161
MONDAY, February 13, 1865.
HON. MR. REESOR—Honorable gentlemen, as the question now under consideration involves a change in
the constitution, not
only of this House but of the whole of the
British American Provinces, I think that more
time ought to be given to it ; and my object
in now rising, is to urge upon this Honorable
House the propriety of adjourning this debate—say for ten ays. (No! no!) Many
new features have been developed since the
162
discussion opened that were not before properly understood. The question has not been
sufficiently understood in the country, and
even now I doubt whether the proposed
changes are thoroughly comprehended, in both
branches of the Legislature. Constitutions are
not usually made in a day, and they should
not be passed in a week ; they are matters of
too grave a character. I trust, if we make a
new Constitution, it will be one that will be
sustained not for ten or twenty years, but for
centuries. It is to be hoped that every change
which is made will be of the right character,
and in accordance with the interests of the
country ; not such a change as will have to be
repealed again in a few years.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Will the hon.
gentleman make a motion on this subject, or
shall we continue the debate without that
motion ?
HON. MR. REESOR.—I have in my hand
a resolution, which I propose to submit to the
House shortly.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Does the hon.
gentleman intend to choke off discussion now ?
Surely that is not desirable.
HON. MR. REESOR—The hon. gentleman
knows we do not desire to choke off discussion.
If any persons are anxious that the discussion
should be choked off, they are those who are
desirous of pushing through this measure with
undue haste. There are many reasons why
the discussion of this question should be delayed. First, its very great importance
;
secondly, to enable us to obtain more information upon it. It is well known that very
eloquent and effective speeches have been made
in the other branch of the Legislature, which
have not yet been published in full, and without which we cannot so thoroughly understand
what arguments are made in favor of the
measure, as is desirable. I beg to move that
this debate be adjourned for ten days.
HON. MR. MOORE—I agree with the
hon. gentleman who has made this motion that
the question now before us is a very important
one, and should be fully considered in all its
bearings, both by this House and the people
of the province at large. I think, with him,
that we ought to have the benefit of the perusal of the able and eloquent speeches
which
have been made in the other branch of the
Legislature, and in this branch also ; and inasmuch as they have postponed the discussion
in
the other branch of the Legislature, I apprehend
there would be nothing improper in our doing
so too. Again, there are other contracting
parties to this measure, viz., the Lower Prov
inces, which are equally interested with ourselves. In Nova Scotia the Legislature,
I
understand, is in session, and by telegraphic
communication, from day to day, we could
ascertain the feeling of the people there. This
would not at all retard the action of this
House, for it is known that business is usually
despatched with more rapidity here than in the
other. Nothing, it seems to me, will be lost,
but, on the contrary, much gained by a temporary postponement of the debate. (Hear,
hear.) I desire to place my views on the
whole subject before this House, but I desire
to give them only after the matter has been
calmly and deliberately discussed. The question is one which concerns us all. I do
not
think the discussion of it should be entered
upon with any party spirit or any party feeling. Our interests are all the same, whether
for weal or woe. If the measure be a good
one—if the project for our Confederation be
a salutary one—if it be a panacea for all the
existing evils of our body politic—a little
time given for reflection can do it no harm.
(Hear.) When we come to the discussion of
the scheme, there are several important points
to be cleared up. We have yet to ascertain
the respective and relative powers of the
federal and local governments, and it is desirable that ample time should be given
to the
Government for the answering of questions
upon this subject. Then we have to receive
explanations about the export duty on coal
and other minerals—whether this export duty
is to be levied by or on behalf of the Local
Government of Nova Scotia after Confederation, and whether it is to be levied on all
coal exported, or not upon coal exported to
other sections of the proposed union. Again,
in regard to the export duty on the lumber of
New Brunswick, is it to be applied, as I
understand it, to the local revenue of that
province ? Then, as to the stumpage duty
on that portion of the Crown domain appertaining to Lower Canada, is that to be applied
to the purposes of the Local Government of
Lower Canada ?
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I shall be very
happy to give my hon. friend, from time to
time, as the questions may be put, all the
information he may desire.
HON. MR. MOORE—It is certainly desirable that they should be answered, either by
the hon. the Premier or the hon. the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and it does appear
to me that it would be profitable for the
House to postpone the debate, to afford time
for doing so fully.
163
The question being put, the amendment
was lost on the following vote :—
CONTENTS :—Honorable Messieurs Aikins,
Archambault, Armstrong, Bennett, Chaffers,
Cormier, Currie, A. J. Duchesnay, Flint, Leonard,
Leslie, McDonald, Moore, Olivier, Perry, Proulx,
Reesor, Seymour, and Simpson.—19.
NON-CONTENTS :—Honorable Messieurs Alexander, Allan, Armand, Sir N. F. Belleau, Fergusson
Blair, Blake, Boulton, Bossé, Bull,
Burnham, Campbell, Christie, Crawford, De
Beanjeu, Dickson, E. H. J. Duchesnay, Dumouchel, Ferrier, Foster, Gingras, Hamilton
(Inkerman), Hamilton (Kingston), Lacoste, McCrea,
McMaster, Macpherson, Matheson, Mills, Panet,
Prud'homme, Read, Ross, Shaw, Skead, Sir E.
P. Tache, Vidal, and Wilson.—37.
HON. MR. REESOR—I shall be very
brief in the remarks I have now to make to
the House. I do not object to the objects of
these resolutions, or to the measure
per se,
but I do object to some of its details. I hope
to see a union of the British North American
Colonies effected, but what I am anxious for
is that the conditions of the union may be so
satisfactory and well considered, that there
will not be embraced therein the seeds of
future disruption, or anything that will give
rise to a desire on the part of any of the provinces to separate from the union, or
prevent
other portions of British North America
coming in hereafter and forming parts of this
proposed Confederation. I hope we shall be
some day a great British North American
Confederacy, but that is the greater reason
why the terms of the agreement should be of
such a character that we can all, or nearly all,
approve of them. We must bear in mind,
also, that one reason why those who were
heretofore the exponents of the views of two
great political parties are all on one side at
the present time, arises from the very peculiar
circumstances in which the country has been
placed for the last eight or ten years. Those
who support this measure have given as reasons
for it that we have had so many political
crises, and the changes have been so varied,
that it becomes necessary for some great constitutional change to be made. They have
at the
same time carefully enumerated the political
changes that have taken place during the past
four or five years. First we had the CARTIER-
MACDONALD Administration, which was sustained in the Assembly by a very small
majority for two or three sessions. Then we
had the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government
sustained by a very slim majority. Then the
MACDONALD—DORION Government, scarcely any
stronger, Then again the TACHE-MACDON
ALD Government with an equally slim majority ;—so that we were really in a state of
political crisis like that of a merchant, who,
having suffered many losses in business affairs,
yet, with his credit still good, at last becomes
confused, and, incapable of exercising his judgment, launches into some scheme that
proves
ruinous, whereas calmness and deliberation
might have retrieved his situation. We had
three governments formed within as many
years, each failing in turn to administer affairs
to the satisfaction of the people. We had, in
the TACHÉ-MACDONALD cabinet, a Finance
Minister on whom a vote of censure of the most
serious character was passed, which amounted
to a vote of want of confidence in the whole
Government. At that time we had in opposition the gentleman who is now the President
of the Council, who had contended for ten
years for a change of the constitutional relations between Upper and Lower Canada.
He
failed to accomplish his object. He could not
consistently ally himself with his opponents
without some new scheme to lay before the
country. To form a government, he could
not. The Finance Minister being condemned,
the government was bound to reconstruct or
resign. Each party desired to rule, but
neither was able. Out of political adversity
grew political desperation. It was called by
some a political millennium, and perhaps it
was ; but matters were just in that shape to
induce parties to take up almost any new
scheme, as in this case, in which I think they
have gone on quite too rapidly. They have
not deliberated sufficiently to propose a measure of that mature character which the
country had a right to expect. Perhaps as
good a measure has been brought out as could
have been, considering the short time that has
elapsed, and the disadvantages under which
they labored during the discussion of the
scheme. But it must be admitted that when
this measure was agreed to by our Government,
they adopted a hasty course. The country
heard only one side of the question. (Hear)
They had the great daily newspapers, the
chief organs of public opinion of both political parties, all on their side, and there
was only
a small portion of the country press, and that
not widely circulated, that gave the opposite
side of the question. And so it has been
going on up to the present time ; and now we
have the scheme brought before us in
its present shape. I consider that, under
these circumstances, it is our duty to give
very serious attention to the question, before
we adopt it as it is. (Hear, hear.) I fur
164
ther think, and I know many others agree
with me, that these resolutions may be amended in some points, and yet without in
the
slightest degree endangering the whole scheme.
But the Government say, "you must take the
whole measure, or no part of it." I very
much fear that the determination of the Government in this respect is, if I may so
speak,
father to their wish. That they have fallen
in love with their scheme. It is their pet
measure—their bantling—and they wish to
get it through, without any amendment,
just as it is. Suppose amendments are
proposed that really can only affect Canada,
and cannot affect our relations with the other
provinces at all ; what reason is there that
these amendments should not be made ? The
Government can surely communicate with the
other provinces, and get their assent. At the
same time, while I am speaking on these particular points, I must express my dissent
from certain other features of the resolutions, but they
are features, I fear, that we can do nothing to
alter now, for we shall be obliged, as the Government say, to adopt the whole of the
resolutions or none.
HON. MR. REESOR—Yes, that is the
point in reference to certain of these resolutions, but not with regard to others.
Two
years ago the Government of Canada had a
conference with members of the governments
of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and in
that conference agreed that upon certain conditions, if the money could be obtained,
with
the guarantee of the home Government, at
a certain rate of interest, the Intercolonial
Railway should be built, and they further
agreed that Canada should only have to pay
five-twelfths of the cost, which was then estimated, as it was stated, at twelve millions
of
dollars. I believe, on good authority, that a
company offered to build the road for twelve
millions of dollars, and undertook to run it,
without any additional charge, for twelve
years.
HON. MR. CURRIE—It was three million
pounds sterling, or fifteen millions of dollars.
HON. MR. REESOR—Perhaps it was ;
but let us suppose that the estimates should
be as high as they are at present ; let us conceive the fact as possible that the
company
might fail to complete the road without more
aid ; and that it might have cost as much as
is now estimated, namely, eighteen millions
of dollars,—still Canada would only have had
five-twelfths of this to pay. But here, in
the short space of two years, we have had
such a change, such a sudden change, that one
statesman of Canada, a man of very great influence, and who now presides over the
administration of affairs in this country, the President
of the Council, who opposed that scheme be
cause it involved too large an expenditure for
Canada to incur—
HON. MR. ROSS—He does not preside
over the administration of affairs.
HON. MR. REESOR—We call president
the man who presides, and he presides because he is president — who opposed that
scheme because it was alleged Canada was
paying far more than her just proportion but is
now in favor of it. Had it not been so strongly opposed by a man in such a position,
and
had the Government not been so weak, I believe the scheme would have been carried
out.
He who opposed it was one who had been
twenty years in public life ; his opinion was
justly considered valuable, and many were
disposed to agree with it. Had the ministry
gone to the country then, taking the Inter-
colonial Railroad on their backs, I venture to
say they would have been totally defeated.
They would have had a large majority against
them in Upper Canada, and I think a majority against them in Lower Canada also.
But how is it now ? Why, this Intercolonial
Railway is to be built out of the funds of the
Intercolonial Government that is proposed to
be established, so that instead of Canada having to pay only five-twelfths of the
whole cost,
she will have to pay ten-twelfths. (Hear,
hear.) This will involve five to seven millions
of dollars of an expense more than we had
any occasion for incurring, for the other provinces were all willing to have been
responsible for the rest, and there is very good reason why they should. The countries
to be
benefited by the Intercolonial Railway are
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, but especially the former. In that province there is
an
extensive wilderness, with some valuable timber limits, if not much farming land,
through
which this road will have to pass, and every
acre of land within twenty or thirty miles of
the road will be largely increased in value.
New Brunswick would gain that advantage,
while as for Nova Scotia, Halifax, its chief
port, will be made an outlet by the construction of the line, and will of course be
largely
benefited, so that they were only proposing
what was fair and equitable ; but in coming
down with a scheme which involves us in
twice as great an expenditure as was formerly
contemplated, they seem not to have been
165
satisfied, unless we handed over to the Federal
Government our public works. These, hon.
gentlemen, are of immense value to Canada.
By imposing tolls on our canals to an extent
which they would easily bear, and which
would not prevent our carrying on the same
immense trade as at present, we could readily
raise half a million a year. The Welland
canal alone has produced a revenue of $200,000 a year. Well, all such sources of income
are to be thrown into the hands of the Federal
Government, while New Brunswick is to give
us a railway which only pays three-eighths of
one per cent. over its working expenses. This
small sum, remember too, is what is paid now
—two or three years after the construction of
the line—but when the rolling stock gets out
of repair, the rails want renewing, and other
matters usual after a railroad has been sometime working have to be attended to—the
expense of the line to the Federal Government
will constantly increase. The road will be a
drag ; and I say to hon. gentlemen that we
are opening an account without knowing when
it will be closed. (Cheers.) By engaging in
the construction of the Intercolonial Railway,
and the assumption of the New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia lines, we are entering upon
indefinite liabilities—the whole being nonpaying property in which we shall find a
heavy
bill of expense. (Hear, hear.) Then, as if
not satisfied with this, we are giving a sort of
Regium donum of $63,000 for ten years to the
Province of New Brunswick. Again, we are
to purchase for $160,000 a year the mines
and minerals and Crown lands of Newfoundland. Now, I venture to say, we shall not
realize $40,000 a year out of these minerals
and Crown lands. We have a large mining
country ourselves, which we find no very
fertile source of revenue, and though it is
true we have no coal in Canada, we can
get that from Nova Scotia by paying an export
duty and the cost of freight. In the face of
these disadvantages we are entering a union
which, by judicious management, might have
been brought about without involving us in
this immense expense. As I said before, I
desire to see a union, but I want to see it
effected on fair terms. (Hear, hear.) Now,
in regard to the increased trade which it
is said we are likely to get after the union
is effected, I think there will be much disappointment. It strikes me that it will
be
almost impossible to alter the present course
of trade, except by imposing duties on articles
imported from other countries. The Inter-
colonial Railway will be too long, and there
fore freight by it will be too expensive to
divert trade, unless it is run by the Government at the cost of the country, and people
are allowed to carry their goods almost free of
charge. It can hardly be expected that we
shall send breadstuffs over this railway. Even
now it is not pretended that the railway can
bring breadstuffs down as far as Quebec.
HON. MR. ROSS—They get them by water
in the autumn, and store them for winter use.
HON. MR. REESOR—They will be able
in winter time to get their supplies cheaper at
St. John or Halifax by water than by the
Intercolonial Railroad. If they are to buy
our produce, there must be some pecuniary
inducement, for they will not give us half a
dollar a barrel more because the flour comes
from Upper Canada ; and what that inducement is to be I fail to understand, unless
it
be the effect of a heavy customs duty on
foreign breadstuffs. As the channel of trade
now is, the Lower Provinces can buy their
flour cheaper in Boston and New York than
in Canada, and would it be right to compel
their people to take our produce at a greater
cost than they can purchase elsewhere ? It
has been said that they consume $4,000,000
worth of breadstuffs in a year, and many other
articles that might be produced or manufactured in great part in Canada, and is it
likely
the 60,000 fishermen of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick will consent to have a duty of 20
per cent., or any other high duty imposed on
breadstuffs, for the sole purpose of driving
them out of the American and into the Canadian markets ? (Hear, hear.) I question
whether they are not apprehending a difficulty
of this kind now, and on that account unwilling to accept all the inducements we have
held out ; unwilling to take the revenue we
have offered them ; unwilling to yield to the
temptations put before them ; because they
are afraid of the imposition of duties on
breadstuffs, to which they would be liable if
they were to place themselves in the power of
a country represented by so large a vote in the
General Government as Canada will have.
(Hear, hear.) Leaving this question of trade,
we come to the consideration of the constitution of this House. Now, no one has petitioned
against the continuance of the elective system
—no one has complained that it does not work
satisfactorily. We do not see that many of
the elected members are so very much inferior
to the nominated members of this House—
there has been no serious ground for fearing a
dead-lock—yet there is to be a change in
the constitution of the Legislative Council,
166
in conformity, we are told, with the desire of
the Lower Provinces. But we must look a
little further than this. If you canvass the
views of the honorable gentlemen who represented this province at the great Confederation
meeting, you will find that most of them
were inclined beforehand to concur in the
views of the representatives of the eastern
provinces, for they have always entertained
views in opposition to the elective principle as
applied to this House. They acted quite consistently, but it does not follow that
they are
right in making this change. We know that
in former times, when our Legislative Council
was nominated by the Crown, difficulties did
arise. In old times, bills passed by the Assembly were thrown out almost by the hundred.
HON. MR. REESOR—I was about to add
that it was before the introduction of responsible government, and that responsible
government is a cure for many evils, but not to
such an extent as it should be. But under
the system of appointment there is another
evil—the government of the day is particular
in appointing those who are political friends
of their own, and have aided them either
at elections or in ways which may not be
very creditable. (Laughter.) My honorable
friend (Hon. Mr. CRAWFORD) may laugh,
but if he reflects he will remember that he has
himself known men in high positions whose
career was not creditable in all particulars.
However patriotic and anxious to discharge
their duties rightly they might be, their views
were sometimes warped by circumstances.
Looking across the ocean, my honorable friend
will remember that during the Administration
of WILLIAM PITT, who wielded almost the
sole control of Parliament in England for
seventeen years, he appointed, during this
period, 140 members to the House of Lords,
subservient to his own wishes and intent on
carrying out his views. I will just read to
this House a short extract relating to him,
written by a man capable of judging. In
MAY's
Constitutional History we read :—
When Mr. PITT had been eight years in power
he had created between sixty and seventy Peers,
the greater part of whom owed their elevation to
the parliamentary support they had themselves
given to the Ministry or to their influence in returning members to the House of Commons.
Now, when motives of this kind can be attributed to Mr. PITT, we need not say that
similar motives may prevail here.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Does the honorable gentleman suppose that the members of
this House will owe their nomination to the
political services they can render in this
House ?
HON. MR. REESOR—Not solely, but
rather to their political services at elections
and otherwise, before their nomination. The
honorable gentleman will remember a certain
little domestic arrangement he made on the
other side of the House, while in opposition,
in which he had many warm friends. Does
he expect to foget those ?
HON. MR. REESOR—Well, there it is.
The honorable gentleman acknowledges his
determination to reward his political supporters. Is this the way to obtain an independent
branch of the Legislature, one that will operate
as a wholesome check on hasty legislation ?
Those who receive favors from a political party
are not likely to turn their backs upon that
party. I think we are not likely, under any
circumstances, to have a more independent
House under the proposed system than we
now have, or one which will better advance
the interests of the country. If you wish to
raise the elective franchise, for elections to
the Upper House—if you would confine their
election to voters on real estate of $400 assessed value, and tenants holding a lease-hold
of $100 annual value, and thus place these
elections out of the reach of a mere money influence that may sometimes operate upon
the
masses—if you think this body is not sufficiently conservative—let them be elected
by a
more conservative portion of the community—
that portion which has the greatest stake in
the community—but do not strike out the
elective principle altogether. The late Duke
of NEWCASTLE, than whom few British statesmen have had more to do in establishing
new
and liberal constitutions in the various colonies
in the Empire, and whose opinions are very
valuable on this point, wrote as follows to the
Governor of Prince Edward Island, on the
4th of February, 1862 :—
Nor do I think it any way objectionable, but
the contrary, that the Council (as in Canada,
Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania) be incapable of being dissolved by the Governor.
An
Upper Chamber is valuable as an element of stability, and the principal value of an
elective Upper Chamber I conceive to be this,—that while
in virtue of its elective character, it may claim
equally with the Assembly to speak the voice of
the community, it may yet be so composed as to
reflect their settled wishes and principles rather
167
than their transitory impulses. But this advantage would be wholly lost if the whole
body were
chosen or could be removed under the influence
of such an impulse. The first of these dangers
is obviated (or intended to be so) by providing
that half only of the Council shall be elected at
one time. The second, by giving to each Councillor a fixed tenure of office, independent
of any
popular or govermental influence.
Thus, it will be seen, he would place the
Council out of the reach of Government,
while they should be under the influence of
the settled convictions of the people and not
their mere transitory impulse. He would have
them elected by a conservative body of electors. The next clause of the instructions
runs thus :—
In Prince Edward Island, I would enforce a
tolerably high property qualification in the case
of the electors, but of the candidate I would only
require that he should be a British subject, resident in the colony, and thirty years
of age.
This, I think, would be a wise provision here,
because it would give the electors an Opportunity, which they do not now possess,
of selecting their candidates from any part of the
country, so that they could choose the ablest
and most trustworthy men in it, and being
elected by a class who had a deep interest in
the country, you might rely on their not being
too vacillating, but on their proving a proper,
healthy and valuable check on the lower
branch of the Legislature. (Hear, hear.)
Some honorable gentlemen have urged that
the people should not elect their representatives to the Upper House, because it involves
a very great expense on the part of the elected, and because they cannot judge who
is
worthy of their confidence so well as the Government of the day. Now, I argue that
if
the people are unfit to choose members of this
House, the are unfit to choose members of
the other House too. If three counties united
are not able to make a good selection, how
can one-third part of that constituency make
a good one ? And with regard to the corrupt
influences that may be brought to bear, will it
be for a moment said that a large constituency of three counties can be as easily
corrupted as a constituency composed of only one
county ? I think not. I think a more independent vote is brought to bear on the election
of a member of the Upper House than of
the Lower. Yet the members of the Lower
House want to assume the power of dictating
who shall compose the Legislative Council.
A few years ago, at the general elections,
when two men were running, though they
were both conservative, we always found one
taking the ground that no money should be
spent by the Government of the day without
the consent of Parliament, and all the liberal
party, without exception, took that view; yet
now we find that as some of these men have
got into the Government they have unlimited
confidence in the wisdom of the Executive;
they say our very Constitution can be amended within a period of six months without
the
people having anything to say about it; they
now think governments can do no wrong. Of
course, this is in accordance with human nature
—what they themselves do must bo right;
they themselves can do no wrong. (Hear,
hear.) To sum up, honorable gentlemen, I
complain that this arrangement for bringing
about the Confederation of the British North
American Provinces is being made on terms
of great disadvantage to Canada, that a fair
agreement has not been settled upon as between the several colonies. I complain that
in making such an arrangement with the
other provinces, the constitution of this
House should have been interfered with ; and
I complain, finally, of the manner in which
the whole measure is being forced through
the Legislature, without first being submitted to the people for their sanction; and
I
cannot but feel that these proposed changes
so rashly adopted, carry with them the
seeds of their early dissolution—a result
that all should regret who desire the permanent consolidation and well-being of these
colonies. (Cheers)
HON. MR. McCREA—Honorable gentlemen, so much has already been said on the
subject of the Confederation of the British
American Provinces during the course of this
debate, which has now occupied the House
for several days, both here and in the Assembly, by the ablest men in the province,
that I
do not hope to add anything of great weight
or importance to what has been urged on the
question now submitted to our consideration ;
still, I feel that I should neither do justice to
my constituents, who have sent me here, nor
to myself, if I do not upon this occasion
state, with what force I may, the reasons which
induced me to give my hearty approval to this
measure for the Confederation of all these provinces under one government, upon the
basis
of these resolutions which Ministers have laid
upon the table of this House. Very much
has been said, by almost every speaker who
has preceded me, upon the importance of the
subject now before us, and the consequent
responsibility which attaches itself to every
168
individual member of this Honorable House
for the course which he may adopt. I quite
concur with honorable gentlemen that the
present juncture in our again is big with the
future destiny of our country, and that our
fate for weal or woe depends upon the course
we shall now pursue, and I, for one, feel not
the slightest desire to shift one single atom of
the burthen of that responsibility from my
shoulders. I am fully prepared to assume it
at once upon the merits of the scheme as it is
evolved in these resolutions, and I do not
wish to shield myself behind either an adjournment, such as has been proposed by my
honorable friend the member or the division
of King, and which, I am glad to say, has
just been rejected by an unmistakable vote of
this House, or the larger motion, of which my
honorable friend from Niagara has given notice, for an appeal to the people, and to
which
I shall presently again refer. An objection
has been taken
in limine by the honorable
member from Niagara to the constitution of
the Conference which sat at Quebec, that they
were, in the first place, self-appointed ; and, in
the second place, that the great principle of
representation based upon population was not
carried out, because although the Lower Provinces possessed each, and even collectively,
a much smaller population than Canada, yet
they had a much larger number of members
in the Congress than we had. As to the first
objection, of their being self-appointed or self-
constituted, some one had to take the initiative in the matter, and no one had better
authority than the different governments to say
who should represent their respective provinces in the Conference. Will honorable
gentlemen contend that the delegates were self-
appointed when they were appointed by the
Ministry of the day, who are responsible to
the Legislative Assembly, which, in its turn,
is responsible to the people at large ? Then,
as to the second objection, that the numbers
were unequal, the honorable gentleman ought
to know that the principle of representation
by population does not apply to the Conference in the same way that it does to the
representation in this and the other House of
Parliament. Here the vote of every individual member counts upon a division on an
question, and so numbers become of the
utmost importance. But in the Conference
the votes were counted by provinces, and not
by single votes, so that it was impossible that
any one province could be swamped by the
others by reason of their having a larger representation. The only affect of an undue
representation from any province would be to
increase the difficulty the delegates from that
one would have in agreeing among themselves
to any single proposition, or to the propositions as a whole, and it could not, in
any
way, work any injustice to the other provinces. I have no doubt the Conference found
their greatest difficulty in bringing the members of each section to agree among themselves.
(Hear, hear, from the
Hon. Mr.
CAMPBELL.) If the delegates from any
province felt that they could not agree to
any of the questions submitted to them,
they had but to say so, and the scheme of
Confederation, so far as they were concerned,
would have been at an end. The argument
of unfair representation is, therefore, quite
fallacious. There could really be no danger
from the number of representatives not being
in proportion, so long as each province had
the power of protecting itself from any injustice. which might be attempted to be
perpetrated against it by the others. (Hear, hear.)
It has also been objected that the present Canadian Administration was formed upon
the
avowed policy of forming a Federal union
between Upper and Lower Canada only, and
that the Government has exceeded their constitutional powers by substituting an union
of
all the provinces instead of what they had
promised. Do we not all remember that the
avowed policy of the Government was a Federal union of these provinces, I mean Upper
and Lower Canada first, leaving it open to
the Maritime Provinces and the colonies of
the great west to fall into the union whenever they might find it their interest to
do
so? Ministers, no doubt, had not the slightest idea that the larger scheme could be
accomplished as soon if not sooner than the
smaller one. I told my constituents, on coming before them for re-election, that there
was
an urgent necessity for a different union between Upper and Lower Canada from that
which now exists, and that there was not time
to include the Lower Provinces in the first
scheme. But the movement has outrun my
expectation, and I believe that of every
member of the House. And is the House to
reject the larger scheme when it is the easiest
of accomplishment, simply because it had a
secondary place in the ministerial programme?
I think the Charlottetown Conference was a
good opportunity, and that the Government
has acted wisely in putting themselves in communication with it, and in taking up
the
whole union first. But the honorable member from the Wellington Division complains
169
that sufficient time has not been given to the
consideration of the resolutions by the Conference, and cites the case of the American
Constitution, when its framers took, I (Hon.
Mr. MCCREA) know not how many months
longer than our own Conference. But the
honorable member should recollect that we
had all their experience. We could commence where they left off. Their work was
ready to our hands. We had also the experience of the working of their Constitution,
and knew what to avoid. Besides, the
honorable member should recollect that we
live in an age of railroads and lightning telegraphs, of which the revolutionary fathers
knew nothing ; and there is no doubt that
speed in travelling and communication has a
great deal to do in quickening the perceptions of
mankind. Instead of its being made a ground of
accusation against the Government that they
have accomplished so much in so short a time, it
ought rather to redound to their credit. And yet
the honorable member for the Niagara Division
complains that the measure was not infallible.
HON. MR. MCCREA—Well, the hon. gentleman said that it ought to have been " as infallible as fallible
men could make it," and that
"it should do complete justice to all and injustice to none." I took down the exact
words of
the honorable gentleman at the time, and if
the last words do not imply infallibility, they
certainly come very near it. I venture to
assert that if the honorable gentleman were
employed to draw up a simple document of a
few pages, without the interference of any one
to control him, and should refer it to the
revision of any competent person, it would
be found subject to some criticism. How
much less then must we expect a State document like this, the work of so many hands—
where so many conflicting elements were to be
reconciled—where so much had to be insisted
upon on one side and resisted on the other—
should do complete justice to all and injustice to
none, according to the notions of my honorable friend from Niagara ? The wonder is,
not that some fault can be found, but that the
opponents of the measure can find so little.
But it is a little singular that all the gentlemen
who have yet spoken against the resolutions
of the Conference have declared themselves
in favor of Confederation, and yet, by their
motions and their speeches, they are doing
everything in their power to delay and embarrass the measure—certainly a very left-handed
way of showing their support. Honorable
members argue against the details from both
a Canadian and the Maritime point of view,
and still tell us they are favorable to Confederation. Some honorable members declare
that the question is not opposed in Upper
Canada because it is not understood. It is
certainly paying a very poor compliment to
the intelligence of their constituents. The
question has been propounded by eminent
statesmen both in the old country and on this
side of the Atlantic both time and again since
the commencement of the present century,
and has been in the minds of the people ever
since. The reason why it has not been consummated is that no opportunity has ever
presented itself like the present. It had but
to be mentioned to take complete possession of
the minds of the people. Out of thirteen
elections for both branches of the Legislature
which have taken place in Upper Canada
since the scheme of union has been proposed,
every single one, with but one exception, has
resulted in its favor ; and out of six elections
for members of this House, whose original
term of office had expired, four, my own
among the number, I am glad to say, were by
acclamation—I believe chiefly on account of
their declared sentiments in favor of the
scheme. But it is a little inconsistent, I
cannot help saying, that at the same time some
honorable gentlemen complain of the ignorance of Upper Canada on the details of the
measure—by their votes the other day they
refused to allow five hundred extra copies of the
resolutions to be printed for the use of members, that they might distribute them
among
their constituents, proclaiming their ignorance,
and yet withholding the means of information.
But honorable gentlemen attempt to frighten
us with the expenses of the Intercolonial
Railway ; and my honorable friend from
Niagara, arguing from the eastern provincial
point of view, declared they would remember
the Grand Trunk frauds, and avoid a union
with those who had perpetrated them. The
Grand Trunk used to be made an excellent
stalking horse for gentlemen to ride into Parliament upon, and so pleased have honorable
members become with the seat, that even after
having arrived here, they find it very difficult
to dismount. My honorable friend from the
division of King, has just now told us that
we Upper Canadians, by the scheme proposed
by Ministers, will be compelled to pay ten-
twelfths the cost of the railway. Well, I
thought I had read the resolutions with a
great deal of care, and I did not remember
anything which said a single word about the
170
proportionate expense, or about the expense at
all. But, thinking I might be mistaken, I
have taken the trouble to turn them up, and
find there is not one word in them about the
railway except the following. It will be
found in the sixty-eighth resolution, and reads
thus :—" The General Government shall secure
without delay the completion of the Intercolonial Railway, from Riviere du Loup through
New Brunsmck to Truro, in Nova Scotia."
Is there anything here about Upper Canada
having to pay ten-twelfths of the expense ?
HON. MR. REESOR said he had not declared that by the resolutions Upper Canada
should pay ten-twelfths, but that upon calculation, taking into account numbers and
revenue, that would be the effect.
HON. MR. MCCREA—Well, I take the
honorable gentleman's explanation. Does he
wish to enter into a compact with the Maritime Provinces by which we shall not pay
our
fair proportion of our expenses according to
our numbers and our means ? Is he so unjust
as to ask so unfair an advantage ? The fact is,
that the talk about the expenses and stringing
together long rows of figures, is only calculated to bewilder and frighten the friends
of
the scheme. Three millions of dollars a year,
exclaims the member for Niagara, without
making it very plain how, will be added to our
expense for all time to come.
HON. MR. MCCREA—More than that.
Well, what of that ? The amount of debt is
nothing to him who has the means and is willing to pay. It is only unpleasant to the
bankrupt who cannot pay, and to the miser
who hates to part with his gold. Some one has
said that it was a very great drawback to the
morