of the country, you should
not insist upon that which is impossible—
that which cannot be carried, but should
endeavor to obtain that which you can fairly
reach, and by and by you may get that
which, at a far distance, seems impossible.
(Hear, hear.) I believe the Confederation
of the colonies will lead hereafter to a legislative union. The only difficulty I
have felt
is, that I believe it would have been infin
itely better if all the powers given to local
governments should also be given to the
General Government, so that when the time
came—when all those smaller stars should
fall from the firmament—the General Government would possess all those powers, and
there would be no necessity then for framing
a new Constitution. This subject, I think,
may be fairly considered under three aspects.
First, as regards the necessity of a change in
the Constitution at all. Secondly, as regards
the nature of the change proposed, and how
it will affect the interests involved in it.
And, thirdly, as regards the propriety of the
measure being submitted to the people,
before it is finally enacted by the Imperial
Legislature. As to the first point—the
necessity of a change—I believe there are
very few people in the country, in whatever
part of it they may be found, who will be
prepared to say that some change in the
Constitution of the country has not become
necessary. I believe we are all satisfied that
things cannot go on as they are now. I
believe we are all satisfied that the people
are looking out for some alteration, by which
they hope a greater amount of prosperity
may come to the country, than that which
has been around it and about it for some
years past. I am firmly convinced in my
own mind—against the opinions of one or
two hon. gentlemen, who stood up here the
other night—that there has not been, since
the union of these provinces, a greater
amount of depression, a greater want of
feeling of prosperity throughout the whole
western portion of Canada, than exists
there at this moment. I believe that into
whatever part of the country you go, you
will find that a succession of bad crops, and
the difficulties which have arisen from large
sums of money having been borrowed at
high interest, and the necessity of large
remittances to England—that all these have
pressed heavily on the energies of the
people, and tended to paralyse them; and
they are looking out, therefore, in every
direction, with the best hopes they can
conjure up, for some change or alteration,
such as they believe will place them on a
better footing than that which they have
hitherto occupied. (Hear, hear.) The Hon.
President of the Council for many years
past, with a great number of those who
have always been in the habit of acting
with him, has believed that if we obtained,
in the western portion of Canada, represen
964
tation by population, it would have great
influence in stimulating the energies of the
people, and placing them on a much more
satisfactory footing than that on which they
now stand. I am satisfied, with that hon.
gentleman, that it would have had this
effect to a very great extent. But we know
very well the antagonisms which existed between the two sections, and that that measure,
while pressed by Upper Canada, was
resisted by Lower Canada. We have felt—
and no doubt many in Lower Canada have
felt—that this Confederation of the British
North American Colonies would probably
not have reached the point it has reached,
had the demands—the just demands—of
Upper Canada been conceded by Lower
Canada ; had we been placed in that
position on the floor of this House,
which we thought the interests of the
western portion of Canada required at the
hands of the Legislature. (Hear, hear.)
But we have not found that that was done.
Lower Canada felt that if representation by
population were conceded, there would have
been dangers incurred to her own institutions, which s e was not willing to place
in
the hands of the increased number of representatives from Upper Canada. I think the
people of Lower Canada were mistaken in
that feeling. I do not believe that her
institutions would have been dealt with in a
way unsatisfactory to her people. The people of Upper Canada, I think, have always
been prepared to do what was fair and just
towards the peeple of Lower Canada.
(Hear, hear.) I have no doubt, however,
that the people of Lower Canada would
be much more ready to take up such a
scheme as this. which would give them
a Local Legislature to manage their own
local affairs, rather than adopt a measure
which would place them in what they
might conceive to be an inferior position in point of their numbers on the floor
of this House, and an inferior position in
respect of power—supposing representation
by population in the united Legislature of
Canada were carried. There can be no
doubt that the idea that there is a necessity
for change has not only grown up from the
feeling to which I have referred, but from
the circumstances connected with our relations to the neighboring republic during
the last three or four years. The Reciprocity treaty was passed ten years ago, at
a
time when the value placed upon the Canadas by the neighboring country was very
different from that now placed upon them—
when the statesmen of the United States
believed the effect of that measure would be
gradually to ripen the pear of this country,
until it would be prepared to fall into their
hands. And, unquestionably, the views of
many of those who consented to the Reciprocity treaty, at the time of their consenting
to it, were that they expected that
its effect would be gradually to facilitate the
passage of these colonies into the arms of
the United States—to create a feeling in
favor of annexation, and to check the feeling which was springing up of an entirely
opposite character. But now there is no
doubt that the disposition to abrogate the
Reciprocity treaty has not arisen alone from
angry feelings against England by the
people of the United States, and in consequence of the fancied raids from this
country—but also from the fact that there
has been a great pressure of taxation upon
themselves, and the necessity of raising the
tariff, and from the belief that if a tax were
placed upon the produce coming in to them
from Canada, an increased revenue would result. All these circumstances have iven
rise
to the desire on the part of the peop e and the
Government of the United States to place
this uestion on a different footing from that
on which it has stood for ten years, and to
repeal that treaty which they represent to
be entirely in favor of Canada, though in
point of fact it is very largely in favor of
the United States. (Hear, hear.) Another
reason why a change is necessary, is—as we
cannot conceal from ourselves—that our
position as a colony has been greatly altered
by the events which have taken place in the
United States. We cannot now expect that
we can sit with our arms folded, praying
that Providence may be good to us, though
we do not prepare to defend ourselves. We
cannot expect that England will be prepared
to take on her shoulders almost the whole of
the burden, and that we are to be neither the
hewers of wood nor the drawers of water. We
must be both. And if we obtain, as I hope,
through the resolutions which have been
passed, when the proper time comes, we will
obtain—if we get the name and
status of a
nation, we should not be afraid also to take
the responsibilities of a nation ; and the
course most likely to save us from attack is
that we should learn in the time of peace to
be prepared for the exigency of war, and to
put ourselves—a peeple of four millions, as
we will be when united together—in a posi
965
tion to defend our liberties from whatever
quarter they may be attacked. (Cheers.)
We cannot therefore help seeing that a necessity exists for this change, a necessity
urged upon us, both by our political position,
with reference to the state of the representation in Parliament, and by the position
in
which, in common with the colonies below,
we stand with reference to the probabilities of hostilities from the United States,
and the placing of the country in a
proper state of defence. The necessity
Of change then being admitted—and I
believe there is scarcely one honorable
gentleman on either side of the House who
does not admit it—some think that change
should be brought about in one way, some
think that it should be brought about in
another way. Some think—and the Hon.
President of the Council at one time apparently was of that opinion—that the most
desirable change would be the smaller
scheme of the Federation of Canada, divided
into two or three provinces—that that would
be the best way of averting the evils. which
threaten us. Some believe we can go on as
we are now.
HON. MR. CAMERON —And others
think that the only way by which we can
get into a satisfactory position, would be by
a union of the colonies, either in accordance with this scheme, or by a legislative
union. I would like to know how many
there are who believe that we can go on as
we are now.
HON. MR. CAMERON—I believe there
are not a half a dozen members of this House
who believe that, with the difliculties of our
position, we can work the union on present
terms. If we cannot, then we have the
alternatives of the dissolution of the union—
going back to the old position we occupied
belore the union, which no man would
entertain for a, moment—-or a Federation of
the Canadas—or this larger scheme of a union
of all the British North American Colonies.
If any one for a moment will consider all
those projects in the true view in which
they ought to be considered, he will see that
with ref.-rence to the second branch of my
subject—the nature of the change, and the
magnitude of the interests involved in it—
this scheme is the one to which the Legislature and the people of this country must
necessarily come. (Hear, hear.) We are
desirous of assuming a position on this continent, which will place the whole of these
feeble colonies under one united government.
And when that united government is formed, when that uniou does take place, we
shall then stand in a position which, according to the facts and figures that have
been
used from time to time in this debate, will
establish us as a power on this continent,
and enable us to assist in working out the
three problems presented by the three governments—the despotic government of
Mexico, the republican government of the
United States, and the constitutional government of these colonies. (Hear, hear.)
I trust the result would be, that we should
see the government of these colonies standing longer than any of the others, inasmuch
as we believe it is based on the more free
exercise of the true will of the people, and '
carries out institutions which in the Mother
Country have stood the test of time, toil and
wear, until they have become more firmly
cemented now than at any former period of
their existence. (Hear, hear.) And I
cannot help feeling that if ere is that
necessity for a change, the nature of
the change preposed must commend itself to
every one who is a true lover of his country
on this side of the Atlantic. (Hear, hear.)
We are five colonies with a population of
4,000,000, and we shall have a debt of about
$80,000,000, or about 820 for each inhabitant. In the neighboring republic, from a
statement made at the close of last year, we
learn that the debt in that country, on the first
of July next, will be no less than about 8150
on the head of every inhabitant. Hence our
young nation, with a debt of only $20 upon
each "inhabitant, will stand in a position, in
reference to debt, far different from what the
people of that country will stand. Let us
take a glance over the whole of the British
Colonial Empire. England has thirty-eight
colonies, containing ten millions of people.
Six millions of these are white and four millions are black. Of the six millions of
white
people, four millions are inhabitants of
these British American Colonies. We have
for Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick,
no less than five millions of tons' capacity of
sea-going vessels, and on the lakes seven
millions, making a total tonnage of'twelve
millions, which, in point of tonnage, places
us as the third power in the world. No
other nations but England and _the United
States possess a larger tonnage than that.
966
Nova Scotia itself has a larger tonnage than
the great empire of Austria. If this is to
be our position in relation to our population,
our debt and our tonnage, one cannot well
help seeing that we must strengthen ourselves by coming together in a political and
commercial union. We have now five independent, and I may say hostile tariffs—a
different one in each of the colonies ; and we
have five different governments. We will then
have one strong independent government, and
one system of customs taxation. Although
we shall not have the same concentrated
power that we would have in a legislative
union, still we shall have a power that will
hold over this country that great force that
must be possessed to enable it to bring the
whole military force of the country to bear
in case its defence becomes necessary, and
which will place us in a much better position
than ever before. Look at the whole of the
colonies of England, and let us inquire
whether, in point of the magnitude of the
trade they bring to England and the amount
of English goods they consume, compared
with the expenditure that England is called
upon to make, there is really any valid foundation for the position taken by those
political
economists of England, of the Manchester
and Birmingham school. Take the whole
of the exports of England to the colonies,
and her imports from those colonies, and
what do we find? The exports of England
last year amounted to nearly ÂŁ100,000 ,000
sterling, while the exports from the colonies
to Great Britain amounted to ÂŁ40,000,000
sterling. Place the colonists, man for man,
with foreign countries, and you will find the
trade of the colonies is of much more advantage to England than that of foreign nations,
independently of all those other great interests
which are involved in the retention by England of her colonial possessions. Take the
fact that the whole of England's expenditure is ÂŁ40,000,000 sterling, exclusive of
the
interest of the national debt, while her expense for colonial purposes annually, exclusive
of India and of the casual expenses arising from
sending troops to colonies where hostilities
are taking place, was only some ÂŁ2,000,000
sterling, of which amount Canada only
had but little more than ÂŁ500,000 sterling.
When these things are taken into consideration, I say it will be found that the colonies
are of much more value to the Mother
Country than is generally supposed, and
much more than the school of politicians
to which I have referred would have
people believe. If what the Mother Country
obtains from our connection with them is
of so little importance as to give currency
to the doctrines of that school, I do not
think it would be hard to shew that what
we get from our connection with Great
Britain is of no very great importance
to us, except in the matter of defence.
If we desire to live under the glorious old
flag, and to maintain the honored name of
British subjects, is it right for our brethren
in England, who are "free from touch of
spoil," to say that unless we provide for
our own defence, we shall be cast off? We
should be looked upon as disloyal if we took
the same stand, and declared that we would
choose our own connection if we provided
the whole expense of our defence. (Hear,
hear.) Sir, I think we should be able to tell the
Mother Country that we are prepared to do all
in our power for self-defence. When I have
stated that the debt of Canada is only $20 per
head, and that that of the United States will
soon be, if it is not now, $150 per head of the
population, I am ready to say that I would
most unhesitatingly be willing, for the purpose of completing our connection with
the
seaboard, of building the Intercolonial Railway, and avoiding the liability we now
labor
under, of having our connection with Great
Britain cut off. I say I would be willing
to place $10 additional upon every inhabitant
of the country, in order that we might be
placed on the true footing on which we
ought to stand in the estimation of the
people of England and of the world—that of
a people who do not consider the mere
sacrifice of money as anything to be compared
to the duty of defending themselves. (Hear,
hear.) Sir, I think that when a delegation
of our Government goes to England, those
who compose it ought to be able to say what
we are prepared to do for our defence. They
ought to be able to say to the English
Government that although we were a young
and a comparatively poor country; though
we have a rigorous climate and are shut out
from the sea for a great portion of the year,
yet we are a people that have shown more
than once that our liberties could not be
taken away from us by force of arms, and
we are not prepared that they shall be taken
in any other way, but that we are ready
to take our just share in any scheme that
the Mother Country may adopt; but we are
not prepared, and cannot be expected, to
take the whole burden of defending this
exposed portion of the British Empire upon
967
ourselves. Look at our bonds in the English
market. The British public are under the
apprehension that we may at any moment
be invaded by the United States, or that
the views of the Manchester school may
prevail, and our 5 per cents stand at 80.
The position of the United States along
our long exposed border is such that
in their present excited and ready-armed
condition we might be plunged into hostilities at any moment, and therefore our
Government ought to say to the Imperial
Government that it was absolutely necessary
to make arrangements for defence on a large
scale—that we are prepared to do that which
we ought to do, but you cannot expect us to
go to the whole of the expense which would be
entailed by the depreciation of our bonds in
the market. If we are to do so, or even to go
to any large expense, you must guarantee
our debentures. With the knowledge that
you are our security, we need not care
whether the United States is going to cross
our border with hostile intent or not. If
our neighbors know that any requisite
amount will be given us either upon your
loan or upon endorsement, so that our
bonds will stand on the market at par, they
will have reason to think twice before attacking us. When the English Government are
prepared to back us in that way, then I say
we ought to go forward and coöperate with
them in carrying out an extended system of
defensive works, bearing at least the principal portion of the burden. We do not care
for their spending ÂŁ50,000 ayear in dribbling up a few fortifications at Quebec, while
We put another small sum out in patching
up earth works in the west, just to invite
the Americans over when the works are half
built, forming a trap for ourselves in which
we may be more effectually caught. I am
sure every member of this House, and every
citizen of Canada must have been surprised
at the position taken by English statesmen
in reference to Canadian defences, and at
their speaking of there being only a few days
in the year in which men could work, in this
climate, in building fortifications. I read the
other day, that it had been stated in England
that there was only a month of the year that
men could work out of doors to advantage.
Although it is true that for about half the
year our communication with the sea is cut
off by the formation of ice, yet men can
work out of doors in Western Canada all the
year round, and during the other half in
Eastern Canada, and with the exception of
a few very stormy days, at one or another
branch of the work required in erecting
fortifications. But so far as guarding
against attack from the United States is
concerned, the great thing is to let them know
that, whether we spend the money immediately—this summer—or not, we have it
to spend. It should be known that both
the Imperial Parliament and the Provincial Parliament have voted the money,
and that it would be put into the
most approved fortifications as rapidly as it
could be. The people of the South soon
built fortifications, behind which to fight for
their liberties, and we too should be prepared
to fight for our liberties. It is to the money
they spent in fortifications that they owe
their existence as a formidable power at the
present time. The idea should not go
abroad that we are about to spend a little
matter of fifty or a hundred thousand pounds
in doing a little plastering here and a little
mason work there, but we should proceed
as rapidly as possible to show that we are
prepared to expend in effective works all
the money that may be necessary to put
ourselves in a condition to resist invasion,
even with a handful of troops, until
more can be sent us. As we are at present, the Government of the United
States feel that we are at their mercy, and
that they can deal with us as they please.
To-day they impose an obnoxious passport
system upon us, and to-morrow they relieve
us from that source of annoyance. To-day
they threaten us with a repeal of the Reciprocity treaty, and to-morrow will, perhaps,
be prepared, if we are good children, to
continue its operation. To-day the bonding
system is to be repealed ; to-morrow we hear
no more of it. Next we hear of their intention of placing a force of gunboats on the
lakes,
and then we hear that the intention has been
abandoned. What are all these fair promises they indulge in, and good feelings they
endeavor to call up, but blinds of their real
purpose ? Does anybody believe that it is
not in their hearts to do all those things
with which they threaten us, and is it not
our duty to be prepared to meet the consequences of their threats being carried into
execution ? They now see that we are being
aroused in this country, and they begin to
treat us more mildly, until they come to
some settlement with the South. They begin to see that they have acted aggressively
against this paw of the British lion a little
too soon—that the British lion is in danger
968
of being waked up. (Hear, hear.) And,
Mr. SPEAKER, I think it would be a good
thing if we were a little more aroused
in this country by the events that are transpiring about us, and that the people of
England should become a little more in
earnest, so that the people of the United
States should not fall into the habit of
regarding the British lion, as the Paris
Charivari called it, as a stuffed lion. I
sometimes wish the British lion would roar
—(laughter)—as it has roared in times past,
and as it roared when it made the Emperor
of all the Russias tremble in his shoes.
(Hear, hear) I am afraid our neighbors
are getting into the very false notion that it
is only the skin of the animal that we have
now—(laughter)—and that if the voice
were heard, it would not be a roar, but a bray.
But they must not trust too much to
this idea, or they will be rudely awakened
some day by finding the bones, and the blood,
and the muscle of the mighty old animal of
yore. I feel, sir, that we cannot do our duty
to the Imperial authorities, nor they to us,
unless we become united into one Confederation, instead of remaining in the scattered
position in which we now stand. What
would be our position if we were thus
united? The opponents of Confederation say
we should only get a more extended frontier
to defend, and have no more men to defend
it with; that the frontier we should acquire
would be more difficult to defend with the
addition of men we would acquire, than our
present frontier would be to defend with our
own force ; that Canada might be called upon
to send troops to the Lower Provinces, thus
leaving our own frontier exposed, or they
would have to send their militia force up
here, leaving their borders open to attack.
But, in reply to that reasoning, I would say
that it is not likely we should be attacked at
all points at once. We might be compelled to
withdraw entirely from one portion of the
territory in order to defend more important
portions, or to obtain more defensible positions; but no man can hesitate to agree
that
it is infinitely better, for all purposes of
defensive action, that the whole militia force
of the country should be under the control
of one executive head, who could grasp the
whole force in one hand, than that they
should be scattered over a wide domain of
exposed territory, under the command of
different executives, all of whom would have
to be communicated with before any concentration could take place. The true position
in which we should stand before the world
is, that the whole militia force should be
understood to be under the control of one
Central Government; for in that way, common
sense ought to tell everybody, they would be
of far more value in defense than they could
possibly be if divided, and the moral effect
produced upon a foreign power contemplating attack would be very greatly enhanced,
were it understood we were one united
people, instead of being a divided community. Our entire population would be four
millions of people, which, at the ordinary
rate of computation, would give us an available militia force of five hundred thousand
men. If we believe that our people are
really and truly a loyal people, warmly
attached to the Constitution of the good old
land, because believing that the engrafting
of the institutions of that country upon the
soil of this continent offers the best and
greatest security for every man who desires
to enjoy the blessings of a free country and
free institutions, then we would, if united,
have not only this sentiment of attachment
to the English Throne, but we would have
the machinery, which this great Constitution
provides, in our hands by which we could
carry out and defend our liberties and our
people in the enjoyment of their free constitutional government. (Hear, hear.) Our
opponents say we are hardly ripe, hardly of
age fit to enter upon a new nationality.
Why, sir, there are none of the lesser powers
of Europe, except Belgium and Bavaria,
that have a population of four millions. If
we cannot establish a nation when we have
four millions of people, what shall we say of
Greece with its population of only one million? If we are ever to form ourselves into
a nationality—and few will deny that it is our
destiny to be united at some time—what better time will ever be likely to present
itself
for handing down to posterity the boon
of a united and free nation—the greatest
boon that a government and people can
transmit—than the opportunity which the
present favorable state of affairs presents to
us? It is offered to us freely and openly in
the face of the world, and we hope to convince the world hereafter that of the three
systems of government now in existence on
this continent, ours is the best. We have
the despotic throne of the MONTEZUMAS
filled by a foreign prince, and propped up
by foreign bayonets ; we have the republican
government of the United States, based on
the principle that all men are free and equal
969
and that the will of the majority must
govern and be right; and we have the
responsible government provided by the
British Constitution, under which the
English nation has existed so long, and
beneath the protection of which her colonies
have spread out, until upon their wide
expanse the sun never goes down. (Cheers.)
This latter form of government we believe
to be the best we can adopt for present purposes, and for the purpose of transmission
to our descendants upon this continent. Mr.
SPEAKER, if we have institutions, population, wealth and territory of such extent
and of such immense value to protect, and
have the opportunity of uniting for their
protection so freely given us, then is
the end sought to be accomplished by the
change that cannot but commend itself
most clearly and distinctly to the mind of
every one who desires to see a united and
happy people inhabiting the territory of
British North America, and stretching from
ocean to ocean, under the protecting ægis of
the British Constitution, the British form of
government, and the British Crown. We have,
in my own humble opinion, but two future
states of existence to choose for ourselves.
We have, on the one side, the opportunity to
make ourselves a nation, able and willing to
protect ourselves, with the aid of the Mother
Country, and to grow wealthy and prosperous
under that form of existence. On the other
hand, we have the certain prospect of
absorption, at no distant period, into the United States. There is no alternative.
(Hear,
hear, ironically.) We must either adopt
the one or make up our minds to submit
to the other. I have no doubt but that
an immense number of the people would
not be willing to remain and submit to
the latter alternative, but like the old
U. E. loyalists, would even abandon all
they possessed rather than cease to have
the protection of the British flag, and bear
the name of British men—men in whom
loyalty is not a mere lip sentiment, but in
whom it forms as much a constituent
element of the blood as the principle of
vitality itself. (Hear, hear.) I am satisfied,
sir, that there is no other alternative—no
choice for us between the endeavor on our
part to concentrate British power and British
feeling on this continent, and falling into
the open arms of the republican government of the United States. (Hear, hear.)
And, Mr. SPEAKER, when we examine the
extent of the domain open to us, when
we reflect that we would rest with one foot
upon the broad Atlantic and the other upon
the Pacific, and remember the vast, fertile
and salubrious territory that lies between us
and the Rocky Mountains—those rich
valleys of the Saskatchewan and the Assiniboine, the fertility of which are said to
be
far superior, and are certainly equal to any
portion of this country —when we think of
them and of the vast number of people
that could be poured into them from
the old world to develope their resources
and bring their treasures down the lakes
to our marts—I say when we see all
these things, we see a future arising for us
which is to me, and ought to be to others,
so bright that no man should hesitate to
accept that rather than the only other alternative—drifting in small provinces into
the
United States, where we cannot but be
borne down by their burden of taxation.
(Hear, hear.) But some people say we will
escape taxation by going over to the Americans; that they would take us in to-morrow,
and agree to put no taxation upon us for
their war debt; but is not that idea chimerical, when they entertain no doubt that
they can overrun and conquer us at any
time, and force us to share in their debt,
as well as discharge our own? With regard to our prospects in the way of settlement
and the extending of our population
and wealth, look at what we could do
towards attracting emigrants from the old
country to our lands. But here I must
refer to one feature of the scheme that has
been adopted by this House that I hope to
see changed. I believe it is a fatal error to
place the wild lands in the hands of the
local governments, who may thereby enter
into regulations for immigration that will
be antagonistic, and that will tend to retard
rather than promote the settlement of this
country. All those lands ought to have
been placed in the hands of the General
Government, in order that one comprehensive system of immigration might be adopted.
When we look at Upper Canada, and ascertain that of her eighty millions of acres
there are only thirteen and a half millions
in the hands of proprietors—an average of
nine acres to each inhabitant—when we see
the vast quantity of land in this country available for cultivation, not yet turned
to account,
we cannot help coming to the conclusion that
we have a vast field for immigration to fill
up, and which ought to have been placed
under control of the General Government—
970
not left to be speculated upon by the local
governments. Now, sir, when one sees all
that, and feels and knows that the great
change which will be brought about by this
union will give us so many things that are
desirable, I say the magnitude of the
interests that are involved ought to recommend to us, in the strongest manner, a
change of the character of which I have
been speaking—a change that would tend to
place this country on such a footing that
none can fail to see that we would eventually become the members of a great
community, and that in a much shorter space
of time than many people imagine. (Hear,
hear.) Allow me for a moment, sir, to
allude to the history of the United States,
to see the position in which that country
once stood. In 1792, the United States,
with a population, at that time, of nine
millions of people, had a revenue of a
little over four and a-half millions of dollars,
while in Canada, in 1863, with a population
of two and a-half millions, we had a revenue
of fourteen millions of dollars. In 1821,
when their population had greatly increased,
the whole of their exports and imports
amounted to ninety-eight millions of dollars,
while ours, in 1863, with a population of
only two and a-half millions, was no less
than eighty-nine millions of dollars; that is,
within nine millions of the entire imports
and exports of the United States in 1821.
It is true that since that time all those facilities which have made the United States
a
great power on this continent—the construction of railways and telegraphs, the
application of steam power to all kinds of
machinery, and other inventions of the
past two or three decades—have sprung
into existence, and they have reached forward to greatness with railroad speed. But,
still, it is nothing against the argument to
say that as we have, within the memory of
man, risen so rapidly not only in population, but in everything that tends to place
Canada on a footing that ought to be satisfactory to every well-wisher of his country,
there is any reason to imagine, for one moment, that all the changes have been made
that will be made, and that with the enterprise and exertions of a common and enlightened
people, we will not be in a position to
continue the prosperity that has sprung up
within so short a time, and which has
increased until within the last three or four
years, when, from natural causes and the
war in the United States, it received so
serious a check. We shall find ourselves,
in my opinion, so soon on the highroad to
prosperity, by means of the union now contemplated, that we shall not care to envy
the progress of any nation whatever. (Hear,
hear.) Now, sir, when I have stated my
reasons for believing that there is a necessity for such a change, and having endeavored
to show the nature of the change
.proposed, I shall now proceed to show why
the resolution which I hold in my hand, and
which I offer for the adoption of this House,
is one that ought to be accepted. I have
said, sir, that I, as an individual member of
the Legislature of Canada, had not hesitated
to take upon myself the responsibility of
voting in favor of the resolutions respecting
Confederation, although they had not been
accepted by the people of this country in
any constitutional manner. I said that I
did so upon the same principle as I would
have done if I had been voting upon them
outside of the House instead of inside. I
would have voted for them as an elector, because I believe they form a just basis
for the
contemplated union; and, sir, I desire to offer
exactly the same opportunity to every elector
to pursue the same course that I would pursue,
and I make the same claim on their behalf
that I would make to this House on my own.
I think that they are entitled to have this
matter submitted for their consideration before the resolutions that have passed this
House are finally acted upon by the Imperial
Legislature. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, it has
been said that the effect will be to postpone
the accomplishment of the union for an indefinite period, whereas the pressure of
circumstances are such that no time should be
lost in placing ourselves in such a position
of defence that we should be able to meet
and hold back any force that might be sent
against us. Well, sir, there is nothing in
the resolution I have proposed that would,
in my judgment, interfere with the immediate carrying out of the project. The Government
have told us that they propose to
prorogue Parliament in a few days, and they
have also told us that we are to be called together again in the summer. What is to
prevent us from considering the subject at
the summer session? It is to be presumed
that the Imperial Government will endeavor
to come to some conclusion upon the resolutions which have been framed by the Conference,
and which have been laid on the
tables of both Houses of the English Parliament, and I see nothing to prevent the
Im
971
perial Government from declaring their
views upon the subject. I think there
would be nothing whatever to prevent our
Government from going to England, and
offering these resolutions for the consideration of the Imperial Legislature, allowing
that Legislature to act upon them as they
might think proper ; but, at the same
time declaring that the law to be passed
ought not to come in force in the different
colonies until it had been accepted by the
legislatures of those colonies. There would
be no time lost. It would be as easy for this
Parliament to be dissolved and to meet
together again in time to take up the consideration of the measure, which Great
Britain had in the meantime passed, as it
would be to meet again in the summer, and
go through the same process. Why is
Canada to be treated upon an entirely different rule from that which has been adopted
in the other provinces ? The Legislature of
New Brunswick was dissolved in order that
the people might be appealed to on this
question. The Hon. Attorney General of
Newfoundland has declared that it is the intention of the Government of that colony
to
appeal to the people upon it, and that nothing
will be done until their opinion is obtained.
(Hear, hear.) In Nova Scotia, too, the Gov
ernment do not, as I understand, make it a
government question. It is not to be put
in that position, and if a difficulty arises in
having it adopted by the Legislature, the
Government of Nova Scotia are prepared to
dissolve their Legislature too. I do not say
anything about Prince Edward Island—its
acceptance or rejection of the scheme would
be of very small account. But their Legislature will, no doubt, also be dissolved,
in
order that the people may have an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it,
if their House of Assembly is found hostile,
—a step which, no doubt, our Government
would have taken if this House had shown
itself hostile to the measure. Because this
House is not hostile, and because Ministers
found themselves strong enough to carry it
by a large majority, they declared they
would take the course they have adopted,
although in the other provinces the case has
been put on an entirely different footing.
(Hear, hear.) Now, sir, let us consider why
we should he placed in the same position in
which the legislatures and people of the
Lower Provinces are placed. We hear it
stated on all sides of this House that the
whole country is in favor of this measure.
If so, why should there be any hesitation
about asking the country to confirm by an
election that which is so clearly advantageous
and which is so sure to be carried ? But,
sir, I hear it said, inside of this House and
outside of this House, that the people of
Lower Canada are opposed to this measure.
If that be so then—if they are so strongly opposed to it as has been represented
—is it a wise step for us to force it upon
them against their will ? (Hear, hear.)
We are arranging to adopt an entirely
new state of governmental existence, and
are proposing to embrace a large area
of country under this new form of
government. We are claiming for it, and
desire that it shall have its best and safest
foundation in the hearts of the people. And,
sir, will you not find it stronger in the
hearts and more deeply rooted in the estimation of the people, if you appeal to them
and obtain their sanction to it and their
support in carrying it out ? (Hear, hear.)
In proposing that it shall have the sanction
of the people, I do not contemplate the
absurdity, unknown to our form of government, of asking them for a direct yea or nay
upon it. No such thing as that has ever
been entertained in my mind. I propose to
have it done in a constitutional manner.
My whole political history would have shown
any man acquainted with it, that there could
have been no such democratic idea harbored
by me as to go without the walls of the
Constitution in order to do an act which
could be better done within it. Therefore,
any one who had for a moment the belief,
that while I was endeavoring to build up, I
was at the same time putting forth what
may be called a sacrilegious hand to pull
down, was very much mistaken as to the
course I was to pursue—the only proper
and safe course that could be pursued. If
you wish to erect this monument of a new
nationality on the true feelings and hearts
of the people, you must erect it upon an
appeal to them. You should not be afraid of
it. You may say that difficulties will arise
—that other questions will be raised—that
the elections will not always turn on the
direct issue—for Confederation or against
Confederation. But I tell you that it will,
if the people are so much in favor of this
project as you say. (Hear, hear.) The
merits or demerits of the candidates will
be passed to one side, and the vote will
be taken on the true merits of Confederation—otherwise the people are not worthy of
972
having that appeal made to them. An appeal
has been made to history, and it has said
that appeals to the people on questions of
this kind are unknown under the British
Constitution. The cases of the union between
England and Scotland, of the union between
Great Britain and Ireland, and of the union
of the Canadas themselves, have been referred to; and it has been asked if in any
of those cases an appeal was made to the
people, and an answer given in the negative.
I am not prepared to accept that answer as
altogether correct in point of fact. In the
first of those cases, where the resistance was
perhaps the greatest, an appeal was made to
the people. It was not until long after the
matter was first mooted that the union
between England and Scotland was brought
about. It was questioned at that time—just
as afterwards, in 1799, with reference to the
union of Ireland—whether the Scottish Parliament had power to deliver up the franchise
of the people into the hands of the
English Parliament. With reference to the
union of Scotland with England, the matter
was brought before the people—not in one,
or in two, but in many ways. There were
commissioners appointed, and conventions,
and various attempts to bring about that
union before it was finally consummated.
It was attempted in JAMES the First's time,
in CHARLES the First's time, in CROMWELL'S
time, and again in the reign of King WILLIAM, and finally carried out in the reign
of
Queen ANNE. The proclamation summoning the Scottish Parliament of 1702 declared
that among other things, it was to treat of
the union of Scotland with England. (Hear,
hear.) We have still extant in the books
the very words of that proclamation, which
declared that that Parliament was summoned in Scotland for the very purpose of
treating of this question. That Parliament
did not finally decide upon the matter, but
the following Parliament did, and the union
was consummated. And that Parliament
was in exactly the position of that of 1702,
having been called together by precisely the
same kind of proclamation. (Hear, hear.)
That matter of the union between England
and Scotland was, I believe, the only subject
that was discussed. And, although subsequently the greatest hostility was aroused,
and troops had to be sent from the north of
Scotland, it was not until after that Parliament had been for some time assembled
that
petitions came in from any of the burghs
against it. (Hear, hear.) We have been
told in this debate that there is now the
satisfaction of content all over the province
in reference to this measure. Allow me to
tell you that in many localities, it is the
deadness of apathy and not the satisfaction
of content. This has arisen, not because
the people do not feel an interest in the
question, but because there has been a
pressure upon them from many causes, and
that they have had to contend with a great
number of difficulties of one kind or another,
resulting in an unexampled want of prosperity. (Hear, hear.) They are, therefore,
looking out apparently for anything—they
are not particular what—which they believe
would tend to relieve them from the difficulties of their present position. I say
this,
although I should be glad that it was not
apathy, or deadness, or death, but contentment, throughout the length and breadth
of
the land, which was leading to the general
acceptance of this measure. I believe that
in the western part of the country—I cannot
speak for the eastern part, unless in so far
as it is shewn by the petitions which have
been sent in, and the opinions which have
been expressed in this House by honorable
members from Lower Canada—but in the
western portion of the country, I am satisfied,
from my own personal knowledge of the
feeling existing there, that a large majority,
equal to if not greater than that which
voted the other night on the floor of this
House, would be returned at another election
in favor of this measure (Hear, hear.)
And it is because I believe that, and would
not leave it for any one to say that the
people had not had an opportunity of expressing themselves, through an election, on
a matter of such vital importance—that I
claim that it should be submitted to them,
in order that they shall declare by their votes
whether they are in favor of this measure or
not. (Hear, hear.) In speaking of the
union of Scotland, of the union of Ireland, and the union of the Canadas, we must
recollect that the same circumstances to a
great extent existed. In the case of the
Scottish union, there were those desolating
wars between England and Scotland in
which the best blood of both lands had
been shed, and there had long existed a
perpetual feud and hostility which had left
the border country—now a smiling and fertile territory—a barren and desolate waste.
Then again, when the union of Ireland
with Great Britain took place, there
was a rebellion just quenched—there were
973
40,000 troops in the country—there were one
hundred and sixteen placemen in the House
—and there may have been good reasons for
the fact that a majority of some six or seven
in the Irish Parliament against the union
had dwindled down and disappeared next
session, being swallowed up in a majority
of thirty-five. In this country the same
thing had occurred. The union was consummated when the members of the rebellion
of 1837-38 were still supposed to be slumbering in various parts of the land—and
there were, therefore, strong reasons why,
in the midst of disquiet and disturbance—
when there might be a difficulty about
elections being conducted with purity and
freedom from Executive control—such a
question should not be submitted to the
people. But now we have no such cause.
We are told that the people are happy,
contented and prosperous, though desirous
of some change—and there is, therefore, no
exciting cause to prevent a free and full
expression of the mind of the people by a
general election—nothing to prevent the
whole matter being placed on a proper footing before the people, and men being chosen
with reference to their views on the subject
of Confederation, and that alone. You have
nothing to prevent this new system being
inaugurated on the true and proper basis on
which it ought to be inaugurated, namely,
on the popular will, and receiving therefore,
from the outset, that strength which the
popular will alone could give to it, in its
endorsement by those who have a right to
send representatives to this House. (Hear,
hear.) It has been said that a motion of
this kind takes away, in point of fact, from
the Legislature, the power which the Legislature has, by denying the right of the
Legislature to make any such change. I do
not say anything against the power of the
Legislature. The Legislature has, within the
limits that are assigned to it, all the rights
which its charter gives it. But I cannot
help feeling that when we are dealing with
this question, we are dealing with it very
differently from the manner in which it was
dealt with, either by the independent Parliament of Scotland, or by the independent
Parliament of Ireland. We are acting
under a limited charter and constitution —
having no right ourselves to deal with this
matter finally by any act of our own—having
only the right to deal with it by these resolutions, and not to enact it with the
autho
rity of law. (Hear, hear.) We, therefore,
stand limited in our powers at the outset—
so limited that it has been decided in Newfoundland, that the privileges which belong
to
the House of Commons and the House of Lords
in England do not belong entirely to our legislative bodies—that these have grown
with
time, until they have become incorporated
with the very existence of the Imperial Parliament—while we hold our privileges in
a very
different way, not having the same comprehensive grasp of them, as in the case of
the
House of Commons. It is clear that we have
not the same power as the Imperial Parliament—otherwise we should not be obliged to
go to that body for its sanction of these
resolutions. And there are limitations of
the power of the Imperial Parliament itself,
to which we also are subject. We cannot
make any act of ours permanent, any more
than we can make ourselves permanent,
because another Parliament has the right to
repeal what we have done. We cannot of
ourselves enact this measure into a law.
We can offer these resolutions—we have the
power to do that—and the Imperial Government and Parliament have, no doubt, the
power to act upon them as they choose.
But the question is—is it wise to give these
resolutions the force of law; is it proper to
do so; is it the most just course to take
towards the people of this country, to
declare that in a matter of this importance
we will legislate for them, to the extent of
introducing an entire change of the Constitution—of providing that the Upper Chamber,
which they have declared to be elective, shall
cease to be elective, and shall be nominated
by the Crown, without consulting them?
I do not mean to say, with regard to that
change, that it is not a beneficial change. I
was one of the few who stood on the floor
of this Legislature battling against the
change from nomination by the Crown to
election by the people in the Upper House.
I was one of those also who contended for
resolutions, the effect of which would be to
place the power of the people in the Lower
House, by representation according to numbers in that body, with equal representation
for the two sections of the province in the
Upper House. And I recollect that some
hon. gentlemen now on the Treasury benches
—the Hon. President of the Council among
others, through the columns of the influential paper he controls—declared that the
idea
embodied in those resolutions was absurd, and
974
could not be acted upon, although the very
idea which the Government have now incorporated in this scheme, from a different point
of view. (Hear, hear.) And the Hon.
President of the Council voted, as I did,
against the introduction of the elective principle, and in favor of the retention
of the
nominative principle—not, however, for the
reasons I did, but for different reasons altogether, as he explained at the time.
But
the view he entertains now, in favor of a
nominated Legislative Council, was the view
he entertained then, and the change is one
which I will be glad to see brought about.
But it is a change of which the people at the
last election had no idea. And the alteration
in the minds of public men has been so great,
within a short space of time, that I say we
have a right to think and pause and reflect.
(Hear, hear.) Look at the programme
which was brought down on this subject by
the constitutional committee moved for by
the Hon. President of the Council. The
part of the report of that committee which
was most opposed was the Confederation of
British North America. And it is well
known that what the Government offered,
at the time of its formation, was that the
lesser scheme of a Federation of the Canadas
should go first, and the larger scheme of a
Federation of all the colonies afterwards.
They were first of all to try to have a Federal
Government for Canada alone, and then to
extend that, as circumstances permitted, to
the whole of the British North American
Colonies. Well, in the short space of little
over three months, men's minds were so
changed that the Federation of the Canadas
ceased to be talked of, and the Confedertion of the whole provinces came up in
its stead. That scheme for the Confederation
of British North America, which a short
time ago seemed to have but very few supporters, was brought suddenly before us
with a large number of supporters. How do
we know that there may not be a change
again in a short space of time—that the
whole system with which we are now dealing, and on which hon. gentlemen have
placed their views before the country, may
not be changed again, without the people,
who are said to be so satisfied with this
scheme, having had the matter placed before
them for consideration, or the opportunity of
voting for or against the scheme? Therefore
I believe it would be wiser, better, and more
for the interests of the whole of this country
—and that it would greatly strengthen the
power which this Confederate Government
would have—were it voted upon by the
people in the constitutional mode of a general
election, before it is finally resolved upon as
the Constitution of these colonies. I believe
that if you wish to root it in the minds of
the people, you will remove the objection
which may at any time spring up, and be
made the means, in the hands of designing
men, of creating dissatisfaction hereafter.
And I say that for the sake of carrying this
scheme in the Lower Provinces, it is desirable to take this course. What is the reason
of the suspicion entertained with regard to
this scheme by the Lower Provinces? They
say that the Government of Canada is urging
it so rapidly, that there must be some arriére
pensée—that there is something in it which
will place her in a better position—that they
are therefore pressing it upon the people of
Canada and of the Lower Provinces, without
giving them an opportunity of considering
it fairly. One of the things made use of in
the Lower Provinces is that our interest in
the matter is so great, and we are entangled
in so many difficulties, that we wish the other
provinces united with us in order that, on
their credit united with ours, we may be able
to incur greater liabilities, and carry out our
views as to public works, the benefit of which
we will gain exclusively, although the Lower
Provinces assume their share of the liability.
For the present, therefore, unless by a great
stretch of power on the part of the Imperial
Parliament, it will be impossible to force it
on the Lower Provinces. They say that
Canada, pressing it in that way, must have
some ulterior object in view, which does not
distinctly appear. Can we suppose for a
moment that the position of the gentlemen
going to England will be, that they will
press the Imperial Parliament to pass this
measure, coûte que coûte, whether the Lower
Provinces like it or not, urging that as
Canada possesses the larger population—
two-thirds of the whole—if she desires to
have it the others must have it, whether
they will or not. If that policy were pursued, it would be necessary, first of all,
to
deprive them of their constitutions, and then
to declare that they must unite with us—
that the will of the majority should overrule the wishes of the minority, exactly
as in the United States, where everything
depends on the will of the majority, and the
minority are presumed to have but few
975
rights, if any at all. But if you show that
not only the majority of this Parliament,
but the majority of the people also in Canada,
are in favor of this scheme; and if you can
show what the majorities in the Lower
Provinces are at the same time—if you can
in this way show what is the will of the
majority of the whole of the people of these
provinces, you will have your hands much
strengthened, when you go to England, if
you wish to say that because Canada asks it,
and the majority of the whole people of
these provinces asks it, the Lower Provinces
must be compelled to come in. The passage
of this resolution, in my judgment, would
not imperil the passage of the scheme at
all. It would not prevent the gentlemen
who go home from taking such steps before
the Imperial Parliament as they would
think it desirable to take, or as they
might be instructed here to take by the
Government of which they are members.
Let the Imperial Parliament pass the measure, according to the views of the delegates,
confirmed by the action of this Parliament—
but let them say that the measure shall not
come into force in all these colonies until
each Parliament has voted upon it. And
let each Parliament be elected by the people,
with special instructions to declare whether
this new Constitution shall be the Constitution of these colonies or not. Every one
who is a well-wisher of his country—who
desires to see it go on and prosper—who believes that the concentration of power in
one
Executive over all these colonies will place
us in a position to assume the name and
status of a nation upon the earth—will be
glad to find our power in that way consolidated. And if we base the structure, as
it ought to be based, on the
expressed will of the people themselves,
then I think we will be offering to those
who come after us, as well as to ourselves,
a heritage which every man should be
proud of—and which will bring to our shores,
from Great Britain and other parts, people
who will be desirous to obtain here, along
with all the favorable circumstances attendant upon the settlement of our lands, the
advantages of the free Constitution which
we have made, as nearly as possible, a facsimile of that of the mother-land. But
though I am myself in favor of the Confederation resolutions, and anxious to see them
carried out, I am desirous that they shall be
carried out in a manner which will be con
ducive to the best interests of the country,
based on a heartfelt expression of opinion
by the people, by means of a general election. I promised I would not detain the
House, and having presented such arguments as seem to me to require the passage
of this resolution, I resume my seat.
(Cheers.)
MR. M. C. CAMERON said—I have great
pleasure, sir, in seconding the resolution
which is now before the House, because I
think it is very desirable that before any
such a change as that which is proposed
should go into effect, the people, who are to
be affected by the change, should have an
opportunity of pronouncing upon it in a
more decisive way than they can through
their representatives in this House, who
have been sent here for an entirely different
purpose than that of making a change in the
Constitution. It would not signify to me if
the circumstances attending the union of
Scotland with England, or of Ireland with
England, had furnished no reason for contending that an appeal to the people was
proper. They were entirely different from
those under which we are existing. If there
had been no precedents whatever, I say that
at this enlightened day, when the people
interfere and have a right to interfere in the
management of their own affairs, no such a
change as this should take place without their having a voice in it I do
not feel, with the proposer of this resolution, that it is absolutely necessary that
a dissolution of this House should take
place for the purpose of obtaining an expression of the popular will. I do not see
why
the taking of a direct vote—yea and nay—
would be an unconstitutional proceeding.
(Hear, hear.) I have found that by the
legislation of this country a precedent has
been established that the people who are to
be affected should have the right of voting
upon certain mersures relating to their
financial affairs. We find that in those
bodies which the people are empowered to
create, and which are as much representative bodies as we are, the township and
county councils— whenever a debt is to be
created over a certain amount, affecting the
communities over which those councils
exercise control, the question must first be
left to the people to pronounce upon it
before it can become law. The people
send their representatives to those bodies
to legislate for them in a similar man
976
ner to that in which we are sent here to
legislate for the country at large. The only
difference is the difference between a small
legislative body and a large one. They are
just as much representatives of the people as
we are. When we provide that they shall
submit by-laws to a direct vote of the people,
can it be said that it is a violation of the
Constitution, or even an unjust or improper
course to take a vote in a similar way, when
so much larger matters are at stake? I do
say, sir, that if there were no example for
it—if our Legislature had not shown that it
was the people's right to have a voice on all
matters affecting them largely—we should
now proceed to make that precedent. (Hear,
hear.) I do not mean to say, however, in speaking thus, that I am adverse in the slightest
degree to there being a dissolution of the House;
but it strikes me that we will have a great
many side-issues in a contest of that kind, and
cannot, therefore, arrive at the direct sense
of the people so closely as we should be able
to do by a square vote of yea or nay. Nevertheless, it is of very great importance
that
before advancing to the end of the proceedings that we have contemplated by passing
these resolutions, they should first be
submitted to the country in some way. I
am in favor of the resolutions going to the
people in any way rather than the scheme
should be carried out without such expression; and I am also desirous that the public
should be awakened from that apathy which
has been alluded to by the hon. member for
Peel, and which I am also satisfied exists
among the people upon this question. The
honorable member for Peel has asserted that
there could not be half a dozen gentlemen
found on the floor of this House who would
say that this country could go on and
prosper—but I say it could prosper for the
next decade as it has prospered during the
past, without any change whatever. I
believe I am one of those, few though they
may be, who so think; but I am also one of
those who thought that it would be very
desirable to have a change in the representation of the different sections of the
province,
on the floor of this House. I thought that
Upper Canada contributed so much more
towards the revenue of this country than
Lower Canada, that she ought to have a
larger voice in the disposal of that revenue.
Therefore a change of the Constitution, in
this respect, has been agitated by men
entertaining that opinion, but I never did
feel that the people of Lower Canada considered themselves on the eve of a revolution,
or that the people of Upper Canada
had arrived at that point, that they felt it
absolutely necessary to resort to revolutionary
measures to obtain justice. While I feel
that we have now arrived at that stage that
we can have a union with the Lower Provinces that would give us a strength and a
stability that we cannot acquire by the
resolutions we have just passed, yet I do not
desire that any change should take place
without the people of this country having
the fullest and freest opportunity of expressing themselves upon its desirability.
I
desire that the people should have this
scheme presented to them, side by side
with the proposal for a legislative union,
that we may ascertain whether or not
they would adopt a Federal union, in preference to a Legislative union. I have
been charged with having advanced arguments in discussing the resolutions, which
were as applicable and favorable to a Federal
as to a Legislative union, and that I said
nothing more favorable to the one than to
the other. Well I admit that if you take
three or four isolated points of a man's argument, you can make them support exactly
the opposite of that which his whole course
of argument was calculated to uphold, and
when you put all of my remarks together,
you will find that they bear strongly in favor
of the legislative form of union. This much
will be found, that every argument which I
advanced that could be said to favor Federation, was also an argument in favor of
a
Legislative union ; and, in addition, I brought
prominently to view the greater economy
connected with the working of the latter.
I consider that argument a strong one, in
view of the circumstances at present existing
in this country—the suffering in consequence of the failure of crops, and the depression
of trade owing to the war in
the United States, the position of this
country is such that it is not able to bear
additional heavy burdens; and if we are
going to make a change in our Constitution,
that change should he of a character that
would lessen those burdens instead of increasing them, if possible. And if we must
incur a heavy burden for defensive purposes,
let us have as much saving, in other respects,
as we can effect, so that there will be as little
expenditure as may be for the mere machinery
of government, and then we shall have a
977
form of union that will meet the approval
of the people, and be perpetuated. Looking
at this change that is considered so necessary,
let us enquire what events have brought it
about. Let honorable gentlemen on the
Treasury benches answer for me, and we will
find that it has been the cry that retrenchment was absolutely necessary—that if we
did not have retrenchment, or give to Upper
Canada that fair control over the expenditure
of our income that she ought to have, in
consequence of her contributing so much
more to the revenue, there would be a revolution. That was the way in which the Hon.
President of the Council, for party and political purposes, chose to discuss this
matter
while he was in opposition. Not that there
was really any danger of revolution, but
because there was justice in the cry, they
used strong language to give effect to their
argument. Now, I would like to understand
and I have not yet been able to understand
from any member of this House who has
been advocating representation by population
—whether there was any reason for believing
that we could not have got that constitutional change just as well as we can get this
one. lt was party feeling that kept the
people apart, yet that party feeling was
swamped in a moment when the leaders of
the parties brought their heads together, and
declared that it should no longer exist.
They united for the avowed purpose of remedying the difficulties under which the province
labored, and for the purpose of giving
the people of Upper Canada their rights; and
they say this is to be accomplished by a
Federal union. They might as well have
formed a union for a more economical object
—for the purpose of forming a Legislative
union between the provinces. It may be
said that hon. gentlemen of French extraction
from Lower Canada were so determined
to resist the demands of Upper Canada, that
the rights of that section of the province
could never have been obtained, unless by a
Federal union of the colonies. I think,
however, that they are men of intelligence,
and that if they found Upper Canadians
were true to their determination to contend
for their rights until they should be obtained,
the result would have been very different
from what it has been. Hon. gentlemen
from Lower Canada, of French origin, must
have seen that they were liable to be swept
away at any moment that there should be a
union between the British of Lower and of
Upper Canada. If the issue had been
placed fairly and equally before them; if
they had been brought to see that matters
had arrived at such a state that it was
absolutely necessary that some change should
take place—the people of the Eastern
Townships and of the eastern part of Upper
Canada standing ready to be banded together
against them--they would have seen that
the elements on the floor of this House
were such as would force upon them either
a legislative union with the Lower Provinces,
or representation by population in Canada
alone. Whether a legislative union, with
representation by population as a basis,
could have been obtained from the Lower
Provinces or not, I am not prepared to
say; but I am given to understand that the
people of the Lower Provinces advocated a
legislative union as strongly as those of
Upper Canada, and that they were about to
carry out a legislative union among themselves. Now, if Prince Edward Island and
Newfoundland were willing to go into a
legislative union with Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, I do not see why the proposal
to bring in an additional province should
have effected so complete a change in their
views. I am satisfied that if the gentlemen who represented the interests of
Upper Canada had set themselves about
trying to get that which would have been
best for their people, and had endeavored to
enforce the rights of Upper Canada, they
would have accomplished that which would
have been of more service to the people of
the united provinces, and which would have
placed beyond chance or possibility those
contentions which will necessarily result
so soon as you have individualized those
provinces by giving each a Local Legislature.
By this scheme you will have increased the
burdens of the people, and in so doing will
have increased their opportunity for discontent. You have given to the general and
local legislatures coördinate jurisdiction, or
at least have given them the right to legislate
on the same questions, and, in thus placing
in their hands an element of contention,
have shown that you are not building up a
firm and stable government. (Hear, hear.)
Now it is said that one of the strongest
reasons for union is found in the necessity
of placing our common country in a position
of defence, but I do not see why we cannot
make arrangement for a defence under our
present government. Let us be told what
it is that is required of us, and see whether
the different legislatures will not vote the
978
money necessary. If we can get the money
through the Imperial Government, then let
us show them that we are prepared to make
it good, that we are prepared to raise the
money upon our own paper, if they will
guarantee it for us. If they will do that,
they will find that these provinces are
willing and ready to make all due provision
for their defence. This province is only one
of a number which are equally bound to
defend themselves with us, as I believe they
have the spirit and inclination to do. I fancy
you will find as much loyalty in the Lower
Provinces as in Canada, and you will find
that when we are ready to aid the Mother
Country in defence of this portion of her
territory, they will be ready too ; and as they
are now united to the Mother Country as
well as ourselves, we could be in no better
position for defence through the contemplated union. The union cannot make us
stronger, when we have to look to the Imperial power as the bond that keeps us together
under any circumstances. It is to them we
shall look for orders when the time comes to
act. I am not one of those who like to look
at the idea of the severance of the bond
between this and the Mother Country, but
yet I feel that if Upper Canada is burdened
more heavily than she has been by the additional burdens which this Federal union
must impose to sustain its costly machinery,
there will be great danger of the same state
of things being brought about which rendered some change necessary at the present
time. It cannot but be felt that this scheme
has not been brought forward with a view
to more economical government, or with a
view to providing the best means of union
that could be obtained, but that it had its
origin in expediency and compromise. The
people of Canada felt compelled to seek
some change, and the people of the Lower
Provinces, if they adopt the measure, will
in a sense have it forced upon them by the
people of Canada. A scheme has been
adopted which it is thought will prove the
most expedient for the time being, but
which must be changed in the course of a
few years, after leading us into contentions
and strife, such as we have had for the past
ten years. Why not pause and discuss the
measure more thoroughly, and have it weeded of its defects, so that we may accomplish
at once the construction of a Constitution
that shall be a lasting one, and not risk the
formation of a union on a Constitution that
will tumble to pieces, and drive a large por
tion of the people to look for relief in a
union with the neighboring republic—a
union that I for one should regard as the
greatest curse that could befall this Canada
of ours. (Hear, hear.) Now, Mr. SPEAKER,
that the measure should be submitted to the
country before it is carried out, is a matter
that is rendered the more necessary by an
article that I will read from the
Globe
newspaper, which paper is the organ of
the Government at the present time, and
has always been understood to express
the views of the honorable member for
South Oxford (Hon. Mr. BROWN), now the
Hon. President of the Council. It is in reference to the Intercolonial Railway, which
so many people now think may be built
without detriment to the interests of the
country, if we are to have all the benefits
supposed to be derivable from this union.
Here is what was said by that newspaper
when the former negotiations for building the
Intercolonial Railway were in progress :—
Upper Canada has not, it appears, suffered
enough in the estimation of Upper Canadian
members of the Cabinet, from being tied to one
poor eastern province—it must have three more
added to its already heavy burdens. One legislature is not a sufficiently cumbrous,
unwieldy
and expensive body, but we must add to it the
representatives of three other communities, each
section with varying local interests, and all pulling
at the same purse. And to show what we may
look for in the future, we are to pay four-twelfths
of the cost of a railway to unite us to these new
allies, and to keep the road running besides.
Truly a charming scheme to be proposed by a
retrenchment government—(hear, hear)—whose
sole aim was to be the reduction of expenditure
and the correction of abuses in administration !
Now, burdens of an enormous amount are to be
imposed upon the people of Upper Canada, a
railway job to be undertaken, likely to be as
disastrous and disgraceful as the Grand Trunk,
and an already unwieldy political system to be
encumbered three-fold ; all that Messrs. SICOTTE
and SANDFIELD MACDONALD may get rid of the
difficulties with which their Government is surrounded.
AN HON. MEMBER—What paper is
that in ?
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I do not know
the exact date ; I find it as an extract in
another paper. It was written about two
years ago.
HON. MR. BROWN ––Oh ! that is out of
979
date; it does not apply to the altered circumstances of the case.
HON. MR. HOLTON — The extract
speaks of that scheme having been proposed
by a retrenchment government. It should
be remembered that this Government is not
a retrenchment government.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I will read
another extract from the same paper, of a
similar date :—
There is a refreshing coolness in the demand
that Canada shall pay for the construction of a
road, which is professedly designed to draw away
trade from its great estuary. We have been
building up the navigation of the St. Lawrence at
immense expense, and have had very hard work to
compete with the Hudson and Erie canals. According to the views of the late Hon. Mr.
MERRITT,
steamship lines were alone needed to secure the
object we desire. The Ministry propose, however,
to withdraw the steamships from the St. Lawrence! If this could be done, it would
be an act
of suicide in Canada to take part in the scheme.
As it cannot be done, it is simply an absurdity.
It may be difficult to escape from pledges given
to the representatives of the Lower Provinces, but
the members of the Cabinet may rely upon it, that
they will have their reward for the abandonment
or postponement of the measure in the approbation of their constituents and of the
province at
large.
(Hear, hear.) Now, Mr. SPEAKER, looking at that article, and assuming that
the writer of it really was a man who
had the interests of the country at heart,
and assuming that it expressed the sentiments of the Honorable President of the
Council, I would like to know what really
has taken place within those two years which
renders it so absolutely necessary that this
road that would have been so disastrous to
the interests of Canada, if built at that time,
should be commenced now? Is the only
change that has taken place the elevation of
the editor to a seat at the Executive Council
Board? He found that it would not do for
him to coalesce with that very respectable old
corruptionist who sits along side of him, and
who compared the Upper Canadians to so
many codfish in Gaspé Bay, unless he had
something as a basis of excuse for the Coalition that would make it look plausible
and
sound well ; and so they got up the idea of a
"new nationality," which was to crush
out all former cries and hide from the
people of Canada their true interests, by
declaring that no matter how extravagant a government may be, if you can get
a union of this kind, you can afford to spend
your millions annually in excess of your
income in the construction and maintenance
of a road calculated to injure our trade, and
all for the sake of adding to our population
some 800,000 inhabitants. (Hear, hear.)
Under these circumstances, it strikes me
that before a change so great as this is made
—a change that has been condemned and
its leading feature, the Intercolonial Railway,
so strongly denounced by the Reform press
generally of Upper Canada—before such a
change as this is made, the people should be
consulted. It may be that the reasoning
then adopted and given expression to through
the columns of the Globe has taken a deep
hold upon the minds of the people, and that
they have not, like the Hon. President of
the Council, obtained the new light which
seems to have broken in upon his mind.
We are now told—no railway, no union ; but
if this railway was so complete a curse
that it was not to be built when we had
only to contribute five-twelfths of the expense,
we ought to have some greater reason given
than has yet been furnished, why this union
should take place, involving as it does the
construction of that Intercolonial Railway,
at a cost to us of ten-twelfths of the work.
What great difference is there in the circumstances of the country now from what there
was then, to make up for the great mischief
that the railway was to do if constructed two
years ago? The Honorable President of the
Council does not choose to answer these
questions. He finds that he has got an
excellent body of followers in this House at
the present time, who are carried away with
the idea that some change is necessary, and
they are prepared to run into anything where
the Honorable President leads, for the sake
of the novelty; for it is said that if you
get a little novelty to tickle the people
for a season, they may be kept quiet, little
heeding the storm that will come after the
calm. When this House first met, I observed a great many opponents to this
scheme; but somehow or other the opposition of a great many of them very soon
subsided. Some peeple say that several
hon. members had axes to grind, and they
were only holding on to the handle until
they were sure the edge was sharp. (Laughter.) Soon after the meeting of the House,
it was observed that the Hon. President of
the Council had taken a trip around among
them, and the next thing we knew they
had wheeled right about. Mr. SPEAKER,
980
the breath of the Hon. President of the
Council must have been exceedingly pestilential, for hon. gentlemen who had prepared
themselves with speeches of two
hours' duration, on standing up to deliver
them, found themselves so weak in the
knees that they were only able to stand for
a few moments, and what they uttered was
totally different from what they had prepared, and all in consequence of the breath
of the Hon. President of the Council.
(Laughter.) From the exceedingly detrimental character of that breath, I would
strongly advise my hon. friends to keep at
a safe distance, and not allow the Hon.
President of the Council to come near them,
for fear of a similar almost fatal result.
(Hear, hear.)
It being six o'clock, the Speaker left the
Chair until half-past seven.
After the recess,
MR. CAMERON, continuing his remarks,
said—When the House rose at six o'clock,
I had remarked upon the singular effect the
breath of the Hon. President of the Council
had upon many hon. members of this House ;
and in connection with this matter, I would
like now to observe that there seems to be a
practice growing into favor, which, according to my judgment, is deserving of every
condemnation. It is for hon. members of
the Government to address themselves privately to particular members, and give them
reasons for their action, which reasons are
not made known generally to the hon. members of this House Now, I understand
that every honorable member on the floor
of this House represents a portion of
the people of the country, and the portion of the people which one represents
is as much entitled to consideration and to
information in possession of the Government
as the rest of the people or the constituencies
of every other hon. member of the House.
If the Government gives to some that information which in certain cases it has not
communicated to those hostile to certain
measures, it places those hon. members in a
false position, makes them act contrary to
what they would, perhaps, if all the facts
were in their possession, and is a proceeding
that is opposed to the best interests of the
country. (Hear, hear.) If reasons were
privately given by a Minister to me which
he withheld from other hon. members of
the House, I would think he was endeavoring to deceive me ; for, according to his
oath of office, he is bound to preserve the
secrets of the Cabinet, and if he betrayed
them to me, I would conclude that he had
some sinister end in view, and was endeavoring to make we proceed in a course contrary
to that which would be dictated by my
honest convictions. (Hear, hear.) Now, in
reference to the Hon. the President of the
Council, I had hoped that when he had cried
a truce and buried the party hatchet, brushed
off his war paint and smoked the pipe of
peace with his political enemies—(laughter)
—we would have no more misrepresentations going to the country through the medium
of the newspaper organ which he
wields. I did not expect, therefore, to find
that that organ would have devoted a whole
column to a humble individual like myself,
who happens to express views contrary to
those now held by that hon. gentleman.
That paper, in referring to the recent debate
in this House on the Confederation resolutions, makes an attack on me, by representing
that I have betrayed my constituents by
acting, as it says, contrary to the pledges
I gave them previous to my election. Now,
I presume my constituents know what
pledges I did make to them, and it is not
necessary that any communications should
be made through the channels of the
Globe
to let them know that I have betrayed
those pledges, for they are as well able to
judge as that paper whether I violated my
promises or not. If any argument I used
to justify the position I took in regard to
that question was bad, it might have been
pointed out ; but it was quite unnecessary
to tell them that I had broken my pledges,
when they were as competent to judge upon
that point as any one else. Yet that is
what the organ of the hon. gentleman is
doing, showing that the old party leaven
leavens the hon. gentleman still, and that
all the elements of party discord and strife
are just as rampant now in this House as
they were before the present Coalition was
formed. (Hear.) Now, the Hon. Attorney
General West, in that amusing and interesting scene he had with the hon. member for
Carleton the other day, made a declaration
which, according to my sense of political
morality, is not exactly one that should
have been made by a Minister of the Crown
holding the position of the hon. gentleman.
He declared that it was the bounden duty
of the members of his party to follow their
leader in all things—not exercising their
own judgment in reference to any matter
that may come before the House, but sub
981
mitting themselves to him, in the belief that
when he made any proposition, no matter of
what character, he had some good object
in view.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—When the
motion for the previous question was sprung
upon the House, the Hon. Attorney General
W est rather rated the honorable member for
Carleton, because that honorable gentleman
chose to express an independent view on
the matter, and then he stated that the follower ought always to obey the leader,
because it was to be supposed the latter
would not take any particular action without
having good reasons for it. (Hear, hear.)
Now, it seems to me that we have not been
sent to this House by the people to follow
the leaders of a party, but to represent the
constituencies according to the best judgment we possess; and we are not, I think,
required to give up that right of judgment
upon all questions that come before this
House, to the leader of a party or anybody
else, but to exercise it properly ourselves.
(Hear, hear.) The leader of the Government, in introducing any measure, ought to
be able to satisfy honorable members of this
House of the goodness and wisdom of that
measure, and he should not ask or receive
support any further than his ability to give
such satisfaction. (Hear, hear ) The doctrine laid down by the Hon. Attorney General
is, therefore, in my opinion—because it
takes away the right of private judgment of
honorable members of this House—pernicious and injurious to the best interests of
the country.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—In inducing
honorable members of this House to act in
any matter contrary to their own judgment,
because the leader of the party to which they
belong tells them to do so.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I understood
the honorable gentleman so, when the honorable member for Carleton and himself had
that pleasant altercation the other day; and
if that was not his meaning, I am sorry that
I imputed it to him. (Hear, hear. ) Now, I
have contended that this measure of Confederation ought to be submitted to the
people before its adoption. I have already
given from the
Globe newspaper reasons
why it should. I do not, sir, bring forward
these extracts from that paper for the mere
purpose of placing the Hon. President of
the Council in an awkward and unpleasant
position; but my design in doing so is to
lead honorable gentlemen to reflect and think
upon the probable effect of the votes they
may give. If the
Globe newspaper advocated measures formerly which met with the
approbation of the people, and if its influence was so wide spread as is asserted,
and as
it undeniably is, the leaven with which it
leavened the country by those articles advocating certain doctrines remains there
still,
and has not been removed by any new arguments it may now advance. It would be
well for honorable gentlemen, therefore, to reflect well before making up their minds
that the old leaven of the
Globe has gone
abroad—has still a hold of the public mind
—and may affect them very seriously when
they next present themselves at the polls.
Now, I will read another extract showing
what was the opinion held by the
Globe on
a subject which is viewed quite differently
now by the Hon. President of the Council
and the Government :—
We have a debt of seventy millions, and a deficiency of three or four millions, created
by undertaking works which have failed to pay any
return for the cost of construction. But no enterprise, the burden of which we have
assumed,
comes anything near the Intercolonial in the
poverty of its promised results. It will not secure the profitable settlement of an
acre of land;
it will not help our trade; it will not pay its own
running expenses.
The few barren acres at the east are to get
$50, 000 a year of our money, while half a continent to the west is to get a few words
addressed
to the Colonial Minister.
Now, here is the doctrine. in reference to
this matter, held by the Globe and the Hon.
President of the Council only two years ago;
and if these views were correct then they
ought to be correct now, and the people
should have an opportunity of pronouncing
upon them, and saying whether that railway
should be built, especially when, under this
Confederation scheme, we are to pay upwards of three millions annually for the
maintenance of the local governments. If
the railway was objectionable then, surely it
is more objectionable now, when the annual
expenditure in connection with it will be at
least double what it would have been had it
982
been carried out at that time. (Hear, hear.)
Well, perhaps the people will see that this
great scheme of Confederation, which has
made the lion and the lamb lie down together, as the Honorable President of the
Council has said, is something that has made
them forget that prudent economy that had
a large place in the feelings of the people of
Upper Canada—a place created, perhaps,
chiefly by the Hon. President of the Council
himself; and if it is true, as that honorable
gentleman urged in his paper, it is still more
true and essential now that the people
should have an opportunity of pronouncing
upon it. And, sir, I adopt the view of the
hon. member for Peel—although starting
from it, he arrives at somewhat different conclusions from myself— if you force this
scheme upon the people without asking for
their consent, and if they wake from the
apathy which they feel now, to find that
they are saddled with burdens which they
never contemplated, you make them opponents of the union, and worse opponents
than if you asked them now whether they
approved of it or not; and so you will have
a dissatisfied people laboring under burdens
which I fear will eventually create serious
discontent throughout the length and breadth
of the land. (Hear, hear.) And there is
this additional reason for referring the question to the people, now that the other
provinces have rejected the scheme, and I presume their governments will not dare
to
press it forward in opposition to the wishes
of the people. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite,
when they introduced this scheme, and said
they could suffer no amendments to be made
in it, put it on the plea that it was absolutely necessary, to keep faith with the
Lower
Provinces, that they should carry it in its
entirety. I am glad to find that the Hon.
President of the Council is not so willing
and anxious to break faith with those provinces as he was two years ago in reference
to one of the essential ingredients of this
scheme—the Intercolonial Railway. (Hear,
hear.) I admire, sir, the principle of keeping faith in any engagement; but I do not
think it was necessary, in order to keep faith
in this matter, that it should be treated as
the Government proposes that this House
shall deal with it. All the Government had
to do to carry out what it undertook with
the governments of the Lower Provinces,
was to bring the scheme before Parliament,
as those governments have done, and allow
Parliament to deal with it as it saw fit.
There was no necessity for saying to the
House that it must reject it or adopt it in
its entirety. All the Government had to
do—its members not being delegates to the
Conference chosen by the people at large,
nor even appointed by Parliament for that
purpose, but going there, as it were, with
the tacit understanding on the part of the
representatives of the people in this House,
to see whether any arrangement of union
might be made that would work beneficially
for the interests of the whole provinces—
all it had to do was to settle upon some plan
which it would report to this House for
action; but it had no power whatever to
bind this Legislature absolutely and irrevocably to the scheme adopted by the Conference,
so that it could not dissent from or
alter it. (Hear, hear.) Well, we find honorable gentlemen who advocate this scheme
say that it is not a perfect measure, that it
is not what any one of the provinces would
desire or accept of itself, but that it is necessary to have this patch-work of a
Constitution, because there are difficulties which
it is necessary to get over and remove; and
yet, while it is admitted to be imperfect, to
tell us that we should not have an opportunity of saying whether its provisions are
right or wrong, is, to my mind, to insult the
intelligence of this House, and to commit a
wrong which I think honorable gentlemen
will have cause to regret hereafter. (Hear,
hear.) Many honorable gentlemen have
advocated this measure with great warmth,
with a feeling of earnestness and truthfulness, and with what I believe to be a sincerely
patriotic desire to accomplish something
that will work for the best interests of this
country. There is, for instance, the hon.
member for South Lanark (Mr. MORRIS),
who years ago, in one of those day-dreams
of youth which most of us experience, conceived the idea that a union of these provinces
would be exceedingly beneficial to
the people of all of them; and having got
that idea somewhat in advance of his fellowmen, he thought that it was absolutely
necessary for our prosperity that it should be
worked out; but he forgets that in order to
secure its smooth working it is necessary to
have perfect joints to the machinery, and
instead of getting that which will work
well for the people, he gets that which has
the name only of union, and few indeed of
its advantages. If that honorable gentleman had his choice, he would no doubt have
chosen something strong and stable, and not
983
something delusive and perishable ; for, as the
honorable member for Peel and other honorable members who advocate this measure
say, it is only a temporary expedient to tide
us over our difficulties—a scheme of union
to serve for the present, and not intended to
endure for all time. (Hear, hear.) We are
not, in fact, building up the frame-work of a
Constitution that is to stand for ever, but
something that we will have to tinker up
from time to time, till we at length succeed
either in destroying it altogether or making
it a passably fair erection. (Hear, hear.)
It appears to me, sir, that when this country
was given responsible government—when
the people of Canada were taught the lesson
that they were henceforth to exercise the
right of thinking for themselves—it is a
sort of rude interference with that right
when a certain number of gentlemen from
Canada enter into a contract with certain
other gentlemen from the Lower Provinces
—thirty-three in number altogether—sign
that contract, and then declare that the
representatives of the people in these provinces shall first be bound by it, that
the
people themselves shall next be bound by it,
that neither representatives nor people shall
have the power to alter or amend it, and
then that if we do insist upon our right to
alter it, we shall be thrown back into that
state of difficulty which has been held
up by some honorable gentlemen as a
bug-bear to frighten us into submission, the
country being represented as having been
bordering on revolution, into which it would
assuredly be thrown if this measure were not
accepted in its entirety. (Hear, hear.) I
think that this proposal will not go down—
that it will not meet with that full acceptance which honorable gentlemen imagine.
The people have too much intelligence to
intrust the arrangement of so important a
subject as this, which so intimately affects
their future prosperity and happiness, to the
hands of any set of men, however able and
talented they may be ; and if this scheme is
carried without giving the people a chance of
pronouncing their opinion, honorable gentlemen will be told, when they go back to
their
constituents, that the peeple have rights to
be respected, that they like to be consulted
about the character of the Constitution
under which they are to live, and that before
it is adopted finally, they like to have a word
to say in regard to it, as well as those who
assume to speak for them.
HON. MR. McGEE—They have a word
to say. They say ditto to our action. (Hear,
hear.)
MR. M. C. CAMERON—Well, I should
like them to have a full opportunity of saying
ditto or not as they pleased, and I fancy if
they had, the ditto would not be so strong
as honorable gentlemen opposite seem to
think. (Hear, hear.) I have been told
that I have violated my pledges in opposing
this scheme, and that my constituents sent
me here because they thought me to be in
favor of it. Well, I have that yet to learn
from them ; for I have heard no complaint
from them against my action, and have had
one letter fully approving of it, and it so
happens that it was written by a warm friend
of the Honorable President of the Council
in the old time. (Hear, hear.) I am not
aware that the people anywhere approve of
the scheme and say ditto to it, as the Honorable Minister of Agriculture tells us
; and
when the next election takes place, I presume we will have the ditto in some shape.
Now, the Honorable President of the Council may think that I have some personal
feeling against himself.
MR. M. C. CAMERON —If the honorable
gentleman does think that I am actuated
by personal motives in my strictures upon
him, he is very much mistaken. I have not
the slightest personal feeling against him ;
and as far as I personally am concerned, he
may remain in the Ministry and work
through with his colleagues just as long as
he can, and I promise he will find no factious
opposition from me. (Hear, hear.) If I
understand myself at all, I desire to promote
the interests and advance the prosperity of
my country ; but I do not believe those
interests or that prosperity advanced by the
adoption of this scheme. (Hear, hear.) I
believe a scheme of union could be devised
which would be serviceable to all of these
provinces, but I do not believe that Confederation is that scheme. I do not think
it is
desirable to adopt this, and then trust to the
chance of obtaining a change afterwards.
Honorable gentlemen from Lower Canada
are only postponing the time when they will
stand like other men in the community,
having voice for voice with the rest, and
nothing more. But if we change the Constitution now, is it wise or prudent to make
the change only of such a character as to
require future amendment, and give rise to
future agitation ? and is it not better that
we should endeavor to make the Constitution
984
right in the first instance ? (Hear, hear.)
And as there are elements by which a union
of the provinces could be formed that would
be lasting, and that would serve the best
interests of this country, honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches would have
better shown their patriotism by waiting a
little longer to accomplish it.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I
thought my hon. friend knew that every
man in Lower Canada was against it, every
man in New Brunswick. every man in Nova
Scotia, every man in Newfoundland, and
every man in Prince Edward Island. How,
then, is it to be accomplished ?
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I did not understand anything of the kind ; but I did
understand that it was asserted here that
that feeling existed in the Lower Provinces.
I do understand, moreover, that there are
enough members on the floor of this House
—in the Parliament now assembled—who
are ready and willing to give us representation by population.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—Because an opportunity has not been given them to do so.
And I think I can show that the people
of the Lower Provinces are in favor of a
Legislative union, rather than a Federal
union—(hear, hear)—for they appointed delegates to meet at Charlottetown for the
purpose of establishing a Legislative union
among themselves,
HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. gentleman is, no doubt, sincere in the opinion he
expresses. It is true there was a union of
the Maritime Provinces proposed, but it was
not stated what kind of union it was to be.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—Well, all the
sentiments and feeling I have seen expressed
on the subject leads me to the conclusion
that it was a legislative union they proposed ;
and when the delegates to the Quebec Conference spoke to their constituents, they
put
forward the idea that a legislative union
would have been better than the one proposed At any rate this scheme has been
rejected in one of the provinces, and if carried into operation, it will have to be
forced
upon the people of one or other of the provinces. Well, if you are going to force
a
Constitution upon any part of the people, it
would be better to force upon them that
which would, according to your own expressed opinion, be better and of greater
service to the country than the scheme
under consideration. (Hear, hear.) The
people of Lower Canada presented the
appearance of being against representation
by population ; they thought that it would
be the annihilation of their peculiar institutions—that by its adoption their laws
would
be interfered with, their language extinguished, and their religion destroyed ; and
yet how readily did they concede the principle in this Confederation scheme. They
granted representation by population in the
Lower House of the Federal Legislature.
(Hear, hear.) And why had they done so ?
Because, they say, under the Local Government our local affairs and interests will
be
safe in our own keeping—our laws will be
safe, our language will be safe, our religion will be safe. Now, if they were
assured that all these interests would be
equally as safe and well protected under any
form of government that might be chosen
for the good of the whole country, can any
hon. gentleman assume to say that they
would be opposed to that form of government ? (Hear, hear.) It is well to understand
that hon. gentlemen representing
Lower Canada constituencies and the people
of Lower Canada have been educated to fear
aggression on the part of Upper Canada,
especially if representation by population
were granted ; and they have been so
educated in consequence of the manner in
which the Hon. President of the Council,
his organ, and the organs of his party, have
agitated that question in times past ; but
when the people of Lower Canada understand that there is an opportunity of conceding
that which they have hitherto refused,
and at the same time of securing the enjoyment of those rights and privileges which
they all hold dear, I cannot believe that
they will longer oppose that which all of
them cannot fail to see must come sooner or
later. (Hear, hear.) They must see that it
is better for them to make terms now when
they may ; for I apprehend that they would
not carry their resistance to a just principle
to the length of a revolution ; for it is quite
clear that they could not be successful in
any such movement, or set themselves up as
an independent power in this country, while
Upper Canada and the other provinces remain a part of the British possessions ; nor
could they become a part of the United
985
States, for under that government their laws,
their language and their religion would be
far less secure than they would be if the
government were entirely in the hands of
Upper Canada. I feel satisfied, therefore,
that hon. gentlemen from Lower Canada
would have yielded representation by population, if it had been shown to them by the
representatives of Upper Canada that they
could accept of no change which would
increase our difficulties and add to the burdens we have to bear, as this scheme does
;
for that was the charge made over and over
again at the polls in Upper Canada, that we
were laboring under heavy burdens which
had been cast upon us by successive governments, owing to the influence of the Lower
Provinces. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I cannot
conceive it to be possible that any body of
men sent here by the people under the Constitution will make changes in that Constitution
which were not contemplated by those
who sent them here, without submitting
those changes first to the people. They have
not been agitated at the polls, and the people
seem to think that they should be considered, and there is an apathy amongst them
that does not prove that they are well disposed towards the scheme. It is true that
the boast is made that they are all in favor
of it, and a recent meeting at Toronto is
pointed to as showing what their feeling is
upon the subject. Well, of course, the hon.
member for Lambton and the hon. member
for Kent were at that meeting, and they said,
and no doubt believed that those who composed that meeting were very distinguished
individuals. (Laughter.) And because
these distinguished individuals were present,
and resolutions were carried in favor of Confederation, then it was at once assumed
that the whole country was in favor of the
scheme. But it ought to be recollected that
that meeting was got up by a number of
young men—talented and able young men,
no doubt, but still young and enthusiastic—
associated together to form or reorganize a
Reform association, and that it was attended
only by them and those friendly to them and
their views, and not by the citizens of Toronto, assembled for the purpose of determining
whether the scheme should be
adopted or not. It cannot be assumed, therefore, that a meeting of that kind truly
reflected the opinion of the people of Toronto ;
nor would this conclusion be arrived at when
it is remembered that when a gentleman got
up and moved that the scheme of Confeder
ation should be submitted to the people,
he was laughed at. Is it likely that if the
meeting was not composed entirely of those
in favor of Confederation, a proposition of
that kind would be received with a laugh ?
(Hear, hear.) And if you read the reports
of the speeches delivered at that meeting,
you will find that hardly anything was said
at all in reference to the true merits of the
scheme, but that there was a great deal of
that "highfaluting" talk which you hear in
this House about the great and glorious
results that this scheme is to bring forth.
(Hear, hear.) As to its probable actual
working and the benefits it will confer upon
the people, or as to its disadvantages, there
was not a word spoken in sober language,
and in this House you find hon. gentlemen
debating in just the same extravagant style
as was exhibited at that meeting. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. McDOUGALL—I have understood from the several speeches delivered by
the hon. gentleman upon this subject, that
he feels quite convinced that a legislative
union would be better, and that he would
vote for it.
HON. MR. MCDOUGALL—Well, then,
I should like to know what authority he
would have to vote for that rather than a
Federal union, and from what he draws the
inference that the people are in favor of it?
(Hear, hear.)
MR. M. C. CAMERON—When I said I
would vote for a legislative union, I did not
say I was ready to adopt it without submitting it to the people. (Hear, hear.) Now,
it has been said that the Lower Provinces
are not in favor of and would not accept a
legislative union. An hon. friend has just
put in my hand a report of a speech delivered by Dr. TUPPER of Nova Scotia, in
which that gentleman expresses himself in
favor of a legislative union.
HON. MR. BROWN—I suppose it is exceedingly likely that at a meeting held in
Halifax to consider a union of the Maritime
Provinces, the people of that city were in
favor of a legislative union, because Halifax was to be the capital, the central place
of the proposed union, the other provinces
giving up their individuality. I have no
doubt that there may be some in all the provinces who are in favor of a Legislative
rather than a Federal union.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—Now, in the
correspondence laid before this House on
986
the subject of a union of the Maritime
Provinces, the words used, as I recollect
them, were a "Legislative union," and you
do not find that the people of those provinces desired Federal rather than a Legislative
union. In the correspondence laid
before the House on the subject, I think
that the words used are those of a Legislative
union. You do not find the words "Federal union" in it ; and I think that is the
kind of union which those gentlemen who
desired the best interests of this country
ought to have striven to have had. But
because some fifteen or sixteen gentlemen,
who patched up this Constitution with so
many discordant elements in it, did not
choose to give it to us, is no reason why we
should not have it. All that we desired was
that we should have a strong government,
and they should have been satisfied to have
gone on with the government of the country without any change. (Hear, hear.) But
hon. gentlemen who were brought together
in this Coalition had said so many hard
things of each other, that it was found necessary to make people forget these by putting
before them some great scheme, and I hope
it will be a lesson to the Hon. President of
the Council not to say such hard things
of people in future. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
HON. Mr. DORION—Mr. SPEAKER, I
do not intend to discuss the motion proposed
by the honorable member for Peel ; I merely
desire to explain to Lower Canadian members
that the object of that motion is to ask that
any measure passed by the Imperial Government may not be put in force in Canada without
being submitted to the people of this province. Those who are of opinion that the
Legislature ought not to pass a measure of
such importance—which is nothing short
of a revolution in our Constitution—those
who consider the measure of sufficient importance to induce them not to ask England
to
carry out that revolution without consulting
the people, must vote in favor of this motion.
(Hear, hear.) Even supposing that the people were in favor of Confederation, it would
still be of great advantage to submit the question to the electors. The question is
not yet
understood. The newspapers have said, on
the one hand, that it was a good measure, and
on the other that it was a bad one ; but in
reality there has been no serious discussion,
and it is perfectly clear that the people are
not yet acquainted with it. (Hear, hear.)
Members of this House undertake a very
serious responsibility in voting for this measure without consulting the people ;
and the
advantage of an appeal to their electors—
even supposing the result to be favorable to
the scheme—would be to relieve them of that
responsibility. (Hear, hear.) And if the
measure be neither understood nor approved
of by the people, you run the risk, by voting
it in that position, of creating prejudices
which would perhaps be removed by discussion. Therefore, in the interest of the measure
itself, as well as of honorable members of
this House, it ought to be submitted to the
people before it is finally voted, and for my
part I shall vote for the amendment of the
hon. member for Peel. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. EVANTUREL—I should like
to ask my friend the honorable member for
Hochelaga, and all the honorable members of
the Opposition, who constantly repeat that
Confederation is now defunct, and that we
have nothing more to do but to bury it, why
they desire to submit it to the people ? I
fail to see the necessity, if it be true that the
scheme is already defunct. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)
HON. MR. DORION—My answer is, that
we desire that it should be submitted to the
people, in order to shew that it is unpopular.
The hon. member thought to place me in a
dilemma, but he was mistaken. He thinks
the measure will be passed in England as it
stands at present, and it is to avoid that contingency that we desire an appeal to
the
people.
HON. MR. DORION — The hon. member
for Quebec is then in hopes that it may be
amended ?
HON. Mr. DORION—Well, if it can be
amended in England to our advantage, it may
also be modified in a contrary sense. But
that is not the question. I say that we ought
to submit it to the people, in order that it
the verdict should be favorable to the measure, it may go to the Imperial Government
with the sanction of the people and of Parliament; and if the people are opposed to
the
scheme, the delegates must not be left in a
position to say that public opinion in Canada
is favorable to the measure. (Hear, hear.)
MR. DENIS—I believe, Mr. SPEAKER,
that the fears of the honorable member for
Hochelaga are entirely unfounded. In order
that an appeal to the people may be of use,
987
the scheme should be known as a whole, for
how could the people form a sound judgment
if we were to lay before them only a vague
plan of Confederation, that is to say, the
resolutions as they stand at present, unless
they were also put in possession of the constitution of the local governments, and
all the
other details of the measure which most deeply interest them, and with which they
are entitled to be made acquainted ? Let us wait
until the plan is known, and the people will
be consulted when the proper time comes.
(Hear, hear.)
MR. J. B. E. DORION—Really, Mr.
SPEAKER, if the honorable member for Beauharnois meant what he said, he has given
us
something new. But I do not believe he is
really serious when he tells us that we should
wait until the constitutions of the local governments are submitted to us, before
judging
of the merits of the resolutions now before
us. However, supposing him to be perfectly
in earnest, and that he had no intention of
trifling, as he sometimes does, does he fancy
for one moment that we are going to accept
the reasons he brings forward to induce us to
vote against an appeal to the people ? If so,
he is very much mistaken. (Hear, hear.) I
can easily understand that he is embarrassed,
and that he should shield himself even under
weak arguments in voting against the motion
in amendment, for he promised at two electoral meetings to vote for an appeal to the
people. (Hear, hear.) He says he will not
vote for an appeal to the people, because he is
not acquainted with the details of the measure ; but why, then, does he vote on the
main motion without knowing these details ?
He knows that the Government have told us
that we must vote Confederation before they
bring down the constitution of the local governments, and that they intended going
to
England to secure the new Constitution,
without submitting to us the plan of the local
constitutions. It will be too late when the
delegates return, and after England has given
us a new Constitution, to submit the present
resolutions to the people. (Hear, hear.) And
if we can judge here of this grand scheme of
Confederation—as the hon. member says—
without having before us the details of the
organization of the local governments, why
should not the people, in like manner, be afforded an opportunity of recording their
opinion of the scheme ? The reasons advanced
by the honorable member are utterly futile.
(Hear, hear.)
MR. GIBBS.—Before the vote is taken
on this motion, I feel it to be my duty to make a
few remarks explanatory of the vote I intend
to give. When I addressed the House the
other evening, I stated that I had given a
pledge to my constituents that when the motion
came up in this House for submitting the
scheme of a union of the Provinces of British
North America to the people of this province,
I would feel it to be my duty to vote for it.
The language I used was something like this,
that although I was in favor of the Federation
of the British North American Provinces, yet
that as the measure was to affect not only
those now inhabiting these provinces, but
others to follow us, I would insist upon it
that the question should be submitted to
the people before going into effect, while upon
the canvass in my riding, I stated that I looked
upon the resolutions submitted in the light of
the basis of an agreement that might have
been entered into by a number of individuals
desirous of going into a partnership, which no
one could alter without the consent of the
others. I was, therefore, not at all surprised
to hear the Honorable Attorney General West,
at the opening of the discussion, say that we
could not change that treaty, that we must
vote on it in this way—either accept or reject
it as a whole. It was said that if the people
sent me to the House as their representative,
I would be found voting for their resolutions
as they were, without seeking to amend them
in any respect. Although I believed that the
resolutions would be presented and pressed as
they stood, I did not believe that no amendment would ever be made to them ; and
although the Parliament of Canada has been
told that it cannot alter the scheme, I am not
without hope that when the delegation proceeds to England, certain necessary amendments
will be introduced by the Government of Great
Britain. Now, sir, I consider that to a certain extent the members opposed to the
details
of the scheme, but who are disposed to favor
the general principle, have put their political
consciences in the hands of the honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches ; therefore
I
am in hopes that the resolutions will not pass
into law exactly in the shape in which they
have been presented to this House. Being
sent here to represent the people, and feeling
the matter to be a very important one, affecting
very materially the Constitution under which
they live, I consider it my duty to vote for
such an amendment as that which has been
submitted by the honorable member for Peel.
I was strenghtened in that view of the case by
the words of Lord DURHAM on the subject of
988
the union of Upper and Lower Canada. The
noble lord had recommended the adoption of a
general legislative union of all the British
North American Provinces, and also the submission of the question to the people of
those
provinces for their approval. He said, " But
the state of the lower province, though it
justifies the proposal of an union, would not, I
think, render it gracious or even just on the
part of Parliament, to carry it into effect without referring it to the ample deliberation
and
consent of the people of those colonies." Now,
sir, I take it that what is alluded to here is
the consent of the legislatures of those provinces. If this House should be dissolved,
and the measure passed in England be of
a permissive character, it would, when returned, either be accepted or rejected by
the House, and in the meantime the constituencies could be consulted in reference
to it. (Hear, hear.) The necessity for
this has been proved by some of the remarks
which have been made by honorable gentlemen
who have addressed the House on the subject.
Several honorable members, who advocated the
measure, stated that they had already placed
it before their constituents, and that they had
their endorsement in voting for it as they
intended to do. That is right as far as it
goes, but it only shows that these honorable
gentlemen deemed it necessary to take that
course and consult their constituents, thus
fortifying themselves by securing beforehand
their approval. (Hear, hear.) It is said
that doctors disagree, but I think the same
may be said of lawyers ; for we find the honorable member for Peel saying that it
would be
unconstitutional to take the course advocated
by the honorable member for North Ontario.
But I concur rather in the mode of appeal to the
people proposed by the honorable member for
North Ontario, " yea " or " nay," than in that
of the honorable member for Peel. The principle has been acknowledged by the Parliament
of Canada, and it has been introduced into
our county councils, so far that any sum
exceeding $20,000 cannot be levied without
the consent of the people having been first
obtained. I believe that we should support
Federation, or the fears entertained by many
may be realized, that its rejection may have a
tendency towards annexation. I did not
hesitate to give my adhesion to the resolutions
of the Conference, believing as I do that
their adoption is calculated to benefit these
provinces, and also to strengthen the connection between this country and Great Britain.
My attachment to British institutions is not
mere sentiments, but a principle which ha
grown with my growth and strengthened with
my strength. (Hear, hear.) I fear if this
scheme be not adopted, and matters continue
as at present—let the just rights of Upper
Canada be denied her—let the Reciprocity
treaty be abrogated—we may hear a cry
throughout the province that will alarm if not
astonish us. One thing has struck me as
rather singular in passing through the country—that not one individual whose proclivities
were supposed to be in favor of American
institutions had expressed himself as in favor
of the scheme now before the House. I look
upon that as a strong argument in its favor.
As I have already stated, sir, although I am
in favor of the measure, I think it but right
that it should be submitted to the people, for
their approval, before being carried into effect,
and therefore I deem it my duty to vote for
the amendment of the honorable member for
Peel. (Hear, hear.)
MR. JACKSON—I have only a word or
two to say, Mr. SPEAKER, before the vote is
taken on this motion. I cannot reconcile the
conduct of the honorable member for Peel in
voting that an Address should be presented
to Her Majesty in favor of the scheme, and
then move to have it submitted to the people.
The honorable member for Peel has made out
a case for the resolutions which have been
adopted by this House. He stated that the
people of Upper Canada were in favor of it ;
he has no objection to it himself ; it meets
with his hearty concurrence. I can easily
conceive how my honorable friend from North
Ontario can vote for this resolution ; but I
cannot understand how an honorable
gentleman can vote that an Address shall be
presented to the Queen, asking Her Majesty
to submit the scheme to the Imperial Legislature, and, after that has been voted,
turn
round and vote that the scheme should be
submitted to the people. I cannot understand
that. If I voted for the motion now before
the House, I should think I was acting in
opposition to the vote I gave before. (Hear,
hear.) I stated the other evening that my
constituents were in favor of the House
adopting this measure, and that they did not
consider an appeal to the people necessary.
In accordance with their decision I gave my
vote, and I shall now vote in opposition to
the motion of the honorable member for Peel.
If it was necessary, I think I could show to
the House that if it were submitted to the
people, side issues would be raised, irrelevant
altogether to the main question, in order to
989
promote some local object or interest, and we
would have no united expression of opinion.
I think that every honorable gentleman who
supported the resolutions must vote in opposition to the motion of the honorable member
for Peel. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. BROWN—I do not. rise to detain the House from the division beyond a
very few minutes. But I think it would
not be desirable that the debate should close
without a few words from this part of the
House. And first, a word with reference to
the speech of the honorable member for
North Ontario (Mr. M. C. CAMERON). That
honorable gentleman, in the course of his remarks, said he had no personal feeling
towards myself. I quite believe that, and I am
entirely willing that the honorable gentleman
should enjoy all the little relief he evidently
obtains from his fierce assaults on myself and
the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.
McDOUGALL). I do not think that any of
the other remarks of the honorable gentleman
require notice— (laughter) —as they were
only a repetition of what had frequently
come from other honorable members in the
previous part of this debate. But as regards the honorable member for Peel (Hon.
J. HILLYARD CAMERON), I do say that anything more extraordinary than the line of argument
he took up here to-night, I never heard
from any hon. member of this House. What
was the position taken by the hon. gentleman
from Peel ? He commenced by saying that
justice to Upper Canada required the granting of parliamentary reform, and that this
scheme gave that measure of justice to
Upper Canada. He said the province must
be defended ; that the question of the defence of this province was the most urgent
and the most important question we had to
consider at this moment, and that this measure provided the best way of meeting that
question of defence. He said that the threatened abolition of reciprocity with the
United
States required to be met—that the best interests of this province would be imperilled
by the repeal of the Reciprocity treaty—
and that he conceived that this measure supplied the very best way of meeting that
difficulty. He said also that we cannot go on
as we are—that it was quite impossible that
the state of things which has existed in Canada could continue—that there must be
a
change—and he conceived that what was proposed by this measure was a most desirable
change. He said we had but one of two alternatives—a dissolution of the union, or
the
adoption of the Federal principle—and that
for his part he considered that a dissolution
of the union was the last thing to be adopted, and that the Federal system is the
best
remedy that can be applied under our particular circumstances.
HON. MR. BROWN—At any rate, the
honorable gentleman voted in the constitutional committee for a Federal union, and
signed the report in favor of it, as the only
measure that could be carried, and as one desirable to be carried.
HON. MR. BROWN—I cannot speak as
to that. Then the honorable gentleman went
on to say that on all these grounds this measure commended itself " to every true
lover
of his country." Yet, after having passed
this high eulogium on the measure, what does
he say ? Why, that he won't have it now—
that he won't have it until it has been sent to
the country, and the opinion of the electors
has been obtained upon it ! He says there is
danger of annexation to the United States if
these difficulties are not met—that annexation
is hanging over us—that this measure will
deliver us from that dire fate—and yet he is
not prepared to apply the remedy now ! And
what are the reasons of the honorable gentleman for refusing to give effect to a measure
of which he professes to be so enamoured ?
Does he, like the honorable member for
North Ontario, deny the power of Parliament
to pass such a measure ? Not at all ; he
admits we have full power to pass it. Does
he personally entertain any doubt as to the
benefit from passing it now ? On the contrary, he is enthusiastically for the measure,
and declares that he would vote for it, just as
it stands, as an elector at the polls. Does he
want delay ? On the contrary, he demands
that the measure shall be urged on with all
speed. (Hear, hear.) He says the sooner
the members of Government are in England the better for the people of Canada—
that this question of Federation, and the
question of defence, and the question of
American reciprocity, should be urged on the
British Government without one hour's unnecessary delay. He protests that on the
fate of this measure some of the most vital
interests of the province depend, and yet he
will not have it until months of valuable time
have been lost, until the country has been
forced to pass through all the turmoil and
990
confusion and uncertainty of a general election, and until a new Parliament has been
summoned and given its sanction to the
measure. And the most curious part of it is,
the honorable gentleman does not want the
appeal now—he will take it by and by.
HON. J. H. CAMERON—My argument
was entirely the contrary. I said there should
not be a day's delay in appealing to the country ; that as the Government had told
us
they were to meet Parliament in July, there
would be no reason to prevent this Parliament being dissolved, and a new Parliament
being summoned by that time.
HON. MR. BROWN—Yes ; but the honorable gentleman most inconsistently told us
in the same breath that the deputation of
Ministers must go at once to England. Does
he fancy a general election would be brought
on during the absence from the country of
the leading members of the Administration ?
If he does, I tell him he is mistaken. But
does the honorable gentleman pretend there
is any doubt as to the feeling of the people
of Canada on this measure ? Not at all. On
the contrary, he is quite confident that if submitted to the people there would be
a vast
majority in its favor—a complete sweep over
the country. Nay, strange enough, he gives
this very fact of the certainty of approval as
the chief argument in favor of an election.
He says, " Send it to the people ; there is no
fear of the result. The very men who now
sit here to-day, or others who think as they
do, will come back and adopt it ! " Could
anything more absurd than this be imagined ?
Is not the argument clearly in the opposite
direction ? Should not the honorable gentleman have said—" The people approve of
this measure ; their representatives approve
of it ; if you had an election, the same men
would be sent back, or others like them ; a
vast sum would be uselessly expended ; much
valuable time would be lost ; partisan broils
might be revived ; don't, then, lose a moment,
but put it through at once." (Cheers.) But
I confess the honorable gentleman did suggest one argument in favor of an appeal to
the people, and a very strange one it certainly was coming from such a quarter. The
hon.
member for Peel says he has not a doubt as to
the feelings of the people of Upper Canada ;
he is quite certain that an almost unanimous
verdict would be rendered by them in favor
of this measure. But he says he has some
doubts as to what the people of Lower Canada might think about it ; they might possibly
like to give the measure a death-blow,
and he is in favor of giving them a chance to
do it ! Now, sir, I did think that a very
peculiar style of argument from one so enamoured of this measure, and from one, too,
who has been supposed not to be very closely
allied with the majority of Lower Canadians
on matters of public policy, and especially on
this particular question. (Hear, hear.) Who
could have expected to find the hon. member
for Peel assuming the
rĂ´le of an exponent of
popular feeling in Lower Canada, and constituting himself the guardian of the rights
of the French-Canadians ? (Hear, hear.) It
did strike me that the honorable gentleman
might very properly have left the Lower Canadians to speak for themselves. (Hear,
hear.)
In view of the vote recorded on this measure
at our last sitting—considering the fact that
a majority of twelve on the Lower Canada
vote was then recorded in favor of the measure, I do think the hon. member for Peel
might
have been well content to accept the votes of
Lower Canadian representatives as the best
index to Lower Canadian feeling. (Hear,
hear.) There were three Lower Canada
members absent, on Saturday morning, from
the division ; but had they been here, there
would have been a majority of thirteen on
the Lower Canada vote in favor of the measure.
HON. MR. DORION—No ; Messrs. DUNKIN, ABBOTT and DAOUST would have voted
against it.
HON. MR. BROWN —I believe Mr.
DAOUST and the Hon. Mr. ABBOTT have declared in favor of Confederation. Mr. DUNKIN
would probably have voted against it. As
for the honorable member for Argenteuil
(Hon. Mr. ABBOTT), I see he is now in his
place, and can answer for himself. With Mr.
DUNKIN voting against the measure, there
would have been a Lower Canada majority of
thirteen in its favor. (Hear, hear.)
HON. Mr. HOLTON—The hon. member
for Argenteuil would have voted against it.
Cries of " Ask himself ! " and laughter.
HON. MR. BROWN—The honorable gentleman is of age, and can speak for himself.
I could not pay him such a poor compliment
as to fancy for a moment that he could vote
against this measure. I have no doubt he
would have voted on the right side. (Hear,
hear.
HON. MR. BROWN—Ah ! I repeat that
in the face of that Lower Canada majority of
thirteen, and a French-Canadian majority of
991
five, the one argument of the honorable member for Peel in demanding the turmoil and
delay and expense of a general election was
his tenderness as to the feelings of the Lower
Canadians. (Hear, hear.) And yet, sir, the
honorable member for Peel has seen the sort
of agitation that is being carried on against
this measure in Lower Canada ; he has card
the way in which petitions against it have
been concocted in this character, and sent
broadcast over this country with urgent entreaties to have them signed by men, women
and children ; he has seen these petitions
come back here with hardly a genuine signature appended to them ; he has heard the
arguments and the cries on which this agitation
has been based. (Hear, hear.) I ask him
if it is to aid and strengthen such an agitation
against this measure that he demands a general election ? I ask him if there has been
one argument against the scheme which, in
his opinion, supplied any reasonable foundation for the agitation sought to be excited
in
Lower Canada ; if there has been one cry attempted to be raised against it that honestly
went to the true merits of the question ? If
there has been, I have yet to hear it. (Hear,
hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, the most curious
part of the proposal of the honorable member
for Peel is the attitude he would have us occupy in addressing the Queen. We have
already adopted an Address praying Her
Majesty to pass an Imperial Statute giving
effect to the resolutions of the Quebec Conference ; and the hon. member for Peel
now asks
that we shall pass a second Address praying
that the said Imperial Act shall be subject to
the approval, and shall not be law until it
obtains the approval, of their high mightinesses
the one hundred and thirty gentlemen who
may happen to sit in the House of Assembly
of the next Canadian Parliament. (Hear,
hear.) He would have us approach the
Throne saying—" May it please Your Majesty—Here is the Constitution which has
been adopted by the Governments of the five
British American Provinces ; we declare to
you that this is the new Constitution we want
for British America ; we pray Your Majesty
to give effect to it ; we pray that the Imperial
Parliament may pass an act enforcing this new
Constitution on all these provinces, and that
Your Majesty will assent to it. But at the
same time we ask Your Majesty to do this
only on one condition, namely, that the Legislature of Canada—not the present one,
but the
next Legislature that may be chosen—shall
have the opportunity of criticising and dis
secting the work of the Imperial Parliament, and of kicking Your Majesty's Bill
out of the chamber on the first day it meets."
(Hear, hear, and great laughter.) The hon.
member for Peel will permit me to tell him
that if he fancies this would be a decorous
mode of approaching the Sovereign, he has a
strange idea of the respect due from loyal
subjects to the chief magistrate of the Empire
which it is their happiness to form a part.
(Hear, hear.) And I further tell this honorable gentleman and any other honorable
member who may think with him, that if
they expect honorable gentlemen to go to the
Imperial Government and say—" We ask you
to take all the trouble of preparing this measure—to assume it as your own—and to
carry
it through both Houses of Parliament against
all opposition ; but at the same time we ask
you to put in a clause that the Legislature of
Canada shall be above the Imperial Parliament, shall be above the Sovereign, and shall
deal with your Act just as it pleases,"—then,
I tell the House that parties must be found
to convey that message, who are destitute of
self-respect, and who have not a proper sense
of the respect due to those holding the highest
dignities of the realm. (Cheers.) I do say
that a more direct insult to the Crown could
not be offered than that now proposed by the
honorable member for Peel. But another
most singular part of the proposal of the
honorable member for Peel, is that while he
is trying to pass this vote of want of confidence in the Government—for if it is not
that, it would, if carried, be at least a direct
defeat of the policy of the Government—he
professes at the same moment an immense
desire to strengthen the hands of the Administration. (Hear, hear.) He fancies, or
professes to fancy, that if this motion of his were
carried, the Government would take their dose
placidly, and go meekly to England with the
record of their defeat in their hands. He
tells us in effect,—" I don't want you, notwithstanding this vote, to hesitate about
going to England—not at all. Your presence is
wanted in England as quickly as possible. You
ought to go immediately ; you ought to talk
strongly to the Imperial Government ; you
ought to tell them how they are to settle the
defence question, how the reciprocity question, and so on. You must speak for the
people of Canada in a bold and firm tone, that
will do justice to the people of this country."
It is the honorable gentleman's idea that we
should go very strong to England, and his
way of strengthening us is by passing upon
992
our policy a direct vote of censure the hour
before we start. (Hear, hear.) He wants us
to go home strong—with an Address to the
Sovereign in one hand, and a defeat by the
people's representatives in the other. (Hear,
hear.) If the hon. gentleman thinks he is
sustaining the Administration by his present
motion, I can only say that I for one do not
thank him for his support. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. gentleman may carry his resolution
if he can, but I tell him that in that case no
mission will go to England with any such insulting message from this Government as
now
constituted. (Hear, hear.) The House may
perfectly comprehend that if any Address is
to be carried to the Queen by the present
Government, it must be the Address we have
submitted to Parliament. The hon. member
for North Ontario (Mr. M. C. CAMERON)
says that we are attempting to dictate to the
House—that we are endeavoring to take away
from them the rightful powers of the members of this Legislature. We do nothing of
the kind. The members of the Legislature
may act as they deem right ; they may reject
our Address, or amend it, or couple it with anything they please—all we say is, that
we cannot be the bearers of a message shaped in the
way the hon. member for Peel proposes. But
if this House says there shall be an appeal to
the people, it will get an appeal to the people
at once—to-morrow—(hear, hear)—and that
without the mockery of going home to the
Imperial Government with an Address asking
in one breath that the bill may be passed into
law, and in the next that it may not be passed
into law. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member
for Peel has said that the legislatures of the
other provinces have gone, or are going, to the
people—and why not we ? The hon. gentleman
ought to know that the other legislatures were
in a different position from that which we
occupied. As regards the New Brunswick
Legislature, its term expired, I think, in May
—they had not been for four years before
their constituents—they were going soon at
any rate, and they came to the conclusion
that it was well to go at once. And so also
it was in Newfoundland—the period when a
dissolution must take place was rapidly approaching, and they took the same course.
The honorable gentleman says that if the
Legislature of Nova Scotia do not approve of
the resolutions, the Government will advise a
dissolution. So probably would we under
such circumstances. If this Legislature had
not approved of the scheme, we would undoubtedly, with His Excellency's assent, have
appealed to the country against the decision
of this House. And otherwise what necessity
is there for a direct appeal to the people ?
Here we have been discussing the question for
years—
HON. MR. BROWN—The honorable gentleman may cry " Oh ! oh !" but I tell him
that the people throughout the country generally understand this question just as
well as
the members of the Legislature. Those who
are most difficult to be made to understand
are those who don't want to understand.
Even the honorable member for Cornwall
once understood this question, and if he does
not now it is because he has forgotten it.
(Laughter.) If there were any doubt about
public feeling, there might be propriety in
going to the people. But is there any doubt
about it ? I am not opposing the honorable
gentleman's resolution on constitutional
grounds. I am not denying the rights of the
people ; if I had any doubt whatever about
what would be the verdict of the people, I
should be the first to say that we ought to go
to the people. But it is simply because I am
satisfied there would be a sweeping verdict of
the people in favor of the measure, that I
think it unnecessary to take it to the country.
What would be the verdict of the people may
be judged from what has been the vote of
their representatives here, who are responsible
to them. Never has there been such a verdict in this Parliament on any matter of grave
importance as we have had in favor of this
measure—in the Upper House a majority of
three to one, and in the Lower House also a
majority as nearly as possible of three to one.
And of the six honorable members who were
absent from the vote—the SPEAKER, and the
five honorable members who were absent—five
would have gone for it and only one against
it—the House being divided, 94 for to 36
against. And as regards those 36, more than
one-half of them have risen in this House and
declared themselves in favor of the general
principle, and only opposed to some of the
details. I say there never has been such a
unanimous verdict from any Parliament in
favor of any great constitutional change. And
since the policy of the Government has been
announced, no fewer than 50 out of our
130 constituencies have been appealed to
by elections, for the one House or the other
—and in the whole of these, only four can
didates offered themselves in opposition to
this policy, and but two got elected—and
I think one of those two did actually vote
993
in favor of the measure. (Hear, hear.) I
am told that the hon. member for South
Wentworth (Mr. RYMAL) made a statement
to which I would call his attention—as I
certainly did not notice that he made it—
while addressing the House. I was remarking that I had not heard one member from
Upper Canada declare that a large majority
of his constituents were not in favor of this
measure, and I was told that the hon. member had stated so with reference to his
constituents.
MR. RYMAL—I did not say whether
they were or were not in favor of the
measure. I believe there is a great diversity
of opinion among them.
HON. MR. BROWN—Ah ! Well, Mr.
SPEAKER, we have two hon. gentlemen, one
in this House and one in the other, who
have just come from their elections—one
from the city of Hamilton, situated in the
county (South Wentworth) represented by
the hon. gentleman (Mr. RYMAL), and the
other from the Legislative Council district,
which includes the constituency of the hon.
gentleman (Mr. RYMAL)—and both of them
declare that they have not the slighest
doubt as to the feeling of their constituents
—that it is strongly in favor of the measure.
I repeat, then, that I have not as yet heard
one hon. member declare that his constituency was opposed to this scheme.
MR. RYMAL—With reference to the
testimony of the hon. member for Burlington division (Hon. Mr. BULL) and the hon.
member for Hamilton (Mr. MAGILL), permit me to say that I know more of the South
Riding of Wentworth than either one of those
hon. gentlemen. Neither of them has ever
had the confidence of the electors of South
Wentworth. One of them was in a minority
there, last fall, of 300. The other tried it
some years ago, and had not the shadow of a
chance.
HON. MR. BROWN—That may be true.
But the hon. gentleman should have stated
this also, that Dr. SMITH, the opponent of Hon.
Mr. BULL, declared he was in favor of the
general principles of this measure, and that
if the details were satisfactory, he would go
for it. So that in fact both the candidates
for that constituency, including the whole
of Wentworth and the city of Hamilton,
declared in favor of the policy of the Government.
MR. RYMAL—I beg to say that I have
heard Dr. SMITH say—not once, or twice, but
on different occasions—that he did not believe this scheme would work well.
HON. MR. BROWN—It is quite possible
that he may have said so since his defeat,
but I can only say that I conversed with
Dr. SMITH myself while he was a candidate,
and heard a very different opinion from him.
But I think it ill became the honorable
gentleman to speak so disparagingly of the
testimony of gentlemen as to the feeling of
the county, simply because they were not
strong in a particular contest. When he
remembers how hard a fight he himself had
at last election, and that he was only elected
by a very small majority, he was hardly in a
position to throw discredit on such a score
on the statement of hon. gentlemen who
have just come from the people, and, after
putting the measure fairly and squarely
before the electors, have got an almost
unanimous verdict in its favor. The hon.
member for Hamilton polled an immense
majority, and it was not right for my
honorable friend to indulge in a sneer
because he may have been in a minority on a previous occasion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SPEAKER, I might detain the House
much longer in replying to what fell from
honorable members who have spoken during
this discussion. But I do not desire to keep
the House from the vote. I would simply
appeal to the members of this House, that if
ever there could be a case made out for
action—immediate action—it has been made
out with reference to this measure.
HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. gentleman
will soon know whether or not we can get
immediate action. He must recollect, that
although the New Brunswick elections have
apparently gone against Confederation, there
is still a considerable number of members
returned there in favor of Confederation,
and that there is another large party who are
not opposed to union, but only object to
some of the details. And there is this to be
considered also. It was presented there in
a very different light from that in which
it comes before us. We have been considering this question for many years. There
994
is not a point that can be taken against it
which has not been thoroughly sifted before
the country. We are, therefore, in a different position, and there is this hanging
over
us besides—as stated by the hon. member
for Peel—we cannot go back, we must go
forward—we must have some decision on this
question—we cannot let things rest as they
are. lt is of no use for the hon. member for
North Ontario (Mr. M. C. CAMERON) to
tell us that matters can go on as they have
been doing for many years past. That was
not the opinion of the hon. gentleman when
he came here in 1862. (Hear, hear.) He
came as a supporter of the Conservative
Government then in existence, and yet
the first vote he gave was in condemnation of his own friends, because they
did not bring in a Ministerial measure
to settle this question. If he looks at
his own speech on that occasion, denouncing
the Hon. Attorney General West and his
colleagues, because they would not give
representation by population, and because
the feeling was so strong that not a moment
should be lost in dealing with the question
—he would find there an answer to his arguments now, when he tells us this thing
may be shoved aside, and matters go on as
before. (Hear, hear.)
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I did not state
at the time referred to that there was any
danger of revolution, or anything of that
kind. I urged the question as a measure of
justice for Upper Canada against my hon.
friends who were not in favor of it.
HON. MR. BROWN—He urged it upon
his friends on that occasion to turn them
out, because they would not move; and now
he urges it in the very opposite direction—
namely, to turn them out because they do
move. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—If the hon. gentleman would allow me to make a remark, I
would say it appears to me the fallacy he has
fallen into is in assuming that this measure is
identical with the measure of representation
by population, for which he has been agitating the country for some year past. It
is
not the same question. The question of
Federation or Confederation has not been
before the country. It was not before the
country at the last general election. He
knows full well that the party, of which he
is a distinguished member, has pronounced
over and over again, and through his own
mouth, against this scheme of Confederation.
He knows that the Reform Convention of
1859 did so.
HON. MR. HOLTON—What were the
facts? The Government of that day had
proposed a Confederation of all the provinces
as their remedy for the Canadian difficulty.
The Liberal party did not accept that. If
they had done so, the probability is that you
would have had Confederation long ago,
with the consent of the Lower Provinces.
But the Reform Convention declared it was
no remedy. It is true they put in a saving
clause, that at some future day, in some
remote contingency, after the settlement of
the Canadian difficulty, but not as a means
of settling it, the Federation of all the
provinces might be taken up. But I merely
rose to point out to my hon. friend the
fallacy into which he has fallen—and it is a
very close one—in assuming that this measure is identical with the measure for which
he agitated the country so long, and which
the hon. member for North Ontario advocated on the occasion to which he refers.
HON. MR. BROWN—I think the hon.
gentleman has risen for a very poor purpose.
And in place of accepting his explanation
as correct, I dissent from it toto caelo. The
position of the matter is quite the opposite
of what he states. He says this is a different
thing altogether. I totally deny that it is.
I say this is simply what we asked for, only
in another form. The measure we asked for
was representation by population. We got
that. (Hear, hear.) And the hon. gentleman is the last man to object to this, which
is the very basis on which he agreed to go
into the BROWN—DORION Administration—
representation by population being the basis,
accompanied by such checks and guarantees
as might be shown to be necessary. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. gentleman has stated that
I have spoken against Confederation of the
provinces. He will turn to no speech of
mine since I entered Parliament in
which, when I made any allusion to
the matter, I did not take care expressly
to state that I regarded a union of all the
provinces as the grand future destiny of
these provinces. But to those who offered
us Confederation of the provinces a present remedy for all the evils we suffered,
I
said I would not accept that. But I took
care to say nothing directly against it, what
995
ever others may have said or written. In
the first place, I doubted whether we had
strength enough to assume the burdens it
would throw upon us. In the next place, I
knew little about the sentiments of the
Lower Provinces, how they would regard it.
And I thought it likely that it would take
years to accomplish. I would not consent,
therefore, that any party should make this
a stalking horse, and waste time in keeping
us negotiating between the Imperial and the
Provincial Governments, so as to stave off
the practicable remedy which we sought.
HON. MR. BROWN —The hon. gentleman
is entirely mistaken. He will find there is
no member of this Government who has any
idea of shirking this question for an hour.
(Hear, hear.) And he will see that that is
the very basis of our present policy. In the
original negotiations for this Coalition,
while I admitted that it was a good thing
and a desirable thing that we should look for
the future of these provinces in the direction
of provincial union, yet I contended there
was a present remedy which we should have
and could have of our own motion, until the
other was obtained. The hon. gentleman
will admit that we have been wonderfully,
unexpectedly successful in the policy we
initiated in July last; and I am prepared to
say, as I have always been prepared to say,
that if practicable, this measure is a better
one than the smaller scheme. But so far
from its being a different remedy from ours,
I say it is but an extension of our plan—
that we who have contended for representation by population for so many years, are
getting all that we asked and something more.
(Hear, hear.) It is true that our Lower
Canada friends have obtained security for
their local institutions. For my part, I am
glad they have got it. (Hear, hear.) I
have always been willing they should have
it. I can appeal to my hon. friend from
Kamouraska (Hon. Mr. CHAPAIS) whether
I have not always yearly, for thirteen years
past, said to him that I was willing to consider the position of Lower Canada with
reference to her local institutions, and to
give any protection for them which might
be thought to be reasonable. (Hear, hear.)
And I say this is an admirable compromise
under the circumstances—and I say it will
be a sad day for the people of Canada if
anything should happen to defeat this measure. I do say that the man who looks
back upon the last twelve or fifteen years,
and the agitation we have gone through,
and who would risk throwing us back into
that state again, is not—to use the language of the hon. member for Peel—a true
lover of his country. (Cheers.) After such
an immense vote—three-fourths of both
branches of the Legislature—in favor of
the measure, I look upon it as a most
wanton attempt on the part of the minority
to endeavor to have it brought into jeopardy
by the sectional issues, and the various side
issues which might be raised in different
parts of the country, so as to make the result
of a general election falsely appear to be a
disapproval of the measure on the part of
the country. Had any one risen in this
House at the beginning of last session, and
proposed this measure—and if it had been
found that all the Upper Canadian members
of this Chamber were in favor of it but
eight, while the Lower Canadian members
were in favor of it by a majority of thirteen,
and that three-fourths of the Upper House
were in its favor—I ask hon. gentlemen if
the man would not have been regarded as
insane who would have proposed that it
should not be put through at once, but
deferred for a general election? (Hear,
hear.) And when the House gave its
sanction last session to the Government
going on with this project, and submitting
a scheme worthy of adoption—I ask hon.
members if they ever expected we could
present a measure which would carry a vote
of three-fourths of both branches of the
Legislature? (Hear, hear.) We have been
unexpectedly successful. And as to consulting the people, I tell hon. gentlemen
that the people will laugh to scorn their
pretended zeal for popular rights. The
people want the kernel and not the shell.
They want not, for the sake of a constitutional
form, to risk the success of this measure—to
risk the breaking up of the combination
formed to carry it—and to risk the bringing
back of all those discords and difficulties
from which, by the maturing of this scheme,
they thought we had happily escaped.
(Cheers.)
HON. J. H. CAMERON—The honorable
gentleman has misrepresented my position in
this matter. I have voted for the resolutions on which an Address is to be based,
and
this resolution is simply in amendment to
the motion for the appointment of a committee to draft that Address, and conveys no
insult to any one. It does not interfere in
996
any way with Ministers going home with
those resolutions—a copy of which is already
before the Imperial Parliament—in their
hands. The hon. gentleman must have misunderstood what I stated. I ask only that
the people have an opportunity of doing that
which I have done myself—that is, to vote
for the measure. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
gentleman says he does not thank me for my
support. Sir, that hon gentleman personally
has never had my support. It is not to him
I give my support, but to the Government
as a whole, and to the cause which has called
it into existence. The hon. gentleman
knows well my political views have been so
little in accordance with his, that nothing
but the importance of this movement would
have put it in his power to make me such a
taunt, and that he has no occasion whatever
to thank me for my support, which is given
not because he is in the Ministry, but in
spite of his being in that position. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—I propose confining my observations to the motion now
in your hands, Mr. SPEAKER. First, as to
the point on which the hon. member for
South Oxford allowed me to interrupt him.
I charged the hon. gentleman with assuming that the question now before the House
was specifically the one on which he agitated
the country for several years, and upon
which the hon. member for North Ontario
voted in 1862. I happen to have placed in
my hands the report of what took place
when the subject of a Federal union was
before the House, in 1858. Hon. Mr.
GALT having put the resolution before
the House, respecting the Federation of
the British North American Provinces, Hon.
Mr. BROWN moved his standing motion
respecting representation according to population, as an amendment to it. There he
put
the two propositions in distinct juxtaposition,
and yet to-night he endeavors to convince
the House that this measure is substantially
the measure which he was then contending
for—endeavors to show insincerity on the
part of the honorable member for North Ontario, because he voted against his own
friends, in 1862, on representation by population, and now votes against this measure.
HON. MR. BROWN—I am sure my hon.
friend does not wish to misrepresent; but
I think he will find that that motion was
proposed, and that there were two other
amendments which were voted down. I
recollect that at the close of my speech I
said I wanted representation by population—
I am willing to take it alone; I am willing
to take it with a Federal union; I am willing
to take it any way so that we get it.
HON. MR. HOLTON —The honorable
gentleman is confounding what occurred in
1856 with what occurred in 1858. In 1856
he did signify his willingness to accept the
proposition of a Canadian Federation, if it
was concurred in by any considerable number of the representatives from Lower
Canada. But what I now allude to is what
took place in 1858, when, instead of accepting Hon. Mr. GALT'S proposition to Federate
all the provinces, he put a motion in amendment to it, showing that in 1858, as in
1859,
he was not willing to consider that question
as a means of settling the Canadian difficulty.
But I think the honorable gentleman, though
he was more or less successful in answering the honorable member for Peel, utterly
failed to meet the very cogent reasoning of
my honorable friend from North Ontario.
I hold as strongly as any member of this
House to the doctrine of representation as
contradistinguished from the doctrine of
delegation. We are here commissioned by
our constituents to do all that may be done
under the Constitution under which we are
sent here to legislate. But I hold that the
change of the Constitution is something
beyond our functions; that the representative elected to administer the existing
Constitution has no right to vote for the
subversion of that Constitution. (Hear,
hear.) That is the doctrine which I hold,
and I think honorable gentlemen will find
it exceedingly difficult to controvert it.
Then it has been said that there can be
no possible occasion of appealing to the
people, for they have already been appealed
to and expressed their approval of the
scheme. I do not know how many constituencies have been appealed to since June
last.
AN HON. MEMBER—Fifty or sixty.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Well, fifty or sixty.
But the Honorable President of the Council
has referred to the Hon. Mr. BULL as being
elected to support this measure, and a little
further on he spoke of his opponent, Dr.
SMITH, and said that he too was in favor of
the scheme generally, but that there might
be some of the details of which, when it came
out, he could not approve, thus letting out
that the details of the scheme were not
997
before the people at all. When my hon.
friend from South Oxford went to his own
constituency for reëlection, were any of the
details before the people? (Hear, hear.)
The general project of Federation was before
the people, though prominence was then
given chiefly to the lesser scheme of a Canadian Federation, but none of the details
were
known. He surely will not argue from the
result of that election or of any of the elections, including those for the Legislative
Council, except perhaps that for the city
of Hamilton and that of the Hon. Postmaster
General, which occurred after the publication
of the resolutions, that the people have voted
with a knowledge of the details of the measure. These elections, therefore, prove
no
more that the people are in favor of the
scheme, than the election of the MACDONALD-
SICOTTE Government in l862—a Government formed upon the principle of retrenchment,
pledged to the double majority system,
and who made opposition to representation
by population a close question, proved that
the people were in favor of that system, or
of making opposition to representation by
population a close question. Then, sir,
there is one other point to which I wish to
refer. The Honorable Attorney General
West, in the course of his conversation with
the honorable member for North Ontario,
said that the people of all the provinces
were against a legislative union.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I did
not say so. The hon. gentleman was speaking of the different provinces as represented
in the Quebec Conference. The delegates
were all opposed to it.
HON. MR. HOLTON—The hon. gentleman, at all events, said this, that a legislative union could not
be carried. I should
like to ask him what position it places him
in as to political sagacity, to confess to-night
that he has been wrong for the last twenty
years. He has declared over and over again
that he was in favor of a legislative union.
At the very last meeting of the constitutional committee, or of the Brown Committee,
as it has been called—a committee to
which great importance has been attached,
but which really possesses very little significance—last session, upon a motion for
the
adoption of the report, that hon. gentleman
voted against Federation in every form.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—It was reported to
the House, on the very day of the crisis which
eventuated in the formation of this Coalition,
that honorable gentleman voted in committee
against the Federal principle, whether as applied to Canada or to all the provinces,
he
being in favor of a legislative union. He,
the leader of this House, who sets himself up
as the most sagacious politician of the country, who claims to be a leader of them,
now
admits that down to the 14th of June last, he
himself was mistaken as to the possible mode
in which a change of government could be
effected in this province. (Hear, hear.) He
was opposed to a Federal union, yet he now
comes down as the leader of the Government,
and says that it is absurd to talk of a legislative union; that he has been altogether
wrong,
and that it is utterly impracticable to carry
out the views he held down to the 14th of
June last, and affirmed down to that very
day. Well, sir, that is all that I rose to say
—to say that the Honorable President of the
Council has not really met the point raised
by this motion; that there had been no appeal to the people in these elections on
the
details of this scheme; that it was not in the
contemplation of the electors at the last general election; that the whole Liberal
party
were opposed to it as a means of settling the
Canadian difficulty; that it was never brought
forward until the crisis of June last; that the
people have consequently had no opportunity
of pronouncing upon it; and that we have no
right to dispose of it finally without an appeal
to the people, involving, as it does, a subversion of the Constitution. (Hear, hear.)
MR. MAGILL—I had no intention of
speaking on this subject, had my name not
been mentioned to-night by some of the
hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House.
I have only to say that when the subject was
brought before the electors of the city of
Hamilton, there appeared to be but one opinion concerning it—they all seemed to be
in
favor of carrying out a Federal union. (Hear,
hear.) I believe that the people were in
favor of any change, and I think I would
not be discharging my duty to my constituents if I did not stand up in this House
and
state my opinions as I expressed them a short
time ago to the electors. I think that the
people of Canada were highly satisfied with
the conduct of the public men of this country; that they were proud of the manly,
straightforward and self-denying spirit evinced
by them in showing their willingness to set
998
aside personal or party interests, and unite as
one man for the common good of this country. (Hear, hear.) They were willing to bury
all past differences for the welfare and prosperity of the country at large. (Hear.)
My
honorable friend from South Wentworth (Mr.
RYMAL) has spoken of the feeling among the
people there. That honorable gentleman may
perhaps know more of the people in that
county than I do; but from what I know of
them, I can say without any hesitation that
the people there are strongly in favor of a
union of all these provinces. (Hear, hear.)
Then, as to the election of Hon. Mr. BULL, I
think that nothing so much helped to secure
his return as his promise to support the Government in this scheme. And I think that
it
ill becomes the honorable member for South
Wentworth, one of the eight Upper Canadians
who oppose this scheme, to get up in this
House and speak as he has done to-day. I
believe that this scheme will be attended by
the very best and most beneficial results. My
honorable friend from South Wentworth (Mr.
RYMAL), in furnishing an illustration to prove
the impropriety of the scheme of union, compared it to adding joints to a fishing
rod; but
the comparison did not bear him out in his
conclusions, as the people of Canada have at
all times, and in every emergency, shown
themselves to be possessed of that indomitable
spirit which will never quail before a foe—
and the union of such material cannot fail to
give them increased power to resist aggression,
and to maintain and hand down to posterity
the rights and privileges which we so happily
enjoy. (Hear, hear.) The fact of uniting
strong men together is not going to make
them any weaker. What is it that has given
rise to the name England possesses all the
world over? Why, it is union. That is the
glory of the British Constitution. "Union
is strength" the old maxim says, and I believe
that it will prove so as regards the united
Provinces of British North America. (Hear,
hear.)
MR. JOLY said—Mr. SPEAKER, I regret
that this resolution was not brought up
sooner; however, I am glad that it is brought
up now, for it will explain to outsiders the
manner in which this Confederation scheme
has been carried through this House. When
the people of the Lower Provinces and of
England observe the reluctance which the
Government has to allowing the people an
opportunity to express themselves, by means
of general elections, it will let them into the
whole secret of the manner in which the
Government have obtained so large a vote for
their scheme in the present Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) Now, this is all the more
important, because people who do not live in
Canada cannot be expected to understand our
affairs any better than we understand theirs.
As an instance of how a people may be misunderstood abroad, we heard the Honorable
Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. MCGEE),
who professes to be well acquainted with the
Lower Provinces, prophesying that the result
of the elections in New Brunswick would be
largely in favor of Confederation; but when
he found his fine prediction destroyed, we
then heard him trying to explain the result as
being due to annexation tendencies and
Americanizing influences.
MR. JOLY—Now, in Canada, all those
who oppose the Confederation scheme are
accused of having the same annexation feeling as the people of New Brunswick are said
to be tainted with. It is extraordinary how
different people on the same side of politics
will look upon things. I have just noticed in
the
Daily News of this city, a few lines of a
rather startling character. [Having read a
passage from the
News of the 10th of March,
with reference to the abolition of the passport
system, Mr. JOLY proceeded:] There are
two ways of looking at this. Here is a newspaper, supporting the Government, which
says
that if the Lower Provinces have not been
relieved from the passport system, as Canada
has been, it is certainly because their relations
are not so friendly with the United States as
ours. It is only since our relations became
friendly with the United States—since we
passed that Alien Bill, and voted that money
stolen by the St. Alban's raiders—it is only
since we have bowed down before them that
we have obtained relief from the obnoxious
system. The Lower Provinces having taken
a firmer stand, the United States Government
have refused to make the same concession to
them as has been made to us. I think, therefore it is a mistake to say that it is
American
influence or annexation proclivities that have
caused the defeat of the friends of Confederation in New Brunswick. The only transactions
that we have taken upon ourselves to
make, affecting any foreign state, have been
the passing of the Alien Bill and the granting
of that money for the St. Alban's banks. In
this instance, it appears most clear that this
province stands in a better, closer and more
friendly relation with the United States,
999
through such action, than the Lower Provinces. Therefore it seems to me more reasonable
to suppose that the American sympathizers in New Brunswick have been defeated
at the polls, instead of triumphant. The Hon.
President of the Council explains the difference between Canada and New Brunswick,
as
to the desirability of having new elections, by
saying that there was a new election there
because the term of the Legislature was about
to expire. Well, this would have been our
last session too, if the Confederation scheme
had passed, and therefore supposing the Confederation scheme to have gone into operation
as soon as the Government anticipated it
would, we should have been exactly in the
same position as New Brunswick in relation
to a new election. The same reasons for
having a new election there exist here, and
there is no better reason to be assigned for
refusing to allow the people of Canada to express themselves on this project, than
there
was for the Government of New Brunswick to
refuse a dissolution of the Legislature of that
province. But while we see the Government
of that province willing and anxious to give
the people an opportunity of expressing their
will, how differently are the people of Canada
treated ! (Hear, hear.) The Hon. President
of the Council has alluded to a majority of
the French-Canadians being in favor of the
Confederation scheme. I find by the vote
that twenty-six voted in favor of it, and twenty-two against. Among the twenty-six
were
three members of the Administration who
propounded the scheme, and were so interested in the result of the vote, that in all
fairness they ought not to be counted. Deducting these, the figures would stand twenty-
three to twenty-two.
HON. ATTY.GEN. CARTIER—Well, if you
deduct the members of the Government, you
ought also to deduct the leaders of the Opposition. (Laughter.)
MR. JOLY—I think not, because they
were not more deeply interested in the vote
than other members on the floor of the House.
Out of the twenty-six, there are at least half
a dozen whose conduct has been condemned
in the most direct manner by their constituents, in public assemblies duly held for
the
purpose of considering the Confederation question. I can instance the counties of
Joliette,
Rouville, Chambly, L'Assomption, &c. So if
we take the French-Canadians and place the
matter in a fair and equitable footing, we will
find that they are about equally divided in this
House, and that it is hard to tell whether the
majority of the people are for or against
it by their representatives in Parliament.
It is impossible to know what the opinions of
the French-Canadians are at this moment, or
to find out, except by giving them an opportunity to record their votes by means of
the
elections. The French-Canadians are nearly a
million of people, and I think they are entitled to be heard on this scheme as much
as
any of the Lower Provinces ; and if for no
other purpose than to give them an opportunity of expressing themselves, there ought
to be a general election. I say that we have
been taken by surprise through the rapid
manner in which this scheme has been introduced and carried through this House. We
have been told that because our leaders would
not agree to any arrangement by which the
demands of Upper Canada could be met,
either in whole or in part, the scheme has
been imposed upon us. If that alternative
had been presented to us at an earlier day, I
think it would have been possible for us to
have met our Upper Canadian friends in a
scheme of conciliation, agreeing upon a measure which, if not satisfactory to all,
would,
at all events, draw as more closely to one
another. For instance, the principal complaint is that Upper Canada pays two-thirds
of the taxes, and is allowed to have control of
only one-half the money contributed by those
taxes. I will not say that I would grant representation by population rather than
be
forced to accept the Confederation scheme ;
but I can say that I find the claim of Upper
Canada, in reference to the finances, perfectly
fair and just, and I only rise to express my
opinion, as one of the members of this House,
to that effect. I would be quite willing to
enter into some arrangement that would give
to Upper Canada a greater proportion of the
expenditure, in proportion to its population,
and stake my chances of reëlection upon that
declaration. (Hear, hear.) I dare say that
many in Upper Canada would not be quite
satisfied with that ; but for my part, I do not
feel that I have a right to offer more. I
merely wish to show that Lower Canadians
are not so lost to all sense of justice as not
to recognise the correctness of that principle,
and are not so much opposed to the making
of some concessions as many of the people of
Upper Canada seem to imagine. If we had
been informed as to what was coming, I think
we certainly should have gone into some arrangement towards suiting the views of Upper
Canada, by increasing her share of control on the revenue, rather than be compelled
1000
to accept this Confederation scheme. The
most pressing reason given for passing the
measure now is, that the relations between
Upper and Lower Canada have reached such
a stage, that the Government of the country
cannot go on in peace and quietness any
longer. I do not think anything of the kind
is the case. I do not think any honorable
gentleman from Upper Canada is ready to
rush into civil war. I do not think any number of people in Upper Canada has given
up
the hope of obtaining, by constitutional
means, what they think is fair. I do not
think any of them would think of coming
down here and obtaining the rights of Upper
Canada by murder, bloodshed and civil war.
I think it is most unfortunate that the Hon.
President of the Council should have attempted to frighten us by the use of such
terms.
HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. gentleman
must be mistaken. I never used such words
in connection with the advocacy of Upper
Canadian rights.
MR. JOLY—I beg the hon. gentleman's
pardon, but I have heard him use those terms
several times on the floor of this House.
HON. MR. BROWN—Then it must have
been of speaking of the war in the United
States.
MR. JOLY—The hon. gentleman certainly
told us in his speech at the opening of this
debate, that our country was in danger of
being plunged into civil war.
HON. MR. BROWN—It certainly was not
me; the hon. gentleman is mistaken in the
person. It was the honorable member for
Richelieu who used words of that character.
I have never used such language in this House
in relation to our constitutional difficulties.
MR. PERRAULT—What I said was
that the Constitution, as it stood, was sufficient to enable us to live under it for
centuries to come, without civil war. (Laughter.)
HON. MR. BROWN—Now the hon.
member ought to withdraw that statement
with regard to myself, until he can prove it.
It was not the Hon. Premier of the Government, but myself whom he charged with
using the words "civil war" in relation to
Canada.
MR. JOLY—I understand what is due
from one hon. member of the House to
another, and I very cheerfully withdraw the
statement, because I cannot find the words
just at this moment in the report of the hon.
gentleman's speech; but I will call his at
tention to the matter again, so soon as I am
in a position to prove the statement I have
made. But I certainly was always under
the impression that he had used those words.
(Hear, hear.) Well now, having withdrawn
those words with reference to one member
of the Administration, I have to make the
same charge against another member, occupying even a higher position in the
Cabinet. Here are the very words employed
by the leader of the Administration, in addressing the Upper House. On page 9 of the
Parliamentary Debates on Confederation,
I find this passage in the speech of the
hon. and gallant knight at the head of
the Government :—"At the time these measures were resolved upon, the country was
bordering on civil strife, and he would ask if
it was not the duty of both sides to do all
the could to prevent the unfortunate results
which would have followed." Well, I see it
is the term "civil strife" that is used instead
of "civil war." (Laughter.) But it is used
in the same sense as the term "civil war."
The French version of our official reports
has
"guerre civile." I think it is most unfortunate to hear hon. members of the Government, who have in
their keeping the fair
fame of the country, letting it go to the
world that Canada, which was always looked
upon as such a happy, free and prosperous
country, was on the eve of civil strife. It is
all the more unfortunate that I was mistaken
in reference to the person who uttered those
words, for I find now that it is the Prime
Minister of Canada, instead of the Honorable
President of the Council. If that honorable
gentleman had said anything approaching to
what I charged him with, I am sure he would
not have denied it in the manner he has, for
I think he would have been willing to have
considered the spirit of the charge more than
the mere letter. I will not now take up the
time of the House any longer. I simply
wish to show the unfair means that had been
used by the Government in carrying their
Confederation scheme through this House.
(Cheers.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I
think, sir, that my hon. friend who spoke last
made a mistake in the construction of the
English language, when he charged my hon.
friend the Hon.President of the Council with
alluding to civil war, and that his remarks
were rather unparliamentary in so far as they
alluded to the debate in the other branch of
the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) He charged
my honorable friend with stating that the
1001
country was on the eve of revolution and
warfare; but on trying to hunt up the proof,
he finds that the words on which he based
the charge were used in a speech delivered
by somebody else in the other branch of the
Legislature. The passage he quotes alludes
to the country being in a state of civil strife.
Well, Mr. SPEAKER, that is quite true. Sir,
we have been in a state of strife for a great
many years. An election is a civil strife,
and a lawsuit is a civil strife, but warfare is
a most uncivil strife.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—Well,
perhaps they are a little uncivil at times,
but my hon. friend knows all about it, for
he fattens on that kind of strife. (Laughter.)
MR. JOLY—Well, I would like to ask
what the hon. gentleman calls the war in
the United States; is that not civil strife?
(Laughter.)
HON. Mr. BROWN—No, no, no; that
is civil war, because it is a war among the
people themselves.
MR. JOLY—Well, I do not think there
is anything wrong in calling it civil strife,
and I consider the terms synonymous.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—The
war in the United States is a most disastrous, and even barbarous civil war; but
the word civil strife is not applicable to it.
I have already explained the meaning of
the term, and I hope now that my hon.
friend sees the evil of his ways, he will
abandon his opposition to the Government.
(Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, for the sake
of the character of this House, and for the
sake of the public purse, I must protest
against the current of the debate which has
arisen from the motion of the hon. member
for Peel. I thought we had got through
with the discussion, and that as every hon.
member had had the opportunity of speaking not only once or twice, but three or four
times, we had finished the debate, and taken
a vote which was rather satisfactory to the
Government, by which the question had been
introduced into the House, and that it was
generally understood that the discussion of
the propriety of the Confederation of the
provinces was to end there. (Hear, hear.)
But I find in the remarks of hon. gentlemen
opposite a tendency to reopen the whole
question, after it has been decided by this
House, upon a motion made by myself for
the appointment of a committee to draft an
Address in which the resolutions should be
embodied. I say, sir, that this is an abuse
of parliamentary privilege, a waste of the
time of this House and of the public money,
while it serves no good purpose, and I am
sure that the good feeling and common
sense of this House will not allow anything
of this kind to go on. One thing connected
with this subject I greatly regret. I very
much regret that although the debate has
been so long protracted, and although we have
had an expression from almost every member
of this House, we have hitherto failed in
getting the arguments promised in the
speech of my hon. friend from Chateauguay.
(Hear, hear ) For some reason or other we
cannot get that speech out. Just as MOSES
went up to Pisgah's top and viewed the
promised land in the distance, just so the
hon. member gives us an occasional glimpse
of the promised speech, but we have thus far
been disappointed in our expectations of
hearing it delivered. We have been promised it two or three times during the past
month. The honorable member ought to
remember that " hope deferred maketh the
heart sick." I am sure I desire to have the
pleasure and satisfaction of hearing from the
honorable gentleman, and having the advantage of the information which the honorable
gentleman is well known to be able of giving
this House; for though young in years, he
is old in political wisdom and in that political
sagacity of which he denies me the possession. I say I am sorry, and this House must
be sorry, and the country must be sorry, that
the hon. gentleman has practised so much
self-denial as to refuse to allow his radiance
to shine forth upon this great question.
The thing which so utterly destroys the
hon. gentleman's utility is his extreme
modesty. (Laughter.) Why, when he had
to rush to the rescue of the disordered
finances of this country, at great personal
sacrifice, for the sake of saving the country
from the ruin that hung over it through the
lavish extravagance of my hon. friend the
present Hon. Finance Minister, he looked,
with the exercise of his great financial ability,
down into the recesses of the public chest
and speedily discovered the source of all the
evils that had fallen upon the country, and
yet the modesty of the hon. gentleman prevented him from making known the remedy.
(Laughter.) And so it is even now. He
has been promising to give us his views upon
this great question; but four weeks have
passed, and his speech yet hangs fire. And
1002
to-day he told us, after drawing himself up
with that righteous indignation which he
can so well affect, that the Honorable
Attorney General West had tried to stop
the publication of the debates, and that
he himself had yet to fire his speech
on this great subject, because it was too late
to do so on Saturday morning ; and yet,
when the honorable gentleman gets up, he
says he will confine himself to this resolution. He did so, and confined himself very
narrowly to it. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
gentleman has somehow or other become the
guardian of my political reputation. He
has, on two or three occasions, warned me
that although the course I took was, perhaps,
that of a practical man—that of one who
desired merely to keep office and become
famous for political acuteness—yet it would
never secure for me the fame of being a
great statesman. Well, sir, I am satisfied
to confine myself to practical things—to the
securing of such practical measures as the
country really wants. I am satisfied not to
have a reputation for indulgiug in imaginary
schemes and harboring visionary ideas that
may end sometimes in an annexation movement, sometimes in Federation and sometimes
in a legislative union, but always utopian
and never practical. I am satisfied to
leave the imaginary, the poetic and the
impossible to the hon. member for Chateauguay. The other day the honorable gentleman
paused to say, in the course of one
of his little, numerous, by the by speeches,
that in taking the course I have done
on this question—that of advocating a
Federal instead of a Legislative union—
I violated all the principles of my former
life having a bearing on this subject.
Mr. SPEAKER, it is quite true that after a
careful examination of the Constitution of
the United States, in connection with its
practical working, and the civil war that has
grown out of it, I saw many weaknesses in
connection with the Federal system, as
operated in that country, and I was as
desirous as any man could be in taking part
in the Conference relating to union between
the Provinces of British North America,
that as much as the legislative form of
government as possible, and as few of the
weaknesses which experience had shown to
exist in the American Constitution, should
be incorporated in ours. I do not like
to refer to any remarks of mine in times
past ; but as this charge has been brought
against me, I will read, by permission of the
House, a passage from a speech of mine, in
relation to representation by population. And
I might here say that it is the only speech
I ever delivered in my life, which I have
ever taken any particular trouble to revise.
The hon. gentleman will see, from this passage, what my sentiments were, in 1861,
on
the subject, while taking part in a debate on
representation by population. I was replying to a speech made by my present colleague,
the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.
I said :—
The only feasible scheme which presented
itself to his (my) mind, as a remedy for the evils
complained of, was a Confederation of all the
provinces. (Hear, hear.) But in speaking of
a Confederation he must not be understood as
alluding to it in the sense of the one on the
other side of the line. For that had not been
successful. But then he did not say so from
any feeling of satisfaction at such a result.
Far from him be any such idea. He heartily
agreed with the junior member for Montreal
(Hon. Mr. MCGEE) in every word of regret
which he had expressed at the unhappy and
lamentable state of things which they now
witnessed in the States, for he remembered
that they were of the same blood as ourselves.
He still looked hopefully to the future of the
United States. He believed there was a vigor,
a vitality, in the Anglo-Saxon character and
the Anglo-Saxon institutions of the United
States, that would carry them through this great
convulsion, as they had carried through our
Mother Country in days of old. (Loud cheers
from both sides of the House.) He hoped with
that honorable gentleman (Hon. Mr. MCGEE),
that if they were to be severed in two—as
severed in two he believed they would be—
two great, two noble, two free nations
would exist in place of one. (Hear, hear.) But,
while he thus sympathized with them he must
say, let it be a warning to ourselves that we do
not split on the same rock which they had done.
The fatal error which they had committed—and
it was, perhaps, unavoidable from the state of the
colonies at the time of the revolution—was in
making each state a distinct sovereignty, and
giving to each a distinct sovereign power, except
in those instances where they were specially reserved by the Constitution and conferred
upon the
General Government. The true principle of a
Confederation lay in giving to the General Government all the principles and powers
of sovereignty, and that the subordinate or individual
states should have no powers but those expressly
bestowed on them. We should thus have a powerful Central Government, a powerful Central
Legislature, and a decentralized system of minor
legislatures for local purposes.
These, sir, were the opinions I uttered in a
1003
speech delivered in 1861; and I say that
the Constitution which this House, by a
majority of three to one, has carried out as
far as it is concerned, is, in spirit and letter,
that which I then pointed out; and that was
not the result of my experience, my thought
and my opinion alone, but of the experience,
thought and opinion of every man who had
studied and taken into consideration the
character of the Constitution of the United
States. I know that in making that quotation I am committing the error which I
have charged upon other hon. members of
the House of going back in the debate; but
I thought that it was due to myself to read
it to the House, because the hon. member
for Chateauguay—not in that blunt, plainspoken style which characterises some hon.
gentlemen, but with that soothing, soft language that is so grateful to one's feelings—
(laughter)—stated that in proposing a Federal union of these provinces I belied the
whole of my political life, and that it was for
this reason I made so feeble and ineffectual
a speech when I offered these resolutions to
the House. As to the feebleness and ineffectiveness of my speech, that, sir, I admit;
but as to my sentiments on Confederation,
they were the sentiments of my life, my
sentiments in Parliament years ago, my sentiments in the Conference, and my sentiments
now. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, I submit,
with all due deference to your decision, that
the motion proposed by the hon. member
for Peel is in order ; and it is a point, I am
free to admit, of such doubt that I ought
not to set up my opinion against that impartially given by yourself, for one is very
apt
to decide in his own favor in a doubtful
case. It would have been very convenient
for the Government to have it declared out
order, and our feelings may therefore have
caused us to take a less impartial view than that
taken by yourself; and it became our duty
to submit to your ruling, unless we believed
in our conscience that beyond all doubt you
were wrong. Having been declared to be
properly before the House, I must say that
the motion of the hon. member is altogether
inconsistent with his votes upon the question
of Confederation. (Hear, hear.) I cannot
understand how an hon. member who gave
the two votes he did last week upon that
question, could make the motion in amendment now under consideration. (Hear,
hear.) Indeed I understood him to say that
he did not design this as an amendment,
but as a separate and independent motion;
and I think it is to be regretted that having
made up his mind to support the resolutions
I proposed, he did not also support the
formal machinery necessary to give them
effect; that he did not accept my invitation
to propose his views in a separate and distinct motion, instead of in the shape of
an
amendment to an Address for which he himself voted. (Hear, hear ) When I say that
I regret that my hon. friend has taken this
course, I must at the same time congratulate
him upon the sound doctrine he has laid
down in his speech; for if I wanted, if the
House wanted, an argument in favor of the
measure which the Government has laid
before the House, we could not have had it
in more eloquent and convincing language
than that contained in the speech of my hon.
friend. My hon. friend is always eloquent
and always convincing, but he could not have
been more eloquent or more convincing than
when he spoke on this question of Confederation.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—It
may be a compliment, but it is not flattery.
A compliment is the statement of an agreeable truth; flattery is the statement of
an
agreeable untruth. Now, were I to state
that the hon. member for Cornwall delivered
an eloquent and convincing speech, that
would be flattery—(great laughter )—but when
I state, in all sincerity, that the speech of
the hon. member for Peel was an eloquent
and convincing one, I may compliment, but
I do not flatter. (Hear, hear.) But what
struck me as strange was that while my hon.
friend stated to the House that he was not a
man to make an unconstitutional motion, or
to make a motion committing in any way a
breech of constitutional usage, or to propose
anything less than a constitutional appeal
to the people, he should oppose the motion
before the House; for I know that my
hon. friend is not the man to commit a
fundamental error against constitutional and
free institutions. He knew well, and it is
much to the credit of my hon. friend as a
sound constitutional lawyer, that although
he drew his notice of motion hurriedly, it
was necessary, when he presented it to the
House, to guard against mistake; and he
took care that the appeal he proposed to
make to the people on this question should
be a constitutional appeal by the members
of this House going to the polls. (Hear,
hear.) But my hon. friend the seconder of
1004
the resolution, who called upon the House
to support it, says he does not believe a
word of it. (Laughter.) The very first
sentence that he uttered was that he did
not believe in the resolution; for he said
that he was in favor of submitting yes or no
to the people, but not in the mode proposed
by the resolution, the only mode known to
our Constitution.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I do not wish
my language to be misrepresented by my
hon. friend. What I stated was that I did
not consider that to be the only way of
ascertaining the views of the people, and
did not think it wrong to take a vote, yea or
nay, upon the question.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—Well,
my hon. friend from Peel submitted that the
appeal should be made in one way, the constitutional way, and that was the way my
hon. friend from North Ontario did not
like. How could my hon. friend suppose
that a vote like that could be taken in a
country whose Constitution is modelled on
the Constitution of England? By what
contrivance known to our Constitution could
we take such a vote? There is none such.
There is no means, no system, by which we
could make an appeal of that kind, and in
order to do it we should have to subvert the
principles of the British Constitution. The
hon. gentleman knows there is no means of
doing it. We might, indeed, pass a law
declaring that the people shall vote yes or
no on this question; but such a law would
in itself be a change in our Constitution, and
I would like to see any man representing
Her Majesty in this country give his sanction to a measure of that kind, which would
be a subversion of the first principles of
British constitutional government. Sir, we
in this House are representatives of the
people, and not mere delegates; and to pass
such a law would be robbing ourselves of
the character of representatives, and be a
proceeding which even the honorable member for Chateauguay himself denounces in
language, although he supports it in countenance when pressed by others. That hon.
gentleman is too familiar with the principles
of British constitutional government to
support such a proceeding himself, but still
he encourages others to do it, and to say
that which he would not advance himself.
(Hear, hear.) Sir, a reference to the people—
a direct reference to the people—of a question
of this kind may be the means by which
a despot, an absolute monarch, may get that
popular confirmation and approval which he
desires for the laws necessary to the support
and continuation of his usurpation. It may
he the means by which a despot, at the point
of the bayonet, may ask the people to vote
yea or nay on the measure he preposes; but
in every free country where there is a Constitution at all, the vote must be taken
by
the constituted authorities, the representatives of the people, and not become a mere
form and cover to tyranny, but a measure
which accords with the calm and deliberate
judgments of the people, as expressed through
their representatives. (Hear, hear.) I was
rather alarmed when I first read the notice
given by my hon. friend from Peel, and
feared that he was going to take the course
advised by the hon. member for North
Ontario, because the language of his notice
was undefined upon the subject. I, however,
had every confidence in the constitutional
principles—the conservative principles—of
the hon. gentleman; but as the language of
the notice was not clear, I was exceedingly
relieved when he read the motion to the
House in its present complete shape. I
admit that it was quite open to any member
of this Parliament to move either that the
House be dissolved or not dissolved. I
admit that the hon. member had a constitutional right to move that the House be dissolved,
with a view of referring this question
to the people, and therefore it was that I felt
relieved when I found that this was the course
he proposed. and regret, on the other hand,
that the hon. member for North Ontario has
so far fallen away from his old conservative
principles as to take the other ground.
Now, what is the opinion entertained upon
this subject in England? I was exceedingly
pleased to read lately the report of a speech
delivered to his constituents, at Huddersfield,
by Mr. LEATHAM, a member of the Imperial
Parliament. He is, I believe, a brother-in-
law of Mr. JOHN BRIGHT, and belongs to
the advanced Liberal school of English
politicians, known as the Manchester school;
and although educated in the political doctrines of that school, he yet had the courage
to get up before the people of Huddersfield,
as Radical a constituency as any in all
England, and spoke in strong language
against the Permissive Bill, a temperance
measure which resembles that passed through
this Legislature by the hon. member for
Brome, because he held that it was uncon
1005
stitutional to hand over to the people the
power of voting directly upon a law before
it came into effect. He contended that the
responsibility of voting for a measure must
rest upon the Legislature alone, and that it
could not refer this responsibility to the
people. When you find an advanced Liberal
like Mr. LEATHAM taking that ground, and
going to the length he did in support of it,
you can well understand the principles that
actuate the great majority of the people of
England. Allow me to read to the House
the language employed by Mr. LEATHAM on
this point. It is not long, and it seems to
me exceedingly instructive. The
Times, in
an article on the speech, says :—
Mr. LEATHAM'S argument on this subject is
well worthy of attention, not only for its bearing
on the question of compulsory temperance, but
from the much wider range of subjects to which
it is applicable. "It is," he says, "the essence
of representative government that the electing
class, which is analogous to the class paying
rates, shall possess no direct legislative power;
and the principle of parliamentary representation
is that not even the representative principle shall
alone legislate. We have taken the precaution
to protect the rights and property of Englishmen
by the prerogatives of the Crown, the privileges
of the Lords, and the authority of a representative Assembly. All these constitute
the threefold and invaluable shelter which we have raised
over the rights and property of the meanest
subject in the realm. But here is a proposition
which, with naked and revolutionary simplicity,
proposes to intrust the property and maintenance
of the rights of a large class of persons to diminutive, homogeneous, democratic,
and irresponsible parliaments set up all over the country, in
place of a central, responsible, compound, and
constitutional one. It seems to me that this
strikes at the root of a constitutional and representative system."
These, sir, are the words used by an advanced
reformer, a member of one of the most
advanced schools of politicians in England.
They are words of wisdom, and ought to
rest with weight on the mind of every
admirer of representative institutions, who
does not wish to see those institutions degraded in this country, and representation
become mere delegation. (Hear, hear.) Why,
sir, for what do we come to this House, if it is
not because we are supposed to be convinced
by argument, if it is not that we are to sit
down together and compare notes and discuss
the questions that may come before us, and to
be convinced according to the force of the
reasons that may be advanced for or against
them? And if we are honest, conscientious
men, we change our opinions as we become
convinced that that which we held before
was wrong and the opposite right. But if
the other doctrine obtains, that we are not
representatives but delegates, we might as
well meet here and pass measures without
any discussion whatever, every man voting
according to the instructions of the commission which he holds in his pocket from
his
constituents. (Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD —
Well, that was not voted upon without
argument; for full opportunity was given to
discuss it before hon. members were required to vote. I was saying, sir, that the
hon.
member for Peel committed an act of inconsistency in voting for these resolutions,
and
then proposing this amendment. What did
the resolutions amount to? The honorable
gentleman voted for an Address to the
Queen, praying that she may be pleased to
lay before the Imperial Parliament a measure
for the union of these colonies, on the basis
of the resolutions of the Quebec Conference.
He voted for it because he approved of the
proposition ; and if we had followed the
practice of the Imperial Parliament, the Address would have been adopted by the vote
which he and a majority of hon. members
gave, and probably would be on its way to
England now for presentation to Her Ma—
jesty. It is a practice lately adopted to
refer the Address formally to a committee, to
report it back again to the House. Well,
my hon. friend, by his vote, affirmed that this
Address should be sent to Her Majesty; but
what does this motion proposed by him declare? Why, that the Address which he declared
by his vote should be presented to the
Queen, should not be sent. That is the plain
meaning of it, and —I was going to say that
it gives the lie to his former action, but—is
the very opposite to the previous vote of the
hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) That is
the course which my hon. friend has taken,
and I must say that it is an extraordinary
and inconsistent one.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—It is
parliamentary because the Speaker ruled
it so; but I maintain that the motion of my
hon. friend is entirely inconsistent with his
vote on my resolution.
1006
HON. J. H. CAMERON—My hon. friend
says that it is merely a matter of form to
refer an Address adopted by the House to a
committee, and is so regarded in England.
But I wish to point out to my hon. friend
that in the Imperial Parliament, on the 7th
of February last, the Address in reply to the
Speech from the Throne was moved and
unanimously assented to by the House ;
that it was then referred to a committee of
the House, which committee reported it
back, and that on the Address coming up
for a second reading, Mr. SCULLY moved an
amendment in reference to the state of
Ireland, in opposition to the Address for
which he had himself before voted. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I
quite agree with hon gentleman as to the
fact stated, but in the first place there was
no vote of the House upon the Address.
HON. J. H. CAMERON—Yes, the vote
was unanimous. I can give another case if
my hon. friend desires it.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—Well,
if Mr. SCULLY was present when the Address
was first voted, he would no doubt have voted
against it. But this is the first case I have
yet heard of an honorable member voting
to carry a certain motion, and then proposing
an amendment to upset it; and when he did
propose it, I myself thought it was unparliamentary, but the Speaker ruled it in order,
and to his decision I bow. Now, if the hon.
gentleman thought that from the circumstances of the country or for any other cause,
no Address of the kind should go to the
Queen, he should have said so by voting
against it. But he did not say that; on
the contrary, he said that there should be an
Address to the Queen, praying Her to lay a
measure before the Imperial Parliament—
that measure to contain a Constitution for
these colonies, and that Constitution to embrace all the resolutions adopted by the
Quebec Conference; and the very next
moment the hon. gentleman gets up, and
like the boy who builds up and then knocks
down a house of cards, moves an Address to
the Governor General, praying him not to
send that Address to the Queen, and thus
defeats the very motion for which he voted.
(Hear, hear.) He voted first that this
House should address the Queen, and then
by his motion says that it shall not address
the Queen at all, but that this House shall
be dissolved, and that there shall be an
election, and then that another House shall
address the Queen. (Hear, hear.) After
voting that this House shall address the
Queen, it seems to me to be little less than an
insult to Her Majesty to say that the House
shall be deprived of all possibility of passing
the Address, and that a future, not this Parliament, shall do so. It seems to me that
my
hon. friend's inconsistency is clear, palpable,
and beyond all doubt. (Hear, hear.) Sir,
I shall not enter into the question as to the
reference of this subject to the people. The
small paragraph I have read from Mr.
LEATHAM'S speech contains very shortly the
wisdom of ages, and I might appeal, if further
testimony were required, to all the great men
who have acted on the political stage of England. Mr. PITT scouted at the idea; and
it
was never countenanced by any of the great
public men of England. My hon. friend
says that at the time of the union of
England and Scotland, there was a distinct
reference to the people of Scotland. It is
true that proclamations were issued, calling
upon the people to elect representatives from
the boroughs on the question of union with
England; but the hon. gentleman knows
very well that Scotland had no free representative institutions at that time—he knows
that until the passage of the Reform Bill,
elective institutions were only a mockery in
Scotland. The boroughs were in the hands
of close corporations, who elected whom they
pleased, and it was quite impossible to obtain,
by such means as an election afforded, a true
expression of the opinion of the people of
that country.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—There
was no country—although the people had a
free and manly spirit—that had a more restricted constitution than Scotland till the
year 1832. But the hon. gentleman ought to
have looked upon the other side of the
question, and told the House whether there
was an election in England on the question
of the union with Scotland. There was not,
sir, and the idea would have been scouted
by the leading minds of England had it been
proposed. (Hear, hear.) Sir, when the
Imperial Parliament passed the Septennial
Bill to save England from the disastrous
consequences of the reign of the STUARTS—
for although a Highlandman, I say they
were disastrous—when the members who
were elected for three years declared themselves elected for seven, without going
to
the people; and when the union with Ireland
1007
was accomplished without a reference to the
people, did any one say that these things
were unconstitutional ? Has my hon. friend
not shown that Sir ROBERT PEEL, who was
the great protector of the liberties of
Parliament, quoted these proceedings with
approbation, as showing what the House of
Commons could do if it chose. And so
the honorable member for Montmorency
quoted the language of WILLIAM PITT,
who, although his name in late days was connected with some things which did not meet
the approbation of his party, was the leader
of the Conservative party, and carried through
to his deathbed the principles of his father
the Earl of CHATHAM. He was supported
by his party and by all the leading whigs
when he made his speech on the Irish union,
in which he alleged that the Irish Parliament had full power to vote away those rights
which it was elected to preserve. His language was quoted by the honorable member,
and did time permit, I would read it again
to the House, for it is the language of wisdom
and truth. My honorable friend from Peel
says—" Oh, that is all very well, but this is
quite a different thing from the Irish union,
because we have only a limited Constitution
under our Constitutional Act." That is quite
true, but Ireland as well as this country had
only a limited Constitution, under which not
even a measure of supply could be laid before
the Irish Parliament unless it had previously
been sent to the English Government, approved, and then sent back for the approval
and sanction of the Irish Parliament ; and it
was not till 1782 that this was changed, and
the reference to England of such measures
done away with. My honorable friend refers
us to the language of the Constitutional Act
to show how limited our Constitution is ; but
by that act we are empowered, in the widest
language that could be employed, to make
laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the people of Canada. There could
be no larger powers conferred upon us, and
although it is quite true that our political
existence is only statutory, that constitutionally our judges have no right to commit
for
contempt, and that we have no prescriptive
rights such as those which the Imperial Parliament possesses, yet this is equally
true—
that we stand, with regard to the people of
Canada, precisely in the same position as the
House of Commons in England stands with
regard to the people of England. (Hear,
hear.) And no man who values representative
government would consent to sit here under
a less extensive commission—no man will get
up and disclaim the possession of such
powers. But my honorable friend says we
can only pass resolutions, and cannot
change our Constitution except by addressing the Sovereign, praying Her to give
them effect through the Imperial Parliament ; and he argues from this that we
ought to go to the people and have a new
Parliament to do it. A new Parliament
can, however, do nothing more than we can
do. Sir, I believe in my conscience, that
this House, more than any House since
1841, represents truly and faithfully the
people of Canada. If the members of this
House do not represent the country—all its
interests, classes, and communities—it never
has been represented. (Hear, hear.) I
believe that all classes and interests are
represented here ; but if the House votes for
this motion, it declares that it does not represent them. (Hear, hear.) If we represent
the people of Canada, then, in the
words of the Constitutional Act, we are here
to pass laws for the peace, welfare and good
government of the country. But if we do
not represent the people of Canada—if we
declare so by passing this resolution—then
what great criminals have we been in the
past ! If we do not represent them, if we
have no right to represent them, then we
have no power to pass one single bill and
declare it to be law, even although it be
a bill to establish a saw-mill. If we do not
represent the people of Canada, we have no
right to be here. But if we do represent
them, we have a right to see for them,
to think for them, to act for them; we have
a right to go to the foot of the Throne
and declare that we believe it to be for the
peace, welfare and good government of the
people of Canada to form of these provinces
one empire, presenting an unbroken and undaunted front to every foe ; and if we do
not think we have this right, we are unworthy of the commission we have received
from the people of Canada. (Hear, hear,
and cheers.)
MR. M. C. CAMERON —I would ask the
Hon. Atty. Gen. West, did be support Mr.
DUNKIN's Temperance Bill?
MR. M. C. CAMERON—If the honorable
gentleman did support that bill, he supported what, according to the rule he has
laid down, is a violation of the Constitution.
1008
MR. M. C. CAMERON—Then he has
been guilty of a violation of his own rule.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—I think I owe the
Hon. Atty. Gen. West a word of explanation.
I was not so fortunate as to be in Parliament
in 1861, and I have never happened to read
the speech from which he quoted. I should
be very sorry to misrepresent him, and perhaps I would have misrepresented him in
making the statement I did, if I had read
that speech. But I think he will bear me
out in this, that at the British American
League, some fifteen years ago, he did vote
and speak in favor of a legislative union.
HON. MR. HOLTON—That body, at all
events, did pass certain resolutions in favor
of a legislative union. The hon. gentleman
was a member of that body, and either voted
for or against those resolutions—he can
say which. My impression is that he supported them. At all events, he will not
deny that last session, in the debate on
the Address, or on the motion of the honorable member for South Oxford, he did
express an opinion in favor of a Legislative
union, as distinguished from a Federal union.
It was shortly before the change of Government, and there was some difference between
the two honorable gentlemen—the Hon. Attorney General East and the Hon. Attorney General
West—who were then sitting
on this side. And in the committee, formed
on the motion of the honorable member for
South Oxford, the Hon. Attorney General
West voted against the Federative system,
and declared himself in favor of the Legislative system in contradistinction to the
other,
and my impression was that he had uniformly
held that ground. It now appears that in his
speech of 1861 he shews that at that time he
contemplated the possibility of a modified sort
of Federation—a Federation very different,
however, from the joint authority of the honorable member for South Oxford, who argues
that this is the very measure of the Convention of 1859.
HON. MR. HOLTON—It is the same
basis ; but in the one, the federal authority
has the preponderance—in the other the local
authority.
HON. MR. HOLTON—I will not enter farther into that. I only rose to make the mark
I did with reference to the speech of the Hon.
Attorney General West in 1861. (Cries of "Go
on !") Hon. gentlemen opposite are rather
difficult to please. Not long since, when the
Hon. President of the Council was not in such
good humor as he is just now, he complained
that I inflicted myself too often on the House.
Now they insist that I shall speak. (Laughter.) I had intended to at some length
on the general election. I came down to
this House this afternoon, intending to speak
at some length, but I confess that the view suggested by the Hon. Attorney General
West had
occurred to me, that it was not desirable on
this motion to reopen the whole debate.
And when my hon. friend and leader beside
me (Hon. Mr. DORION) got up, after I had
intimated my intention to speak, and stated,
on behalf of those who act with him—and I
am a good party man, I follow my leader—
that we had no desire to reopen the debate,
but wished this matter to be got through tonight, I decided to waive my speech, believing
that my views on all points of this scheme are
sufficiently well known. (Laughter.) But
I beg to assure hon. gentlemen that if on any
point of the scheme they have any doubt as
to what my views are, I shall answer any
questions they may choose to put, as distinctly
and as concisely as I can. (Hear, hear.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—My honorable friend has correctly stated the intention
arrived at by this side of the House. It was
not our intention to make any lengthened
observations on the motion before the House.
But honorable gentlemen opposite have not
followed the rule they laid down with respect
to this.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—Well, I think
the Honorable President of the Council made
a considerable speech to-night, and impressed
his conclusions so strongly on the House as
almost to drive away an ideas we may have
had as to what we should say. (Laughter.)
I was rather struck by the manner in which
the Honorable Attorney General West took
credit to himself for having refrained from
insisting on objections on the ground of order
to the motion of the honorable member for
Peel, after he had declared that he would
avail himself of all parliamentary usages to
prevent that motion being put. But the
honorable gentleman forgets that English
1009
authority, as well as former decisions in this
House, sustain the motion of the honorable
member for Peel. In 1843, when an Address
was passed in this House, sustaining the stand
whic Hon. Mr. BALDWIN had taken, in Sir
CHARLES METCALFE'S time—after it had
passed, an amendment to the Address was
moved, but the Speaker who occupied your
place ruled the motion to be out of order, and
an appeal being made to the House, the House
sustained the appeal, and the Address was
amended by the passing of an amendment
moved by Mr. BOULTON. I say, then, that
the Honorable Attorney General West need
not have taken credit to himself for not
having appealed against the decision of the
Chair, because he must have known that the
authorities were against him. (Hear, hear.)
The honorable gentleman is no doubt possessed of astuteness. No one can manifest
greater astuteness than he displays in adapting himself to any new position in which
he
may find himself. There is not a public man
in the country who has maintained his ground
so long, in opposition to so many public
questions on which he has at last submitted
to change his opinions, and which he has
finally carried in some shape or other, with
the aid of his opponents. (Hear, hear.)
Was not the secularization of the Clergy
Reserves opposed by that honorable gentleman
from the time he came into Parliament in
1844, until 1854—a period of ten years?
Did he not declare it was a spoliation of
church property? Did he not oppose the
demand to have the seigniors deprived of
their rights ? Did he not call that a spoliation also? Did he not oppose the introduction
of the elective principle into the
Legislative Council? Did he not, by his
speeches and by his votes, declare it was a
republican movement, and that we might as
well give up the Constitution of this country and adopt that of the United States,
as have an elected Legislative Council?
But after having battled for ten years
against these questions—the abolition of the
Seigniorial tenure, and the elective Legislative Council—questions which caused
the rebellion in Lower Canada—and that
of the Clergy Reserves, which Lord
SYDENHAM declared to be the cause of
the rebellion in Upper Canada—questions
which shook the foundations of society, and
brought, not only civil strife, but war—the
honorable gentleman gave up the opposition
he had maintained for ten years, and in order
to get a seat on the Treasury benches, and to
keep his party in power, tamely submitted,
and subjected himself to the humiliation of
carrying out these measures. Yet he claims
to have been consistent! Those three great
questions—and others which had occupied
the attention of the country, and had caused
the greatest political antagonism between
parties—those questions were carried by the
honorable gentleman, by acting on that side of
the House with the very parties to whom he
had been opposed in those questions ; and
with the aid of renegade reformers, he was
permitted for nearly ten years to keep possession of the Treasury benches. (Hear,
hear.) I am sorry to see that the same course
has been pursued in the formation of this
Government. What was done in 1854 was
repeated in 1864. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. MACKENZIE—Who moved that
the honorable gentlemen, representing the
Liberal party, should go into the Government ?
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I found
they were going—with the engine at full
speed—and that nothing could restrain them.
(Laughter.) I found that all the drags that
could be put upon the wheels could not stop
them from going there. I saw it was impossible to stop them, and I said therefore—"
In
the name of Goodness, go. True, only those
places are made for you, and three may as
well go in, although I would prefer that
there were three more, and then we might
look to get some justice."
MR. A. MACKENZIE —You voted
against the motion, that the proposition for
three members of the Opposition entering the
Cabinet be rejected.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I stated
that I would not commit myself to the
explanations which had been made.
MR. H. F. MACKENZIE—If the honorable gentleman will permit me, I will read
from the published proceedings of the meeting.
The honorable gentleman did not vote against
the basis :—
It was moved by Mr. HOPE F. MACKENZIE,
seconded by Mr. McGIVERIN, That we approve
of the course which has been pursued by
Mr. BROWN in the negotiations with the Government, and that we approve of the project
of a
Federal union of the Canadas, with provision for
1010
its extension to the Maritime Provinces and the
North-Western territory, as the basis on which
the constitutional difficulties now existing could
be settled.
There were thirty-four who voted for this
motion. Five declined to vote either yea or
nay, and among these is the name of the honorable member for Cornwall. (Hear, hear.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—It is laid
down that " he that is not with you is against
you." (Hear, hear.) I will tell you why I
did not vote. I did not charge my honorable
friend from South Oxford with deceiving us
in anything. He said he had a paper in his
hand which contained the basis of the arrangement. Hie may have told us the whole
of it,
and I did not say it was his intention to mislead us. But I was not satisfied, notwithstanding
the excellence of his memory, that
he should come with a document in his hand,
and, instead of reading it to the meeting,
undertake to give us verbally the substance of
it. I did not like it at all; and when I
refused to vote, it is clear I was not in favor
of it.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—There was
no use in addressing the meeting—there was
such a rush to carry it. (Laughter.) Now,
Mr. SPEAKER, my honorable friend the Hon.
Attorney General West, in his usual style of
addressing the House, after evading the real
point in discussion—that of the propriety of
referring this matter to the people—went off
on another tack, and on several tacks. I
never witnessed a more excruciating lashing
than he administered to the honorable member
for Peel. He ridiculed the whole of the
honorable gentleman's motion. But be administered one consolation which, no doubt,
the honorable gentleman found to be palatable.
He said :—
There is one thing after all—though my hon.
friend from Peel is mistaken in every particular
—though, notwithstanding his constitutional lore,
and ability, and eloquence, and everything which
constitutes a statesman, he has done everything
wrong—yet there is one thing he has done right
—he has inserted in his motion the words " constitutional mode."
These words have in them a peculiar charm
in the estimation of the Hon.Attorney General
West, who ought to show us where he has
found, in the practice of the English Parliament, a scheme of this kind introduced,
then
he might say that the honorable member for
Peel is wrong ; but when he brings in a
measure that is at variance with English
principles and practice, then I think we are
at liberty to try to find ways and means for
submitting it for the approval of the people.
If it is parliamentary usage for the Government to come down to this House, and, with
the assistance of their political supporters,
suddenly to change our Constitution, and take
away our liberties, then, forsooth, are we not
to take our own course as to whether or not
we shall ask that their measure shall be
referred to those who sent us here ? The
Hon. Attorney General West scouts the idea
of our being delegated only to work under the
Constitution that we have. He forgets that
when we make laws under our Constitution,
we can change them ourselves at any time;
but when we make a Constitution, and have
it ratified by the Imperial Government, it
does not lie in our power to change it by a
simple resolution of this House. He dwelt
strongly on his belief that we were the representative men of our constituencies, and that
through us the people had a voice in this
House. Well, if we were legislating for
ourselves, and for our own people, under our
Constitution as it stands, then I admit that
we would be fully justified in carrying out
any scheme that we might deem essential for
the welfare of the province at large, or for any
portion of it; but when he carries that
principle so far as to say that we ought not to
vote for having a measure of this kind—
which will affect other provinces as well as
our own—referred to the people, then, I say,
he carries the principle to a most unwarrantable length. (Hear, hear.) What can he
advance in justification of such a course?
He talks about it being unconstitutional.
Why, they understand constitutional law in
Nova Scotia, or ought to understand it as well
as we do. But when we point to Nova Scotia,
Ministers tell us that that province does not
make laws for us.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—Well, the
Honorable Minister of Agriculture has been
down there, and it is a pity that his lectures and
essays have failed to afford them all needful
instruction. (Laughter.) At all events, they
seem to appreciate the position in which the
Conference at Quebec has placed them. But
1011
the people of New Brunswick, sir, are they so
far behind the age as not to understand how
to manage their own affairs? We went down
to ask them to assist us to get out of our
difficulties, though this object his, at first,
somewhat disguised. When they began to
realize that it was to save us that, the
Conference took place, and was not organized for
the purpose of benefiting them, the people of
that province, if not the Government, refused
 to recognise and support the procedings of
the Conference, Now, if we had not the fact
of the Lower Provinces having exercised their
rights and privileges, we should have no
chance whatever to appeal to precedents. And
if the, loyal people and governments of the
Lower Provinces—people who are one day declared to be loyal and the next annexationists
and under American influence, according to their being for or against this scheme-if
they do not know what are their rights, or
in what manner to deal with this project, I
think we had better teach them. I cannot
help, however, feeling the conviction, after.
the character given of them by the Hon.
Minister of Agriculture, that it is just as
 well we have got rid of them. (Laughter.)
But if, on the contrary, they are an intelligent people, and possess an intelligent
Government, and that Government has
 adopted the course of referring that measure
to the people, how can it be improper for us
to advocate the same thing in Canada?
Who are the hon. gentlemen that arrogate
 to themselves the right of telling us that
we cannot exercise our privileges in this
House, in voting in such a manner as we
think best and most conducive to the interests of the people whom we represent ?
Those honorable gentlement tell us that the
motion of the hon. member for Peel is a
most extraordinary one, in the face of the
fact that the majority of these same gentlemen were voted out of office by this House
only a short-time ago, and that since then no
appeal has been made to the people. There
 would be nothing very strange if they were
 voted out again. (Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Attorney General told the hon. member for
Peel, thought not in so many words, that he
did not know what he was about ; and in the
course of the same speech remarked that if
he wanted an argumentative, clear-headed,
methodical and able speech, he could not
have chosen a better one than he delivered
by the hon. member for Peel. Now, I think
that that is one of the coolest remarks I have
ever heard from an attorny general in this
House. He rejoiced that the speech bore soÂ
strongly in opposition to the views of this side
of the House, and then states that the hon.
gehtleman did not really know the effect of
his own motion. If the hon. member for
Peel thinks that is flattering, then I must
say that he is easily satisfied. The hon.
gentleman, however, I think, made out a
very good case in favor of his amendment.
His language may not, be such as we have
frequently heard in this House during the
past few days ; but it is such as we generally
hear on the hustings. When honorable
gentlemen appear there previous to their
election, they have no hesitation in saying
that, if elected, they will go to Parliament
for the purpose of carrying out the wishes
of their constituents. I am sure my hon.
friend from Peel has :often, and" warmly,
denounced the invasion; of the rights of the
Church of England ; the Clergy Reserves
were being secularized, and I well remember
that a motion was made in this House to the
effect that before that measure should
become law; it ought to be referred to the
people ; though that was a measure that only
concerned our own internal afiairs, we did
not hear, at that time, a word about the
unconstitutionality of referring it to the
people. The Honorable President of the
Council has often declared that no government should be supported which did not
pledge itself to bring in a measure for
granting representation according to population ; but it is infinitely worse to support
a government which proposes to take
away our Constitution, and at the same
time deprive the people of having a voice in
reference to it. My view of one of the
duties of a representative is this : when a
man goes voluntarily before the people, and
tells them that he will vote against such and
such measures, and then comes here and.
votes in the contrary direction, it is his duty
to resign ; for no man of spirit would stand
up in this House after violating the promises he had made to the people. My hon.
friend the Hon. Attorney General West
says it is not constitutional to take a vote
in the way proposed by the honorable
member for North Ontario. Sir, I am
as anxious to maintain the Constitution
of this country as any one can be ; but
when a motion of this nature comes up,
I care not how the vote is to be taken, it
shall have my support. The hon. gentleman
has violated the British Constitution in
bringing in this measure, and as he has
1012
done so, I am prepared to vote in any manner in which the expression of the people
can be had upon it, before we legislate away
their rights and their Constitution. I am
astonished to find that there is such a desire
on the part of the members of this House to
oppose the motion for submitting the question to the country. Â It is said that there
is something behind the scenes to account
for such singular conduct. Of these we get
glimpses from day to day. Some of those
reasons are patent to every one. One of
those is that the Coalition which has been
formed out of the most incongruous materials, is supported by the greatest medley
of
politicians anybody ever saw. Of course, it
is to be supposed that we will have an election before another year is out. Members
now supporting the Treasury benches, with
some of whom I have worked for many
years, have suffered very much from expensive
elections through which they have been called
upon to pass in that period. I know it is
very unpalatable that they should have to go
back again for reelection, after voting here
against the express wishes of their constituents. Under this Coalition arrangement
they evidently expect that they will be able
to go to their constituencies and be returned
by acclamation, because the two extremes—
abandoning their old principles—coalesced.
But it is a vain hope, sir. Let the elections
for North Ontario and the town of Niagara
tell how unfounded is the expectation. The
failure of the Hon. Provincial Secretary
was the first failure, and I may here say
that I was sorry to see the breach of faith
committed towards him on the part of the
conservatives of that riding; but I am
happy to see that he has got over it very
comfortably by obtaining another county,
which I hope he may long be enabled to
keep. Notwithstanding this, however, they
yet cling to the vain hope of a triumph
when they next go before the people; but
I am very much mistaken if the indignant
voice of several constituencies will not urge
some strong candidate against each of them,
nor have I a doubt that the fact that these
gentlemen endeavor to secure themselves
from going to the people now by voting
away the Constitution and the rights of the
people, will furnish many of them an opportunity to find their political graves.
(Hear,
hear.) Sir, it has been my misfortune to
have been nearly nineteen years of my
political life in the cold shades of opposition
but I am satisfied to stay an infinitely longer
period on this side of the House, if that
shall be the effect of my contending for the
views which I have just expressed. I have
always believed that I was here for the purpose of representing the constituency which
sent me, fund not for the purpose of misrepresenting them. If I were satisfied that
I did not properly represent my constituency
on any leading question coming before this
House, I would scorn to sit here a moment
longer than was absolutely necessary, until
I could do so by their approval. But, sir,
are there not members here who know full
well that their conduct has been condemned
by their constituents in the most unmistakable manner ? And yet these hon. members
rise up and express their virtuous indignation at our contending that the people
should have a voice in reference to the
adoption of this new Constitution.
MR. SCOBLE—Do you mean any honorable gentleman from Upper Canada ?
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—Well, if the
honorable gentleman will tell me that there
are none from that section of the country
whom the cap will fit, then I will say I do
not mean any such.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—Well, Mr.
SPEAKER, I do not desire to be personal,
and, therefore, I shall make no pointed
references ; but I see a number of gentlemen
before me whom, I think, the cap will fit
admirably. Sir, I think it is most monstrous
that this House should refuse the people an
opportunity of expressing themselves before
their Constitution is taken away from them.
I am delighted that I have the opportunity
of voting for this motion. I vote for it
because it is in accordance with the expression of devotion to the interests of the
people, which every honorable member feels
when standing before his constituents. He
has no hesitation, then, in declaring that he
will seek to represent their views, instead of
seeking to accomplish other objects than
those which he has been delegated to promote. If there has been one question more
than another before this House for the last
quarter of a century, upon which the views
of the people ought to be clearly and distinctly ascertained it is upon this proposal
to destroy our Constitution ; and if gentlemen will vote against it; then I hope that
at the next general election, the people will
pass such a judgement upon them as will prevent any such scheme ever being pro
1013
posed in any British Colonial Legislature,
without the sanction of the people, during
all future time. (Cheers.)
MR. T. R. FERGUSON said—I have
listened very attentively to the discussion on
this question, and it is certainly most singular, as well as amusing, to hear the
different
views that have been expressed upon it by
the advocates of the amendment. The hon.
member for Peel, I am certain, felt that
his resolution was the most consistent and
reasonable one that could have been well
introduced on the subject. The hon. member for North Ontario, who seconded the
motion, also, no doubt, thought it a very
sensible one. I listened carefully to the
arguments of both, and I find that they supported the motion from very different points
of view. The hon. member for Peel made
a strong speech in favor of the scheme of
Confederation which has been adopted by
this House, and he said he introduced his
motion for the purpose of having the people
vote upon it, and with the expectation that
they would carry it by a very large majority.
The hon. member for North Ontario took a
very different view of the effect of the resolution, stating that he seconded it because
he
believed it would result in defeating the
Confederation scheme.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I think the
hon. member is quite mistaken. All I said
was that I wished the people to have an
opportunity of expressing themselves, so
that we might ascertain whether or not they
would prefer it to a legislative union.
MR. T. R. FERGUSON—I beg my hon.
friend's pardon ; but that was not the object
and aim the hon. gentleman had in view in
seconding the motion. If his object was
not to have the scheme rejected, then I
cannot understand his language at all. .I
seldom agree with the views of the Hon.
President of the Council ; but on this
occasion, I think he pointed out the
inconsistencies of the hon. member for Peel
in an excellent manner. But there are a
few more left untouched, to some of which
I will briefly allude. The hon. member for
Peel declared that his motion was designed
to secure the approval of the people, and
that it would result in their approval of the
formation of a new nationality. The
seconder of the motion supported it because
it was designed to secure the condemnation
of the scheme, and, prevent us from obtaining that new nationality. The hon. member
for Peel stated that he was in favor of
having a dissolution of Parliament, so that
a constitutional expression could be had
through a general election. Now, for
my own part, I doubt whether, if
there were a dissolution of this House
to-morrow, we would get a full, true and fair
expression of opinion from the people at
all. I believe that side-issues would creep
in in every case—that the Conservative
party would hang together in most instances,
and the Reform party do the same, and that
numerous local questions would interfere
with the results sought to be obtained.
My hon. friend from North Ontario declares
himself in favor of having a direct vote of
the people. Were it not that that is declared an unconstitutional method, I should
say
it was the only true course to be adopted,
because it is the only way of properly
testing public opinion on any one measure.
(Hear, hear.) Now, sir, the hon. member
for Peel is one of the cleverest men in the
province, but I must say that my experience
with regard to his movements in Parliament
is that he does not exhibit himself in anything like so clever or successful a manner
as he does when pleading at the bar. I
have never seen him taking a prominent
position in this House, and playing his part
in that position in a successful manner. If
he had moved his amendment before the
resolutions were adopted, I would have been
able to have given him credit for sincerity,
if not for ability, in advocating it ; but
after the resolutions have been passed,
he brings up an amendment to another
motion that is evidently hostile to the resolutions. Well now, let us take a look
at the
assertions of the hon. member for Cornwall,
and I think we will be able to see the inconsistency still more clearly. The position
he
takes is, that if these resolutions are referred
to the people, and are by them voted down,
every honorable member who voted for them
in this House must immediately resign his
seat. Now, sir, what would be the result of
that principle as affecting the hon. member
who moved and the hon. member who
seconded the amendment now in your hands ?
Why, sir, instead of having them both on
the floor of this House to carry out the views
of the people, one of them certainly must
leave, if the views of the honorable member
for Cornwall are carried out. I think every
honorable gentleman must see clearly that
whatever way you view the positions taken
by the mover and seconder of this amendment, their course bears a contradiction on
1014
the very face of it. And what would be
the result of a general election ? Those
two honorable gentlemen, holding such dissimilar views with regard to the motion
upon which they have agreed, would go to
the country pulling different wires. The
honorable member for Peel will use his best
endeavors to influence public opinion in such
a manner that it will ratify the resolutions
in favor of a Federal union, while the hon.
gentleman who seconded the motion will go
to the people with the very reverse idea.
So you will find these two hon. gentlemen,
who have joined so cordially to bring this
motion before the House, will disagree on
every point the moment after it would be carried, and cause the utmost confusion among
the people. I cannot understand the matter
at all. I do not see how they can defend
their consistencies, either before this House
or before the country. There was not a
single word said by the Hon. President of
the Council or the Hon. Attorney General
West, with reference to the inconsistency of
those two hon. gentlemen, to which every
one in this House will not cordially assent.
We voted by a large majority, the other night,
in favor of those resolutions. I was in favor,
when I came here, of having the question
referred to the people; and I only wish that
such could be yet done; but when I came to
understand the emergencies by which we
were surrounded, and saw that we were
threatened with the loss of the Reciprocity
treaty and the bonded system, in addition to
the continuation of the passport system, and
were also threatened with the putting of
American gunboats on the lakes, and without
access to the seaboard except upon and by
sufferance of the United States Government,
I came to the conclusion that it was important for us to take such steps as would
procure, in the shortest manner possible, the
assistance of English money, English soldiers and English gunboats for our defence,
and that, therefore, there was the most urgent
necessity for sending some members of the
Government home to England, to bring those
resolutions before the Imperial Parliament
during the present session, and making such
arrangements for our defence as it seems we
must make. These were the reasons why I
voted for a set of resolutions which, I am
free to confess, I would not otherwise have
supported. Having voted for them on Friday night, along with a large majority of the
members of this House, with the full expectation that everything was to be hurried
through, and the session brought immediately
to a close, so that the leading members of the
Government could go on an important mission to the Mother Country, I understood
the hon. member for Peel to have voted with
the same understanding. And what are we
told now ? Why, that there is no necessity
for haste in the matter at all ; that there
ought to be a new election, occupying two
months at least, before a return could be
made. But is it seriously proposed that
during all this time we are to remain in a
defenceless state, and without any prospect
of having any for another year? "Why, the
honorable gentleman must see that the proposal bears such a contradiction on the very
face of it, that he ought to withdraw it.
These resolutions have been passed by this
House, or they have not been passed at all.
If they have been adopted by the Parliament
of Canada in a constitutional way, then in
voting for this motion we would be only
stultifying ourselves, mocking our constituents, and insulting Her Majesty, for we
would be putting ourselves in the most false
and inconsistent position in which the representatives of any people ever placed themselves,
on this continent. (Hear, hear.) I
know the honorable member for Peel laid
down the doctrine before he voted for the
resolutions, that they ought to go to the
people before their final consummation, and
to that doctrine every one must assent; but
when he voted for the resolutions, as we all
did, on the ground that there was a necessity
for their immediate adoption, I say it is
clearly contradictory for him to bring up
this motion after the resolution has been
carried by so large a majority. I am sorry
that he has thought fit to bring forward this
motion at this stage of the proceedings, and
I must say- and am sorry to have to say it
too—that I think he has accomplished very
little good for his party or for his constituents, since he has been in Parliament.
(Hear,
hear.) I voted for the resolutions because
I saw there was a necessity for doing so,
and after having thus voted cn Friday night,
I am not going to nullify that vote on Mon—
day night, by supporting the amendment
which the honorable member has proposed,
more to gratify his own notions, I fear, than
to do the country good. It has been said—
and very correctly said, I think—that if a
new House should be elected, the members
of that House would have to discuss the
matter over, again and take another vote
upon it. The honorable member for Corn
1015
wall seems to desire that the question
should be referred to the people, not by
means of a general election, but in such
a manner as to have a direct yea or nay
upon it. Well, sir, if that mode were
adopted, and the scheme were not sustained, most of the members of this House
ought to go home at once and resign their
seats. And what then? Why, sir, new
elections would have to take place to fill
the vacant seats, and the summer would
be nearly gone before we should have returns. We should then have to explain
matters to the newly-elected members in
order to convince them that the measure is
all right, and in all probability more than
six months would transpire before we could
record our votes upon it. (Hear, hear.) I
think it would be most unadvisable to allow
the motion now before the House to be applied in either way. But, sir, I must say
that unless the arrangements in respect to the
local governments are made satisfactory to
the people of Upper Canada, I shall vote to
cast them overboard. But when I look at
the fact that the honorable gentlemen who
compose the Government are the ablest which
both political parties could furnish, and went
together with the approval of the large
majority of their political followers, I think
it is not our place to relieve them from the
responsibility now resting upon them, of
carrying out this measure in a manner that
I hope will prove satisfactory to the people.
If we took it out of their hands, we would be
assuming a responsibility that properly pertains to them ; and for my part, I am willing
to leave the responsibility on their shoulders
at the present time. If they will not do
what is right for us, I shall take the liberty
of recording any vote against them, and thus
give them a practical expression of my
opinion. (Cheers)
HON. MR. HUNTINGTON said—I do
not propose to occupy the attention of the
House by any lengthened remarks. I think
it is most singular that so many honorable
gentlemen on the floor of this House should
feel so deeply and be so anxious to discuss
the subject upon which such great unanimity
is said to prevail. It is strange that hon.
gentlemen should be so full of the fire of
speaking, that half a dozen are jumping to
their feet at once to catch the Speaker's
eye. (Laugher.) At a previous stage of
the debate, I noted a number of points on
which I desired to make some remarks, but
I forbore. There are a few of them, how
ever, that relate to the question before us
and that, I think, ought to be brought under
the notice of this House. I did not think
it surprising, sir, that the Hon. President of
the Council should be the first to put in his
oar this evening, on behalf of the Government. He is supposed to belong to a party
that is deeply sensitive to public opinion,
and the honorable gentleman himself has
had some intimate relations with public
opinion in Upper Canada for several years
past; while the Honorable Attorney General East, who sits beside him, so far from
caring about consulting the views of the
country, is reported to have said at the
dejeûner at Montreal that he did not consult
anybody in making up his mind with regard
to anything.
HON. MR. HUNTINGTON—I say that
the Hon. Attorney General East can afford
to sit there and—I won't say despise—but
disregard the views of the people, and
arrogate to himself the right to know what
is better for the people than they can possibly know themselves. But the hon. member
for South Oxford, when he came to put in
his oar fairly, surprised me. I felt that he
was entirely too severe upon my honorable
friend the member for Peel. It was easy to
see that the strong feeling of friendship for the
Government which he entertained prevented
him from making his argument tell in favor
of his position as strongly as he might have
done. I admired the eloquence which rendered his speech so acceptable to the members
of this House, but I felt that he was .
afraid of offending his friends in the Government. He seemed to select those hammers
that would give the lightest blows. He admitted that if an appeal to the people were
taken, the honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches would come back to their seats
with, perhaps, even a more numerous following than now. There was one point of his
argument that has remained unanswered. He
said that in view of the position which the
Confederation scheme occupied in the Lower
Provinces, and in view of the strong expression in its favor given by this House,
there
was no further need of haste — no necessity for
pressing the resolutions further until the people should be consulted. That position
has
not been met, and cannot be met. (Hear,
hear.) Sir, it is absurd to stand up, new,
and declare that there is a panting, and a
1016
hungring and thirsting among the people for
having this scheme put into immediate operation. I do not mean to say that the scheme
has not been talked of among the people, but
the hon. member for Peel, who has been extensively abroad among the people, has told
us
that there is the greatest apathy in the public mind ; but, sir, that apathy does
not exist
among the people alone. I state it fearlessly,
sir, before honorable gentlemen, without any
fear of contradiction, that the greatest apathy
exists in this House itself. I have seen the
votes of honorable gentlemen counted in favor
of the scheme, whom we all know have no
faith in it, but who have been drawn into
casting their vote for it by former party leanings. (Hear, hear.) Having come to the
conclusion that something must be done, and
this being the only thing they had an opportunity of doing, they recorded their votes
for
it. The faithlessness of the people has been
well represented. Mr. SPEAKER, while the
great leader of the Reform party finds it
necessary to stand up here and throw dust in
our eyes, by trying to make it appear that
the people, to whose touch he has been so
sensitive in times past, need not now be consulted, the Honorable Attorney General
took
a different course. He was asked for
precedents, and told us that when violent constitutional changes had been made
in England, the precedents for the course
proposed by this motion were founded. He
talked to us about the union of Ireland, in
connection with which the career of PITT—a
career that was distinguished in Britain, but
which was of such a character that, though
signalized throughout Europe, it yet produced
a reaction that caused England to fallback
in the race of national progress for many
years. The result of his course was such
that some of the brightest names on English
history left the reform principles to which
they had been attached, and connected themselves with the Pitt party, and the same
will be the result here of the game now being
played by honorable gentlemen opposite.
This is the precedent which, in a British
constitutional country of the nineteenth century, is brought up and used as a whip
held
over our backs. Why, sir, we have no
French revolutions at this day. But the
say we have an American revolution. We
are told by Ministers themselves, and by
speakers, under their cheers, that we have to
choose between this scheme of Confederation
and annexation to a neighboring republic, and
they talk to us as if there was no time to lose
—that one or other will be accomplished
immediately. How do we know but it may
happen while our Ministers are gone to England, and that when they return they will
find
the flag of the United States floating over their
country. Sir, there is no more danger of anything of that kind happening now than
there
was when this Government was formed last
spring. When the honorable and gallant
knight at the head of the Government was
called upon to form an Administration, and
brought his Government before the House, he
did not then hold up to us the danger of invasion, unless we supported his Government.
The Government did not then inform us that
if we did not form a Federal union we would
be annexed to the United States. All these
threats on their part have grown out of accidents that have happened to their policy
since
last June. But, Mr. SPEAKER, the game
that is being played now is one that cannot
but provoke a conservative reaction in this
country. Do honorable gentlemen believe
that it is really for the best interests of this
country that so many honorable gentlemen,
who entertained reform views, are found voting
to do away with the elective principle in the
constitution of the Legislative Council—a
principle that has been held sacred in the
eyes of so vast a number of the people of
Upper Canada, that to accomplish it has been
the battle—cry of many honorable men in times
past,
ab uno disce omnes? The Honorable
Attorney General, as the leader of his party,
may look with favor upon the conservative
reaction which seems to await us. We can
afford to go back to that dark period of Eng
lish constitutional history, when Toryism,
profiting by the unstable politics of France,
ruled England for fifty years, created the
public debt, and stifled the progress of free
opinion. It is from this period that the Hon.
Attorney General quotes precedents against
an appeal to the people—a dark period, in
which the rights of the people were sacrificed
to a want of faith in them. Shall we copy
such examples ? Shall we attempt to hold up
the terrors of the American war—the dreaded
instability of American institutions — to
frighten ourselves into dread of our own people ? Shall we copy the reactionary abuses
of the times of PITT, to the extent that we
refuse to consult the people upon the great
revolution proposed here? ( Hear, hear.)
The people were surprised by the political
earthquke which took place here last spring.
They were astonished by what took place,
but they were told that there was no risk for
them ; that it was necessary for the defence
of the country that these men should come
1017
together. And now, when the proposition is
brought before this House to place the matter
before the people, we are told that there are
certain precedents against such a course,
such as the union of Scotland and the union
of Ireland, which I am sure must be particularly strong in the view of my friend the
Honorable Minister of Agriculture. We are
told that we must accept this scheme at once
without a moment's delay, or it would slip
through our fingers. I feel, sir, that this is
a point which ought to be made—that the
ground on which this motion is opposed, that
the people having elected their representatives, they have a right to look to them.
And
if this country was annexed to the United
States, if this Parliament is supreme, if it is
able to upset one Constitution, why not another? The doctrine is a new one. It may
be fortified by strong precedents, but it is
not fortified by constitutional practice in
this country—it is not fortified by the opinion
of the people of this country, which is, that
the representative is not elected to frame its
Constitution. It is said by the honorable
member for South Oxford that a number of
elections have taken place, and that the people
are in favor of the scheme. But what elections
have taken place? There have been a few
for the Upper House; but even the hon. member for South Ontario, a gentleman who comes
in for a Ministerial constituency represented
formerly by the present Vice-Chancellor of
Upper Canada, even that honorable gentleman
is defeated and another gentleman is elected
in his place. That honorable gentleman is
the first fruits of the elections, and he comes
here and tells us that he pledged himself to
his constituents that this subject should be
appealed to the people—and more than that,
he tells us that they were afraid he would
support the Government on the details. It
is an unhappy day for this country when it is
found necessary to quote precedents from the
most unpopular period in European history in
support of the course that is being pursued.
(Hear, hear.)
MR. JOSEPH DUFRESNE—I did not
intend to say anything upon this matter, and
I should abstain from doing so, were it not for
a statement made by the honorable member
for Lotbinière. He stated that parties in
Canada upon this question were about equally
divided. l deny that. I know too well sentiment in Lower Canada. I say that the bulk
of the people in Lower Canada look upon an
election as an oath—they want to use it only
as a matter of necessity—they look upon it as
an immorality. I know that there are certain
parties in Lower Canada in favor of an election, but the bulk of the people are opposed
to it. There are also a few honorable gentlemen in this House who may be in favor
of it,
but in my opinion the are wrong. I can
class those who are in favor of an election in
Lower Canada—these are the
Rouges. Under
the present circumstances, they say:—" We
are only about fifteen or sixteen ; what difference will it make if we loose five
or six of our
number; and who knows that the States will
not come here in our country with a few
thousand greenbacks and help us ?" (Laughter.) I only say this as a supposition. Then
the second is the class who sell liquor in the
day, and those who sell without a license-
who are almost looked upon as public robbers.
The third class are the drunkards—those who
go on a spree for several days and pay nothing
for it. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Everyone knows that the accounts are sent in and
are paid. Of course these words are not
applicable to any one in this House; but those
are the only ones who are in favor of an election. The bulk of the people are opposed
to
it; they consider it as an immorality ; and if
any one doubts that, I wish they would go out
into my part of the country and inquire for
themselves. (Hear, hear.)
MR. A. MACKENZIE—The language
used by the hon. member for North Ontario,
on one or two points, requires some notice.
He boldly asserted that he did not believe
that there was any serious agitation in Upper
Canada for constitutional changes. He
boldly asserted that an arrangement could
have been made, and that till it was made
the people could get on. Now, here is the
language he used some years ago. In his
speech on the Address in 1862, the following
occurs :—
I mean to say that the refusal of righteous demands will lead to unpleasant and unprofitable
quarrels. The time has come when 300,000
Upper Canadians will be heard on the floor of
the House, and if this is not allowed, the results
that will follow will be awful.
That is the language of the gentleman who
has charged us with making " highfaluting "
speeches. I did address the meeting held in
Toronto, and a more unanimous meeting,
perhaps, never was held in Toronto. I confined myself entirely to the matter under
discussion, and made no appeals of any kind. I
leave that to the honorable member for North
Ontario himself. Then he states again—in
1018
the debate of 1862 on representation by population—" No man with Anglo-Saxon blood
in his veins will submit to the present
state of affairs." (Hear, hear.) And
yet he accuses us now of taking hasty
action in this matter. When the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration was formed, he
devoted himself to denouncing the Hon. Provincial Secretary, who was then Commissioner
of Crown Lands. He used all his power in
abusing that gentleman, and he prophesied
what the result would be when that gentleman appeared again before the people of Upper
Canada. l gave my opinion plainly at
the time, and I do not believe that any person used such strong language as the honorable
gentleman himself. The question had
come to be one that must be settled in one
way or the other. It was quite clear to me
for one, and to the people of Upper Canada,
that the Federation project was the only thing
we could have to remedy the state of affairs
in which they were placed. (Hear, hear.)
But I had forgotten one point in regard to
the Coalition arrangements being made to
carry on the public affairs. When the liberal members held a meeting to consider the
prepositions made by their Government, the
honorable member lor Cornwall attended and
took an active part in the business of the
meeting, and heartily approved of the project. He declined, it is true, to vote yea
or
nay on the first resolution, approving the policy
proposed, but that was merely because the resolution was so worded as to expressly
approve
of Mr. BROWN'S share in the perfecting of the
arrangements made. This is proved by the
terms of the second resolution, which was
moved by the honorable member for Cornwall
himself. (Hear, hear.) _ The motion was in
the following terms—_" That the proposition
for at least three members of the Opposition
entering the Government be accepted." Mr.
MACKENZIE of Lambton, moved in amendment—" That the proposition for three members
of the Opposition entering the Cabinet be
rejected, and that the proposition for the
settlement of our sectional difficulties receive
an outside support." The amendment only
received eleven votes ; the eloquence of the
honorable member for Cornwall carried the
meeting against my resolution. That honorable gentleman also moved the third resolution,
as follows—"That it is all-important that
Mr. BROWN should be one of the party to
enter the Cabinet." Only three gentlemen-
viz., Hon. Mr. BROWN and Messrs. BURWELL
and SCRATCHERD—voted against this. Now,
sir, if the honorable member was sincere
then, how are we to account for his course
now ? (Hear, hear.) Was be deceiving us
then, or is be speaking against himself now ?
(Hear, hear.) Considering the part that
honorable gentleman had in organizing the
Government, it did seem very extraordinary
that he should have repeatedly reproached
honorable gentlemen opposite with having
formed a coalition.
MR. A. MACKENZIE—Was it possible
that he urged the formation of the Government with a view to destroy the liberals
who
had entered it ? I believed then that the best
course to pursue was to give the Conservative
Government a thorough outside support. I
have always had a strong objection to party
coalitions. I felt then, as I do now, that they
may lead to later results not foreseen at the
time, and all that I wished was that the
Liberal party should give their support to the
Administration for the purpose for which it
was formed, that support to cease when the
object should be accomplished. The honorable member for Cornwall thought differently,
and I do not think it becomes that hon. gentleman to get up now and denounce those
hon.
gentlemen for the course they have taken.
He is not able to say that he did not vote.
He voted as here recorded, and with the
desire that I have always had to have everything of this kind recorded to prevent
future
misunderstanding, I took the trouble to
have a certified copy of the proceedings, from
which I have just quoted. When any honorable member took that course in the caucus,
I think he was clearly bound to adhere to the
same course. (Hear, hear.)
DR. PARKER—Mr. SPEAKER, 1 had
some intention of voting for the resolution
in your hands, sir, until I heard the speech
of the mover, the hon. member for Peel; but
that gentleman has quite convinced me that
I ought not to do so. (Hear and laughter.)
He proved most conclusively that the proposed Confederation was in itself a most
satisfactory and desirable measure, and that
the internal state of these provinces, as well as
the threatening aspect of foreign affairs, were
conclusive reasons for its immediate adoption.
Defences, he told us, were immediately required, and that they could only be made
effective by first uniting the provinces.
Accepting this argument and others advanced
by that hon. member, the conclusion is that
the necessity for Confederation is imperative
and immediate. But, sir, how does this
1019
agree with the terms of his resolution, if we
should adopt it, and this House be dissolved,
and members sent to the country for election
before the new House could adopt the
measure ? The House of Commons would be
dissolved, and the Imperial Parliament could
not legislate on it for a year or more—(hear,
hear)—so that by the course proposed, the
country would still remain, for a year or two
longer, exposed to the dangers and difficulties so eloquently described by the hon.
member for Peel. (Hear.) If that hon.
member had voted against the previous
question, and thereby asserted the right to
amend or refer the Address before adoption,
he could now very properly ask and claim
our support to this resolution. But he not
only voted for the previous question, but
for the Address, and deliberately chose the
present time to make this motion. Under
these circumstances, he at least has no claim
upon the support of the House. (Hear)
Having made a solemn contract with this
House on the main question, he now turns
round and seeks to upset the arrangement
of his own making. His course is best
explained by a simple illustration. Suppose
four or five gentlemen had entered into an
unanimous agreement, when one turns round
and says, " I was and am in favor of all that
has been done ; but unless you now attach
this condition, I draw back and retire from
the arrangement." (Hear.) That was conduct 'which could not be approved either in
public or private affairs. The position of
the seconder of the resolution—the hon.
member for North Ontario—is entirely
different, because he, like myself, asserted
by his vote on the previous question, the
desire to have the resolutions amended.
The honorable member for Peel told us,
even to-day, that this he considered
the proper time to place his motion before
the House. The resolution itself is highly
proper, and one for which I would have
voted, had it been made before the adoption
of the Address. (Hear.) Now it is entirely out of place. The hon. member for
North Ontario remarked just now, in the
course of his speech, that this Constitution,
if adopted, will soon have to be amended,
and therefore, he said, we ought not to
accept it. I entirely dissent from that
opinion. Why, sir, the British Constitution
is but a series of amendments made from
time to time—a growth by successive amendments. The objection of my hon. friend is
one of the main reasons why I am willing to
accept this scheme. I believe it will
admit of amendment as time goes on, so
that it may be made to meet the changing
wants and requirements of the people. My
hon. friend from North Ontario referred to
the seductive influence of the breath of the
Hon. President of the Council, when breathed into the ears of members, and its magical
efl'ects in relaxing the knees, and then, sir, he
locked, by way, I presume, of application, at
the hon. member for West Elgin. (Loud laughter.) Now I have always regarded the hon.
member for West Elgin as one of the most
reliable members of this House. (Laughter.)
Well, if my honorable friend looked more
particularly in this direction, I have nothing
to add to the reasons already given in explanation of my vote. The question before
me
was—" Should we adopt or reject the
resolutions ?"—and agreeing with the hon.
member for Peel that something should be
done immediately, I voted for them. I
think it would be most outrageous if, after
they have been sanctioned by a vote of this
House, we were to nullify them by any
subsequent proceedings. If the resolutions
were to be referred to the people at all, it
should have been before they received the
sanction of this House. Are we to turn
round to—day and reverse what we did on
Saturday last ? I repeat, sir, that I think
the resolutions should have gone to the
country—and if my opinion had prevailed,
they would have been referred—but not now,
after their deliberate sanction by this House ;
to do so would stultify the Legislature. Our
duty is now, in my opinion, to carry them
into effect in good faith, and not stand
shilly-shallying — blowing hot and cold
with the same breath. I, sir, stand
by what I have done, and by what this
House has done, and shall vote against
the amendment of the hon. member for
Peel—(hear)—who, I think, occupies a most
inconsistent position. (Hear, hear.) There
is another point, sir, to which I desire to
allude. The hon. member for Peel stated
that he voted for the Address as a private
individual—as he would have voted on the
question if out of this House. Now, sir,
no member can shield himself under such a
subterfuge. No member can separate his
private from his legislative character in this
House. If the explanation of the honorable
member for Peel be the general doctrine
and practice of Parliament, I should like to
have it understood, because there are occasions when it would be very convenient to
1020
avail one's self of it. (Hear.) I look on this
motion—I refer now to the hon. member
for Peel, and except the hon. member for
North Ontario—as an attempt to make a little
capital at the expense of members who will
save its supporters by voting it down. The
hon. member for Peel drew a fearful picture of
our exposed and defenceless state—of the dark
and threatening cloud gathering over us—of
the necessity of setting our house in order
by a union of these provinces. Now, sir, if
I half agreed with him, I should never think
of bringing in an amendment causing delay
and continued exposure to increasing danger,
but would go in strongly for the adoption of
measures against such a state of things, the
very first hour it was possible. This resolution, from the time at which it is moved,
sir,
should be voted down at once. The House
owes it to itself to give it no countenance
at this stage of the proceedings. Had it
been moved before the previous question, I
would have voted for it ; but as it comes up
after the adoption of the main resolutions, I
will stand by the solemn and deliberate action
we have taken—I will stand the responsibility
of the House and vote against it. (Hear.)
MR. RYMAL—Being one of the eight
members from Upper Canada who voted
against the resolutions of the Quebec
Conference, and whose names, I expect,
will long be cherished by the people
of that section, I presume, Mr. SPEAKER,
that I may vote for the amendment now in
your hands, without being charged with
inconsistency, as some honorable gentlemen
have been during this discussion. I should
not, however, have risen to address you, sir,
but for a personal matter that was drawn
into this debate, in reference to myself and
my connection with the constituency I have
the honor to represent—-or misrepresent, as
some people say. (Laughter, and hear,
hear.) According to the doctrines held by
the Hon. Attorney General West, it would
appear that after I had been elected to this
House, I have no business to refer any
matter for decision to or consult the feelings
of the people who sent me, but to act as I
thought best for their interests. Allow me
to dissent from this doctrine ; but I have
been obliged to exercise my own judgment,
and I have done so honestly, independently,
and fearlessly, irrespective of the consequences that may result to me, or of the
half-uttered threats held out over me. These
things, sir, have no influence over me ; I
shall pursue the course I think best for the
interests of my country and of those who
sent me here. (Hear, hear.) It matters
little whether I enter Parliament again or
not; but while I retain my position as one
of the' representatives of the peeple, I shall
act fearlessly. (Hear, hear.) I regret that
the Hon. President of the Council, when
speaking of my constituency and myself,
should have seen fit to taunt me with and
sneer at the narrow majorities by which I
have upon occasions been returned to this
House.
MR. RYMAL—But I say yes; for, Mr.
SPEAKER, I can distinctly recollect when an
honorable gentleman, holding a high position
in this Government, was twice actually defeated—(hear, and laughter)—and I dare
say that the support I have given that hon.
gentleman has on some occasions contributed
to the narrowness of my majorities. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.)
The question was then put on Hon. Mr.
CAMERON'S amendment, which was negatived on the following division :—
YEAS—Messieurs Bigger, Bourassa, Cameron
(North Ontario), Cameron (Peel), Caron, Coupal, De Boucherville, Dorion (Drummond
and
Arthabaska), Dorion (Hochelaga), Dufresne (Iberville), Fortier, Gagnon, Gaudet, Geoffrion,
Gibbs,
Holton, Houde, Huntington, Joly, Labreche-
Vider, Laframboise, Lajoie, Macdonald (Cornwall), Macdonald ( Toronto West), Morrison,
O'Halloran, Pâquet, Perrault, Pouliot, Ross
(Prince Edward), Rymal, Scatcherd. Thibaudeau,
Wallbridge (North Hastings), and Webb.—35.
NAYS—Messieurs Abbott, Alleyn, Archambeault, Ault, Beaubien, Bellerose, Blanchet,
Bowman, Bown, Brousseau, Brown, Burwell,
Carling, Attorney General Cartier, Cartwright,
Cauchon, Chapais, Cockburn, Cornellier, Cowan,
Currier, Denis, De Niverville, Dickson. Duckett,
Dufresne (Montcalm), Dunsford, Evanturel, Ferguson (Frontenac), Ferguson (South Simcoe),
Galt, Gaucher, Harwood, Haultain, Higginson,
Howland, Huot, Irvine, Jackson, Jones (South
Leeds), Knight, Langevin, LeBoutillier, Attorney General Macdonald, MacFarlane, Mackenzie
(Lambton), Mackenzie (North Oxford), Magill,
McConkey , McDougall, McGee, McGiverin, McIntyre, McKellar, Morris, Parker, Pinsonneault,
Pope, Poulin, Poupore, Powell, Raymond, RĂ©millard, Robitaille, Rose, Ross (Champlain),
Ross
(Dundas), Scoble, Shanly, Smith (East Durham),
Smith (Toronto East), Somerville, Stirton, Street,
Sylvain, Thompson, Tremblay, Walsh, Wells,
White, Willson, Wood, Wright (Ottawa County),
and Wright (East York)—84.
1021
HON. MR. HOLTON—I have an amendment to offer, sir, which I trust will not be
found open to some of the objections taken
to the last one by the Hon. Attorney General West. I will read the motion, sir, and
offer but a few remarks upon it, for it is not
my purpose to detain the House myself, or
to provoke a lengthy debate. I move, sir :—
That all the words after "That" he left out,
and the following inserted instead thereof :-" the
said resolution referred to a committee of
the whole House, in order so to amend it as to
express the earnest hope of this House, that any
Act founded on the resolutions of the Conference
of Delegates held at Quebec in October last,
which may be passed by the Imperial Parliament,
will not go into operation until the Parliament
of Canada shall have had the opportunity of considering the provisions thereof, and
shall, after
the next general election, pray Her Majesty to
issue Her Royal Proclamation to give effect to
the same."
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS—That is
the same thing as the last amendment.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Hon. gentlemen
state it is the same thing, but they will see that
it is not at all the same. This resolution does
not propose to contradict or go back upon
the previous action of the House, but to
supplement it by asking that any act passed
by the Imperial Parliament, founded on the
resolutions of the Conference, may be submitted to the House and to the country
previous to its adoption. (Hear.) Mr.
SPEAKER, this is a matter of great importance, but I can now only state the purport
of the resolution ; for, as I said before, I am
not about to provoke a debate. This whole
matter proceeds upon the theory that the
people of Canada desire a change in their
Constitution. Of course we know that the
supreme sovereignty rests with the Imperial
Parliament—of course we know that the
power to change our Constitution and remodel it in any way rests there—but we are
proceeding on the assumption that the Imperial Parliament will acquiesce in our desire
for a change, and in the nature of the
change desired. Well, sir, the gentlemen
on the Treasury benches, having the confidence of the majority of this House, and
presumably the confidence of the majority
of the people also, are going to approach
Her Majesty's Government in England and
ask them to submit to the Imperial Parliament a change in the Constitution of this
country; but, sir, these gentlemen have not
explained to us precisely how these resolutions are to be translated into an Act of
Parliament—they have not explained to us
which of these resolutions are to form part
of our new Constitution, and which of them
are to be carried out in some other way.
But, Mr. SPEAKER, it will be of the last
importance to the people of this country
to know what their Constitution really is to
be before its final enactment. (Hear, hear.)
I would recall, sir, especially to hon. gentlemen from Lower Canada, the experience
of
the past in reference to this matter. In 1852
Mr. HINCK'S Government carried through
this House an Address in favor of a change
in the constitution of the Legislative Council.
They sought, by that Address, a change in
the Union Act, operating a change in the
constitution of the Legislative Council only.
But instead of such a change in the Constitutional Act as was desired by the House,
power was given to the Legislature to effect
such a change, and along with that, the
two-thirds clause of the Union Act was
repealed—nobody to this day knows how.
(Hear.) What assurance have we then—
what assurance can we have—that a similar
event will not occur now? Hon. gentlemen
from Lower Canada must have a vivid recollection of our own very recent experience
in
constitutional changes. The change actually made in the Union Act in 1852 was one
which was deprecated by all the representatives from Lower Canada—by the entire
people of Lower Canada—and was brought
about in a way which has never yet been
satisfactorily explained. Well, sir, presuming that the people of this country are
making for themselves a new Constitution-—
recognising the power of the Imperial Government to effect any such change as they
may deem fit-—but also recognising the well-
known desire of the Imperial Parliament to
meet our views in the matter—I propose
that this House shall pray, in this Address,
that any act founded on the resolutions of
the Conference which met in Quebec in
October last, may only be put in force on the
prayer of both branches of the Legislature
of Canada. With these few words, explanatory of my resolution, I place it in your
hands. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. DORION—I desire, as I did
with reference to the amendment of the hon.
member for Peel, not to discuss at length the
motion of my hon. friend the member for
Chateauguay, but simply to explain the object
of that motion in a few words. The House
has just rejected an amendment, asking that
an appeal should be made to the people of
1022
this province before the Imperial Government
is asked to legislate on the Address of this
House. Now, the object of the amendment
proposed by the hon. member for Chateauguay is to ask that the Constitution adopted
in England may not go into force until it
shall have been submitted to the Legislature
of this province, after the next general election, and until an Address shall have
been
adopted, asking that it be put in force. We
ask the Imperial Government to-day, by the
Address which has just been adopted, to submit to the Imperial Legislature an act
for the
Confederation of the British North American
Provinces. If, in place of Confederation, the
Imperial Parliament were to establish a legislative union of the provinces, I ask
those
honorable members of this House who protest
against a legislative union, how they are to
present themselves before their electors—after
having refused to consult them—if they also
refuse to declare that they desire to consider
the measure again when it is brought back to
us, after passing the Imperial Parliament?
All we ask by this motion is that the act
which is to be passed may be submitted to
our Legislature, and ratified and approved by
this House, before it is definitely put in force
—in short, we ask to be allowed to refuse the
new Constitution if it should not suit us.
We must not forget what occurred in 1856,
when we asked the Imperial Parliament to
change the constitution of the Legislative
Council, and to render it elective. Let it not
be forgotten that they gave us a measure different from that we had asked for. We
were,
it is true, empowered to render the Legislative Council elective, but, at the same
time, a
clause was struck out of the Act of Union,
which clause declared that the basis of the representation in the Legislative Assembly
could not be changed without the concurrence
of two-thirds of the members of the Legislature. And with that fact staring us in
the
face, what assurance have we to-day that the
Imperial Government will not give us a legislative union, with representation based
upon population, in place of a Confederation ?
What is to prevent them from changing the
clause relative to the Legislative Council, and
applying to it also the principle of representation based upon population ? (Hear,
hear.)
Well, it is with a view of avoiding the possibility of any change of that nature that
we
now propose this amendment. There are
many hon. members of this House who fear
that in view of the refusal of the Maritime Provinces to assent to this scheme, England
may
give us a Confederation of the two Canadas.
And I ask—when we find the Ministry telling
us, over and over again, that it is absolutely
necessary to effect a constitutional change,
that the matter is urgent, that even one
week's delay cannot be given, nor the time to
discuss the amendments we desire to propose
to the scheme ; that they must have a measure at once, otherwise the most dreadful
evils must ensue—I ask, is it to be fancied,
for one moment, that the Imperial Government will consent to force the Lower Provinces
into Confederation. And what is to
prevent that Government from changing the
scheme so as to make it applicable to the two
Canadas alone ? (Hear, hear.) Here is what
will happen, or at all events what may very
well happen : when our Ministers reach Eng.
land, and urge upon the Imperial Government
the necessity for a change in the Constitution
as regards Canada, that Government, seeing
that the Lower Provinces do not desire Confederation, will pass a measure for the
Confederation of the two provinces, leaving to the
Maritime Provinces the right to enter that
Confederation whenever they think proper.
That is very possible, and the only way to
provide against such a contingency is to address Her Majesty, praying that any Imperial
measure, relating to constitutional changes,
may not take effect until it shall have been
submitted to, and shall have received the
ratification of, the Legislature of Canada.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER - Mr.
SPEAKER, in reply to what the honorable
member for Hochelaga has just said, I shall
merely tell honorable members of this House
that they need not take alarm at the apprehensions and predictions of that honorable
gentleman. I have already declared in my
own name, and on behalf of the Government,
that the delegates who go to England will
accept from the Imperial Government no act
but one based on the resolutions adopted by
this House, and they will not bring back any
other. (Hear, hear.) I have pledged my
word of honor and that of the Government to
that effect, and I trust that my word of honor
will have at least as much weight with this
House and the country as the apprehensions
of the honorable member for Hochelaga.
(Cheers.)
Mr. MACFARLANE—Mr. SPEAKER, I
had intended giving the reasons for the course
I was taking prior to the last vote, and as I
still desire to explain, the honorable member
for Chateauguay has given me an opportunity
1028
of doing so now. (Hear, hear.) It certainly
did require some courage to undertake to vote
against the last amendment—a resolution
which seems fair enough on the face of it.
At first I was almost disposed to accept it,
and it was not until I discovered its real
bearing that I determined to vote against it.
Honorable gentlemen will remember that,
before the adoption of the resolutions, I was
desirous that an appeal should be had to the
people prior to the consummation of the vast
scheme which they announce ; and with that
object in view, my vote is recorded against
your ruling, Mr. SPEAKER, on the appeal from
your decision at the time an amendment was
offered prior to their passage. This House
having sustained you in the opinion you pronounced, nothing was then left for me,
as one
of the representatives of the people, but to
decide whether we should adopt the policy of
Confederation or ignore it. (Hear, hear.)
The latter I was not disposed to do, and the
Government received my support on the final
vote taken, declaring a union of the British
American Provinces to be advisable. These
resolutions having been passed, we are now
called upon to pass an Address to Her Majesty founded upon them. To this Address,
and not to the resolutions, the honorable member for Peel offered his amendment, and
to
support that would have been the ignoring of
my former vote, the declaring an Address
different from the very resolutions upon which
that Address is to be founded, the sacrificing
of a great political scheme for the support of
what might unexplained be considered a
popular and legitimate motion, but which was
in fact a motion subversive of the resolutions,
and valueless, save as a means unfairly to be
used as a weapon on a hustings. (Hear, hear.)
If the honorable member for Peel desired this
amendment, and honorable members of this
House, myself amongst the number, understood he was intrusted with the care of it,
why did he not, as an old member of this
House, as one conversant with its rules and
its usages, submit it for our consideration
prior to the Honorable Attorney General
moving the "previous question," and at a
time when, by your ruling, Mr. SPEAKER, it
would have been admissible. (Hear, hear.)
Had he done so then, members could have
voted upon the merits of the amendment. Now
that the resolutions are passed, that privilege
has ceased. After all the difficulties which
have arisen in the management of the public
affairs of this country, which have existed so
long, and which, I may say, have brought
about the present Coalition, it was necessary
that some alteration and some amendment
should be made. We could not longer proceed amidst the conflicting sentiments which
pervaded this House, in the government of a
people whose feelings were becoming as hostile as their representatives were antagonistic.
And I ask what other solution acceptable to the
two Canadas was to be had; what better scheme
was to be adopted than that here submitted ?
(Hear, hear.) The question of Confederation is no new theory, so far as I am concerned;
it is a plan which, during the short time I
have taken an interest in public affairs, I have
always felt disposed to support, as tending to
our development as a country, and our independence and influence as a people; and
after
the declaration we made by our votes a few
minutes ago, namely, that these resolutions
should be adopted—after hearing too from
members of the Government that they are
not now prepared to submit to any alterations,
and finding that the effect of not passing this
Address, founded upon them, would virtually
be to throw us back into the state of political
chaos from which we have just emerged, I
find another reason why I cannot support
this or any other amendment. (Hear, hear.)
Looking at the matter apart from these amendments, I am, with a reference to the past
and a regard for the future, obliged to consider this question in a military as well
as in
a political and national point of view, and cannot but deem its consideration in this
respect
a necessity—placed as we are on the borders
of a nation whose citizens are versed in the
use of the arms with which their legions are
now dealing death in the field—isolated as
we are from the nation to which we owe our
allegiance and which guards our rights, but
whose acts might occasion our invasion, and
subject as our territory is to be the battleground in the event of a difficulty between
England and the States—it behoves us to
combine our individual strength, give weight
and concentration to our isolated influences,
and thus enable us to join effectively with the
Mother Country and repel with vigor any
acts of hostility that might be taken against
us. It is not by the continuation of things as
they were, or by the renewal of the conflicting
feelings which have existed between Upper
and Lower Canada, that we are to add strength
to our arms or lustre to our name ; it is not
thus we are to develope our resources and give
us the revenues requisite for our defence ; it
is not thus we are to become a people capable
of self-government and self-defence, should
1024
England ever leave us to our own resources,
and sever us from her list of colonies; but by
the cementing of our local relations, by the
concentration with us, under one government,
of the vast territories of the North-West and
the peopled provinces of the east, with one
community of interest and one object of
design, we will be enabled to place ourselves
in a position in which we could maintain our
independence of a foreign power, perpetuate
our connection with Great Britain, and preserve our allegiance to its Sovereign; and
should the time come when a severance of
these relations should be requisite, the British
people of America will not be a crippled chain
of powerless and defenceless colonies, but a
vast nation, with its sturdy farmers tilling the
soil of the vast west, and its daring seamen
gathering the wealth of its seaboard fisheries
in the east, the one ready to defend our
hearths at home, while the other protects our
rights at sea, and both ever willing and able
to stand by England in her hour of trouble
and in her work of good. (Cheers.) I feel
that now is the time for taking such steps if
ever they are to be taken. If ever there was
an occasion when it was necessary to remove
the hostility existing between Upper and
Lower Canada, and cement their friendships
—if ever there was a time when it was
prudent to strengthen ourselves by a union
with the other provinces, and place ourselves
in a position of defence, it is the present, and
I speak, 1 think, the sentiments of all Upper
Canada, certainly of all that section of it
where I reside, whem I say that there is but
one feeling there in reference to this matter,
and it is favorable to this proposed arrangement, favorable to this plan for the union
of
the provinces. (Hear, hear.) Besides, Mr.
SPEAKER, though some of the details are objectionable, I am not prepared to risk the
loss
of the principle which is admitted in these
resolutions, which is one that gives to Upper
Canada what she has demanded for years,
and gives it whether the other provinces
accede to it or not; it is the recognition by
Lower Canada of Upper Canada's rights to
an increased representation; it is the acceding of that which Lower Canada has
ever heretofore refused to grant, and I
cannot, in cavelling at these details, which
may hereafter be modified, jeopardise the
attainment of the greater object and sacrifice that which is here insured to us. (Hear,
hear.) Again, notwithstanding the declaration of my honorable friend from South Hastings,
that this measure seals up the North-
West, I think, on the contrary, that it adds
to the prospect of opening up that vast territory. Before long we shall see population
extending over these vast plains, across the
basin of the Winnepeg and the valley of the
Saskatchewan, and thence to Vancouver, and
all the sooner if this measure be adopted,
supplying as it will a government for the
encouragement of its settlement and the protection of its settlers; for the country
is as
fertile and productive as our own province,
and its domain as wide. To the north-west
there lies beneath British sway, but as yet all
unreclaimed, a vast and varied territory, the
mineral and agricultural wealth of which no
man can estimate, and the future products of
which none can conceive—a territory offering
the emigrant the choice of its fertile plains,
and the miner the wealth of its hidden riches.
Here, then, is the policy which tends to the
settlement of this vast territory, the development of its immense resources, the opening
up of its inexhaustible mines, and with it the
creation of a new people, the establishment of
increased revenues, and the extension of
British influences and British power on this
continent. And while developing our resources in the west, it gives an additional
outlet for the roducts of that living mine of
teeming wealt in the east—our fisheries—
the protection and encouragement of which is
as necessary as their wealth to us is inestimable. (Hear, hear.) Believing, too, that
this scheme will tend alike to our internal
reform and improvement as Canadians, and
the quieting of our political hostilities; that it
will give us a larger field for our labors and
an additional market for our products; that
the connections in trade which it will procure
will effect for as enhanced revenues and increased commerce, I, as a Canadian, am
willing to adopt it even in this local and selfish
sense; but I also see in it a broader policy
with a wider field open for our energies and
our capital—it is the first step towards establishing on British territory a highway
from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and thus
procuring for us the carry' trade of Asia
and the East with all the enriching revenues
which it will insure and the labor it will
employ. In short, Mr. SPEAKER, it is the
policy of a great colonial combination, effective alike in civil pursuits and military
defence, adding strength to the Empire and influencing the destinies of this great
continent.
For these reasons I voted against the last
amendment, and for the same reasons I am
prepared to vote against this one also. (Hear.)
1025
The House then divided on Hon. Mr.
HOLTON'S amendment, which was negatived on the following division :—
YEAS.— Messieurs Biggar, Bourassa, Cameron
(North Ontario), Caron, Cornellier, Coupal, De
Boucherville, Dorion (Drummond and Arthabaska), Dorion (Hochelaga) Dufresne (Iberville),
Fortier, Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gibbs, Holton, Houde,
Huntington, Labreche-Viger, Laframboise, Lajoie, Macdonald (Cornwall), Macdonald (Toronto
West) Morrison, O'Halloran, Pâquet, Perrault,
Rymal, Scatcherd, Thibaudeau, Tremblay, and
Wallbridge (North Hastings).—31.
NAYS.— Messieurs Abbott, Alleyn, Archambeault, Ault, Beaubien, Bellerose, Blanchet.
Bowman, Bown, Brousseau, Brown, Burwell, Carling,
Atty. Gen. Cartier, Cartwright, Cauchon, Chapais,
Cockburn, Cowan, Currier, Denis, De Niverville,
Dickson, Duckett, Dufresne (Montcalm), Dunsford. Evanturel, Ferguson (Frontenac),
Galt,
Gaucher, Harwood, Haultain, Higginson. Howland, Jackson, Jones (South Leeds), Knight,
Langevin, Le Boutillier, Atty. Gen. Macdonald,
MacFarlane, Mackenzie (Lambton), Mackenzie
(North Oxford), Magill, McConkey, McDougall,
McGee, McIntyre, McKellar, Morris, Parker,
Pinsonneault, Pope, Poulin, Poupore, Powell,
Raymond, RĂ©millard, 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, and Wright (East York).—79.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I rise, sir,
to propose another amendment. (Signs of
impatience.) I assure the House that I never
knew a measure of anything like this importance go through with so few attempts to
amend it. Nor do I rise for the mere purpose
of putting my amendment on record, for I
do feel that the views I am about to express,
and which I have ever held since I have been
a member of this House, may not commend
themselves to any considerable number of
hon. members. I have no desire that the
rights of the Roman Catholic minority of
Upper Canada shall be abridged, nor that the
rights and privileges of any other denomination shall be interfered with in any respect.
But I wish hon. members to bear in mind
that the experience we have had in this
country—not to allude to that of the neighboring States. proves that a denial of the
right of the majority to legislate on any
given matter has always led to grave consequences. I need only mention the Clergy
Reserve question. This, it must be recollected, was forbidden to be legislated upon
by the Union Act; yet it was the cause of
fierce strife and legislation for many years.
The original Constitution of the United
States prohibited the question of slavery
from being interfered with by Congress; yet
an agitation for its suppression was early
commenced, and has at last terminated
in civil war. (Hear.) The agitation of
the Clergy Reserve question produced a
rebellion in Upper Canada. I say, sir, that
by making a constitutional restriction in respect to the schools of the minority,
we are
sowing the seeds from which will in the end
arise a serious conflict, unless the Constitution be amended. The minority will be
quite
safe on a question relating to their faith and
their education in a colony under the sway
of the British Crown ; but if you expressly
withdraw that question from the control of
the majority, the rights of the minority will
not be safe in either section of the province,
if you distrust the action of the majority.
It is our duty, sir, to see that a question
which affects us so dearly as the education
of our children —a question which has before
now created no little excitement in Upper
Canada—shall not be withdrawn from the
management of the Local Legislature. We
ought not to deprive them of a power which
they will want to exercise, just because they
are deprived of it, and provoke a desire on
their part to alter the system. You may rely
upon it other religious bodies will be sure
to protest against any particular creed having
special rights, or an exclusive monopoly of
certain privileges, whatever they may be. I
should be astonished if any one in this House
would say, either to the Protestant minority in
Lower Canada or to the Roman Catholic minority in Upper Canada—"You are not to trust
to the justice of the majority." Have they
ever known a country where the majority
did not control affairs, and where the minority
had not to submit ? Does not the majority
rule and the minority submit in England
and in France ? I have never heard of any
state where this was not the case. The
minority is safe against undue encroachment
on its rights, and I am willing to trust to the
sense of justice of the majority in Upper
Canada to preserve the religious and educational liberties of the Roman Catholics
of Upper Canada. I am now getting somewhat advanced in years, and I am the more
anxious to put my opinions on record, because before long shall have the satisfaction
of saying, though perhaps not on the floor of
this House, that I protested against resolutions intended to prevent the free expression
of opinion by the majority of the people
1026
of Upper Canada, and the exercise of a power
which ought to be intrusted to them. My
amendment is :—
That the following words be added to the
original motion :—" And that it be an instruction
to the said Committee to consider whether any
constitutional restriction which shall exclude
from the Local Legislature of Upper Canada the
entire control and direction of education, subject
only to the approval or disapproval of the General
Parliament, is not calculated to create wide-spread
dissatisfaction, and tend to foster and create
jealousy and strife between the various religious
bodies in that section of the province."
If hon. gentlemen think they are going
to silence the bitter feelings which have been
engendered in Upper Canada in consequence
of the attempt to make permanent a certain
system of education, they are much mistaken;
and I desire to have the expression of the
opinion of the members of this House on the
subject, whether they think that the restriction in the proposed Constitution I have
mentioned is calculated to bring about harmony,
and whether it is not better to let the
Catholics of Upper Canada and the Protestants of Lower Canada protect themselves,
or
rather trust for protection to the sense of
justice of their fellow-subjects. (Hear)
MB. A. MACKENZIE— Sir, having
already voted for the whole of these resolutions as part of the scheme, I cannot have
any hesitation in voting against the amendment, but in doing so I desire to explain
my
position. (Hear, hear.) If the hon. member for Cornwall (Hon. J. S. MACDONALD)
had shown the same zeal against the separate
school system when he had the power to
prevent legislation on that subject, he would
have saved himself and the party which
kept him in power some trouble. It seems
curious that he who was so anxious to promote the separate school system then should
now be anxious in quite another direction. (Hear, hear.) This can only be done
for the purpose of party strife, to put
as many of us Upper Canadians as he can
in a false position ; but I can only tell
him that I, having struggled as much
as any one to prevent legislation tending to break up our common school system,
and having found my efforts utterly ineffectual, do not see that our position
would be any worse if the resolutions
are carried into law. (Hear) I formerly
stated that I thought the separate school
system would not prove very disastrous if it
went no further. I do not now think they
will do much harm, if they remain in the
same position as at present, and therefore,
though I am against the separate school
system, I am willing to accept this Confederation, even though it perpetuates a
small number of separate schools. (Hear,
hear.) Under the present legislative union
we are powerless in any movement for the
abrogation of the separate system ; it is even
very doubtful if we could resist the demands
for its extension. (Hear, hear.) We will
not be in any worse position under the new
system, and in one respect we will have a
decided advantage, in that no further change
can be made by the separate school advocates.
We will thus substitute certainty for uncertainty. I deeply regret that the honorable
member should have thought it necessary
for any purpose to move this resolution.
YEAS—Messieurs Biggar, Burwell, Macdonald
(Cornwall), Macdonald (Toronto West) Ross
(Prince Edward), Rymal, Scatcherd, and Wallbridge (North Hastings).—8.
NAYS—Messieurs Abbott, Alleyn, Archam—
bcault, Ault, Beaubien, Bellerose, Blanchet,
Bourassa, Bowman, Bown, Brousseau, Brown,
Cameron (North Ontario), Carling, Caron, Attorney General Cartier, Cartwright, Cauchon,
Chapais, Cockburn, Cornellier, Coupal, Cowan,
Currier, De Boucherville, Denis, De Niverville,
Dickson, Dorion (Drummond and Arthabaska),
Dorion (Hochelaga), Duckett, Dufresne (Iberville), Dufresne (Montcalm), Dunsford,
Evanturel,
Ferguson (Frontenac), Fortier, Galt, Gaucher,
Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gibbs, Harwood, Haultain,
Higginson, Holton, Houde, Howland, Jones
(South Leeds), Knight, Labreche-Viger, Laframboise, Lajoie, Langevin, Le Boutillier,
Atty. Gen.
Macdonald, Mackenzie (Lambton), Mackenzie
(North Oxford), Magill, McConkey , McDougall,
McGee, McGiverin, McIntyre, McKellar, Morris,
Morrison, Pâquet, Parker, Perrault, Pinsonneault, Poulin, Poupore, Powell, Raymond,
RĂ©millard, Robitaille, Rose, Ross (Champlain),
Ross (Dundas), Scoble, Shanly, Smith (East
Durham), Smith (Toronto East), Somerville,
Stirton, Sylvain, Thompson, Tremblay, Walsh,
Webb, Wells, White, Willson, and Wood.—95.
That the followin words he added to the
original motion :—" And that it be an instruction
to the said Committee to provide that the Roman
Catholic minority of Upper Canada be placed on
the same footing as the Protestant minority of
Lower Canada, under the local governments of
the Confederation of the Provinces of British
North America."
1027
This was negatived on the following division :—
Yeas.—Messieurs Bourassa, Caron, Coupal,
Dorion (Drummond and Arthabaska), Dorion
(Hochelaga), Dufresne (Iberville), Fortier, Geoffrion, Holton, Houde, Labreche-Viger,
Laframboise, Lajoie, Macdonald (Cornwall), O'Halloran,
Pâquet, Perrault, Pinsonneault, Rymal, and Sylvain.—20.
Nays.—Messieurs Abbott, Alleyn, Archambeault, Ault, Beaubien Bellerose, Biggar, Blanchet,
Bowman, Bown, Brousseau, Brown, Burwell
Cameron (North Ontario), Carling, Atty. Gen.
Cartier, Cartwright, Cauchon, Chapais, Cockburn,
Cornellier, Cowan, Currier, De Boucherville,
Denis, De Niverville, Dickson, Duckett, Dufresne
(Montcalm), Dunsford, Evanturel, Ferguson
(Frontenac), Ferguson (South Simcoe), Galt,
Gaucher, Gaudet, Gibbs. Harwood, Haultain,
Higginson, Howland, Jones (South Leeds),
Knight, Langevin, Le Boutillier, Atty. Gen. Macdonald, Macdonald (Toronto West), Mackenzie
(Lambton), Mackenzie (North Oxford), Magill,
McConkey, McDougall, McGee, McGiverin, McIntyre, McKellar, Morris, Morrison, Parker,
Poulin, Poupore, Powell, Raymond, RĂ©millard, Robitaille, Rose, Ross (Champlain), Ross
(Dundas),
Ross (Prince Edward), Scatcherd, Scoble, Shanly,
Smith (East Durham), Smith (Toronto East),
Somerville, Stirton, Thompson, Tremblay, Wallbridge (North Hastings), Walsh, Wells,
White,
Willson, Wood, and Wright (East York).—85.
The main motion was then agreed to on a
division, and a select committee appointed
accordingly.
TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal
subjects, the Commons of Canada, in Parliament
assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty for
the purpose of praying that Your Majesty may be
graciously pleased to cause a measure to be submitted to the Imperial Parliament for
the purose of uniting the Colonies of Canada, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and
Prince Edward Island in one Government, with
provisions based on the accompanying resolutions,
which were adopted at a Conference of Delegates
from the said Colonies, held at the city of Quebec,
on the tenth of October, 1864. All which we,
the Commons of Canada, humbly pray Your
Majesty to take into Your gracious and favorable
consideration.
1. The best interests and present and future
prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal Union under the
Crown of
Great Britain, provided such union can be effected on principles just to the several
Provinces.
2. In the Federation of the British North
American Provinces, the system of Government
best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interests of
the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working
of the Union, would be
a General Government charged with matters of
common interest to the whole country, and
Local Governments for each of the Canadas, and
for the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, charged
with the
control of local matters in their respective sections,—provision being made for the
admission
into the Union, on equitable terms, of Newfoundland, the North-West Territory, British
Columbia
and Vancouver.
3. In framing a Constitution for the General
Government, the Conference, with a view to the
perpetuation of our connection with the Mother
Country, and the promotion of the best interests
of the people of these Provinces, desire to follow
the model of the British Constitution, so far as
our circumstances will permit.
4. The Executive Authority or Government
shall be vested in the Sovereign of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be
administered according to the well-understood
principles of the British Constitution, by the
Sovereign personally, or by the Representative of
the Sovereign duly authorized.
5. The Sovereign or Representative of the
Sovereign shall be Commander-in-Chief of the
Land and Naval Militia Forces.
6. There shall be a General Legislature or
Parliament for the Federated Provinces, composed of a Legislative Council and a House
of
Commons.
7. For the purpose of forming the Legislative
Council, the Federated Provinces shall be considered as consisting of three divisions
: 1st,
Upper Canada ; 2nd, Lower Canada ; 3rd, Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island ; each division with an equal representation in the Legislative Council. .
8. Upper Canada shall be represented in the
Legislative Council by 24 members, Lower Canada by 24 members, and the three Maritime
Provinces by 24 members, of which Nova Scotia
shall have 10, New Brunswick 10, and Prince
Edward Island 4 members.
9. The Colony of Newfoundland shall be entitled to enter the proposed Union with a
representation in the Legislative Council of four members.
10. The North-West Territory, British Columbia and Vancouver shall be admitted into
the
Union on such terms and conditions as the Parliament of the Federated Provinces shall
deem
equitable, and as shall receive the assent of Her
Majesty ; and in the case of the Province of British Columbia or Vancouver, as shall
be agreed
to by the Legislature of such Province.
11. The Members of the Legislative Council
shall be appointed by the Crown under the Great
Seal of the General Government, and shall hold
office during life ; if any Legislative Councillor
1028
shall, for two consecutive sessions of Parliament,
fail to give his attendance in the said Council, his
seat shall thereby become vacant.
12. The Members of the Legislative Council
shall be British subjects by birth or naturalization, of the full age of thirty years,
shall possess
a continuous real property qualification of four
thousand dollars over and above all incumbrances,
and shall be and continue worth that sum over
and above their debts and liabilities; but in the
case of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island,
the property may be either real or personal.
13. If any question shall arise as to the qualification of a Legislative Councillor,
the same
shall be determined by the Council.
14. The first selection of the Members of the
Legislative Council shall be made, except as regards Prince Edward Island, from the
Legislative
Councils of the various Provinces so far as a
sufficient number be found qualified and willing
to serve; such Members shall be appointed by
the Crown at the recommendation of the General
Executive Government, upon the nomination of
the respective Local Governments, and in such
nomination due regard shall be had to the claims
of the Members of the Legislative Council of the
opposition in each Province, so that all political
parties may, as nearly as possible, be fairly represented.
15. The Speaker of the Legislative Council
(unless otherwise provided by Parliament) shall
be appointed by the Crown from among the Members of the Legislative Council, and shall
hold
office during pleasure, and shall only be entitled
to a casting vote on an equality of votes.
16. Each of the twenty-four Legislative Councillors representing Lower Canada in the
Legislative Council of the General Legislature shall be
appointed to represent one of the twenty-four
Electoral Divisions mentioned in Schedule A of
Chapter first of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, and such Councillor shall reside
or possess
his qualification in the Division he is appointed
to represent.
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 |
| Prince Edward Island ...... |
5 |
18. Until the Official Census of 1871 has been
made up, there shall be no change in the number
of Representatives from the several sections.
19. Immediately after the completion of the
Census of 1871 and immediately after every decennial census thereafter, the Representation
from
each section in the House of Commons shall be
readjusted on the basis of Population.
20. For the purpose of such readjustments,
Lower Canada shall always be assigned sixty-five
Members, and each of the other sections shall,
at each readjustment, receive, for the ten years
then next succeeding, the number of Members
to which it will be entitled on the same ratio of
Representation to Population as Lower Canada
will enjoy according to the Census last taken, by
having sixty-five Members.
21. No reduction shall be made in the number
of Members returned by any section, unless its
population shall have decreased, relatively to the
population of the whole Union, to the extent of
five per centum.
22. In computing at each decennial period the
number of Members to which each section is entitled, no fractional parts shall be
considered,
unless when exceeding one-half the number entitling to a Member, in which case a Member
shall be given for each such fractional part.
23. The Legislature of each Province shall
divide such Province into the proper number of
constituencies, and define the boundaries of each
of them.
24. The Local Legislature of each Province
may, from time to time, alter the Electoral Districts for the purposes of Representation
in such
Local Legislature, and distribute the Representatives to which the Province is entitled
in such
Local Legislature, in any manner such Legislature may see fit.
25. The number of Members may at any time
be increased by the General Parliament,—regard
being bad to the proportionate rights then ex—
istin .
26. Until provisions are made by the General
Parliament, all the laws which, at the date of
the Proclamation constituting the Union, are in
force in the Provinces respectively, relating to
the qualification and disqualification of any person to be elected, or to sit or vote
as a Member
of the Assembly in the said Provinces respectively, and relating to the qualification
or disqualification of voters, and to the oaths to be taken by
voters, and to Returning Officers and their powers and duties,——and relating to the
proceedings
at Elections, and to the period during which
such elections may be continued,—and relating
to the Trial of Controverted Elections, and the
proceedings incident thereto,—and relating to the
vacating of seats of Members, and to the issuing
and execution of new Writs, in case of any seat
being vacated otherwise than by a dissolution—
shall respectively apply to elections of Members
to serve in the House of Commons, for places
situate in those Provinces respectively.
27. Every House of Commons shall continue
for five years from the day of the return of the
writs choosing the same, and no longer; subject,
nevertheless, to be sooner prorogued or dissolved
by the Governor.
28. There shall be a Session of the General
Parliament once, at least, in every year, so that a
period of twelve calendar months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the
General
Parliament in one Session, and the first sitting
thereof in the next Session.
1029
29. The General Parliament 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 :—
1. The Public Debt and Property.
2. The regulation of Trade and Commerce.
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 Coal
and other Minerals from Nova Scotia.
4. The imposition or regulation of Excise
Duties.
5. The raising of money by all or any other
modes or systems of Taxation.
6. The borrowing of money on the Public
Credit.
7. Postal Service.
8. Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways,
Canals and other works, connecting
any two or more of the Provinces
together, or extending beyond the
limits of any Province.
9. Lines of Steamships between the Federated Provinces and other Countries.
10. Telegraph Communication and the Incorporation of Telegraph Companies.
11. All such works as shall, although lying
wholly within any Province, be specially declared by the Acts authorizing them to
be for the general advantage.
12. The Census.
13. Militia—Military and Naval Service and
Defence.
14. Beacons, Buoys and Light Houses.
15. Navigation and Shipping.
16. Quarantine.
17. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
18. Ferries between any Provinces and a Foreign country, or between any two
Provinces.
19. Currency and Coinage.
20. Banking—Incorporation of Banks, and
the issue of Paper Money.
21. Savings Banks.
22. Weights and Measures.
23. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
24. Interest.
25. Legal Tender.
26. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
27. Patents of Invention and Discovery.
28. Copy Rights.
29. Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians.
30. Naturalization and Aliens.
31. Marriage and Divorce.
32. The Criminal Law, excepting the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction,
but including the procedure in
Criminal matters.
33. Rendering uniform all or any of the laws
relative to property and civil rights
in Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince
Edward Island, and rendering uniform
the procedure of all or any of the
Courts in these Provinces ; but any
statute for this purpose shall have no
force or authority in any Province
until sanctioned by the Legislature
thereof.
34. The establishment of a General Court of
Appeal for the Federated Provinces.
35. Immigration.
36. Agriculture.
37. And generally respecting all matters of a
general character, not specially and
exclusively reserved for the Local
Governments and Legislatures.
30. The General Government and Parliament
shall have all powers necessary or proper for
performing the obligations of the Federated
Provinces, as part of the British Empire, to
foreign countries, arising under Treaties between
Great Britain and such countries.
31. The General Parliament may also, from
time to time, establish additional Courts, and the
General Government may appoint Judges and
oflicers thereof, when the same shall appear
necessary or for the public advantage, in order to
the due execution of the laws of Parliament.
32. All Courts, Judges, and officers of the several Provinces shall aid, assist and
obey the General Government in the exercise of its rights and
powers, and for such purposes shall be held to be
Courts, Judges and officers of the General Government.
33. The General Government shall appoint
and pay the Judges of the Superior Courts in each
Province, and of the County Courts in Upper
Canals, and Parliament shall fix their salaries.
34. Until the consolidation of the Laws of
Upper Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, the
Judges of these Provinces, appointed by the General Government, shall be selected
from their
respective Bars.
35. The Judges of the Courts of Lower Canada shall be selected from the Bar of Lower
Canada.
36. The Judges of the Court of Admiralty
now receiving salaries, shall be paid by the General Government.
37. The Judges of the Superior Courts shall
hold their offices during good behaviour and
shall be removable only on the Address of both
Houses of Parliament. .
38. For each of the Provinces there shall be
an Executive Officer, styled the Lieutenant-Governor, who shall be appointed by the
Governor
General in Council, under the Great Seal of the
Federated Provinces, during pleasure: such
pleasure not to be exercised before the expiration
of the first five years, except for cause: such
cause to be communicated in writing to the
Lieutenant-Governor immediately after the exercise of the pleasure as aforesaid, and
also by
Message to th Houses of Parliament, within
the first week of the first session afterwards.
1030
39. The Lieutenant-Governor of each Province shall be paid by the General Government.
40. In undertaking to pay the salaries of the
Lieutenant-Governors, the Conference does not
desire to prejudice the claim of Prince Edward
Island upon the Imperial Government for the
amount now paid for the salary of the Lieutenant-
Governor thereof.
41. The Local Government and Legislature of
each Province shall be constructed in such manner as the existing Legislature of each
such Province shall rovide.
42. The Local Legislature shall have power to
alter or amend their Constitution from time to
time.
43. 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 Goals and other Minerals.
2. Borrowing money on the credit of the
Province.
3. The establishment and tenure of local
offices, and the appointment and payment of local officers.
4. Agriculture.
5. Immigration.
6. 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.
7. The sale and management of Public Lands,
excepting lands belonging to the
General Government.
8. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
9. The establishment, maintenance and
management of Penitentiaries, and
Public and Reformatory Prisons.
10. The establishment, maintenance and
management of Hospitals, Asylums,
Charities and Eleemosynary Institutions.
ll. Municipal Institutions.
12. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer and
other Licenses.
Local Works.
14. The incorporation of Private or Local
Companies, except such as relate to
matters assigned to the General Parliament.
15. Property and Civil Rights, excepting those
portions thereof assigned to the General Parliament.
16. Inflicting punishment by fine, penalties,
imprisonment or otherwise, for the
breach of laws passed in relation to
any subject within their jurisdiction.
17. 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.
18. And generally all matters of a private or
local nature, not assigned to the General Parliament.
44. The power of respiting, reprieving, and
pardoning prisoners convicted of crimes, and of
commuting and remitting of sentences in whole
or in part, which belongs of right to the Crown,
shall be administered by the Lieutenant-Governor
of each Province in Council, subject to any
instructions he may, from time to time, receive
from the General Government, and subject to
any provisions that may be made in this behalf
by the General Parliament.
45. In regard to all subjects over which jurisdiction belongs to both the General
and Local
Legislatures, the laws of the General Parliament
shall control and supersede those made by the
Local Legislature, and the latter shall be void so
far as they are repugnant to, or inconsistent with,
the former.
46. 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, and also in the Federal Courts
and in the Courts of Lower Canada.
47. No lands or property belonging to the
General or Local Governments shall be liable to
taxation.
48. All Bills for appropriating any part of the
Public Revenue, or for imposing any new Tax or
Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons
or House of Assembly, as the case may be.
49. The House of Commons or House of Assembly shall not originate or pass any Vote,
Resolution, Address or Bill for the appropriation
of any part of the Public Revenue, or of any
Tax or Impost to any purpose, not first recommended by Message of the Governor General
or
the Lieutenant-Governor, as the case may be,
during the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill is passed.
50. Any Bill of the General Parliament may
be reserved in the usual manner for Her Majesty's
assent, and any Bill of the Local Legislatures
may, in like manner, be reserved for the consideration of the Governor General.
51. Any Bill passed by the General Parliament shall be subject to disallowance by
Her
Majesty within two years, as in the case of Bills
passed by the Legislatures of the said Provinces
hitherto ; and, in like manner, any Bill passed by
a Local Legislature shall be subject to disallowance by the Governor General within
one year
after the passing thereof.
52. The Seat of Government of the Federated
Provinces shall be Ottawa, subject to the
Royal Prerogative.
53. Subject to any future action of the respective Local Governments, the Seat of
the Local
Government in Upper Canada shall be Toronto ;
of Lower Canada, Quebec; and the Seats of the
Local Governments in the other Provinces shall
be as at present.
1031
54. All Stocks, Cash Bankers' Balances and
Securities for money belonging to each Province
at the time of the union, except as hereinafter
mentioned, shall belong to the General Government.
55. The following Public Works and Property
of each Province shall belong to the General
Government, to wit :—
1. Canals.
2. Public Harbours.
3. Light Houses and Piers.
4. Steamboats, Dredges and Public Vessels.
5. River and Lake Improvements.
6. Railway and Railway Stocks, Mortgages
and other debts due by Railway Companies.
7. Military Roads.
8. Custom Houses, Post Offices and other
Public Buildings, except such as may
be set aside by the General Government for the use of the Local Legislatures and Governments.
9. Property transferred by the Imperial
Government and known as Ordnance
Property.
l0. Armories, Drill Sheds, Military Clothing
and Munitions of War ; and
11. Lands set apart for public purposes.
56. All Lands, Mines, Minerals and Royalties
vested in Her Majesty in the Provinces of Upper
Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, for the
use of such Provinces, shall belong to the Local
Government of the territory in which the same
are so situate; subject to any trusts that may
exist in respect to any of such lands or to any
interest of other persons in respect of the same.
57. All sums due from purchasers or lessees of
such lands, mines or minerals at the time of the
Union, shall also belong to the Local Governments.
58. All Assets connected with such portions of
the Public Debt of any Province as are assumed
by the Local Governments, shall also belong to
those Governments respectively.
59. The several Provinces shall retain all other
Public Property therein, subject to the right of
the General Government to assume any Lands or
Public Property required for Fortifications or the
Defence of the Country.
60. The General Government shall assume all
the Debts and Liabilities of each Province.
61. The Debt of Canada, not Specially assumed
by Upper and Lower Canada respectively, shall
not exceed, at the time of the Union, $62,500,000;
Nova Scotia shall enter the Union with a debt not
exceeding $8,000,000; and New Brunswick with
a debt not exceeding $7,000,000.
62. In case Nova Scotia or New Brunswick do
not incur liabilities beyond those for which their
Governments are now bound. and which shall
make their debts. at the date of Union, less than
$8,000,000 and $7,000,000 respectively, they
shall be entitled to interest at five per cent. on
the amount not so incurred, in like manner as is
hereinafter provided for Newfoundland and Prince
Edward Island; the foregoing resolution being
in no respect intended to limit the powers given
to the respective Governments of those Provinces by Legislative authority, but only
to limit
the maximum amount of charge to be assumed
by the General Government ; provided always,
that the powers so conferred by the respective
Legislatures shall be exercised within five years
from this date, or the same shall then elapse.
63. Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island,
not having incurred debts equal to those of the
other Provinces, shall be entitled to receive, by
half-yearly payments, in advance, from the General Government, the interest at five
per cent. on
the difference between the actual amount of their
respective debts at the time of the union, and
the average amount of indebtedness per head of
the population of Canada, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick.
64. In consideration of the transfer to the
General Parliament of the powers of taxation,
an annual grant in aid of each Province shall be
made, equal to eighty cents er head of the population, as established by the Census
of 1861;
the population of Newfoundland being estimated
at 130,000. Such aid shall be in full settlement
of all future demands upon the General Government for local purposes, and shall be
paid half-
yearly in advance to each Province.
65. The position of New Brunswick being
such as to entail large immediate charges upon
her local revenues, it is agreed that for the period of ten years from the time when
the Union
takes effect, an additional allowance of $63,000
per annum shall be made to that Province . But
that so long as the liability of that Province remains under $7,000,000, a deduction
equal to the
interest on such deficiency shall be made from
the $63,000.
66. In consideration of the surrender to the
General Government, by Newfoundland, of all its
rights in Mines and Minerals and of all the ungranted and unoccupied Lands of the
Crown, it
is agreed that the sum of $150,000 shall each
year be paid to that Province by semi-annual
payments; provided that that Colony shall retain
the right of opening, constructing and controlling roads and bridges through any of
the said
lands, subject to any laws which the General Parliament may pass in respect of the
same.
67. All engagements that may, before the
Union, be entered into with the Imperial Government for the defence of the country,
shall be assumed by the General Government.
68. The General Government shall secure,
without delay, the completion of the Intercolonial
Railway from Rivière du Loup, through New
Brunswick, to Truro in Nova Scotia.
69. The communications with the North-Western Territory, and the improvements required
for the development of the trade of the Great
West with the seaboard, are regarded by this
Conference as subjects of the highest importance
to the Federated Provinces, and shall be prosecuted at the earliest possible period
that the state
of the finances will permit.
1032
70. The sanction of the Imperial and Local
Parliaments shall be sought for the Union of the
Provinces, on the principLes adopted by the Conference.
71. That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited
to determine the rank and name of the Federated
Provinces.
72. The proceedings of the Conference shall
be authenticated by the signatures of the Delegates, and submitted by each Delegation
to its
own Government, and the Chairman is authorized to submit a copy to the Governor General
for transmission to the Secretary of State for the
Colonies.
The said Address, being read a second time,
was agreed to on a division.
On motion of Hon. Atty. General MACDONALD, an humble Address was voted to
His Excellency, praying that he will be leased
to transmit the foregoing Address to er Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for
the
Colonies, to be laid at the foot of the Throne.
On motion of Hon. Atty. General MAC, the foregoing Address was ordered
to be engrossed. '
Ordered, That the said Address be presented to His Excellency by the whole House.
Ordered, That such Members of the Executive Council as are Members of this House,
do wait upon His Excellency to know what
time he will please to appoint to be attended
with the said Address.
Hon. Atty. General MACDONALD then
informed the House, that His Excellency will
be pleased to receive the House with its Address, to-morrow, at 3.30 P.M.
The House then adjourned.
PRINTED BY HUNTER, ROSE & CO., ST. UBSULE STREET, QUEBEC.
This individual participated in:
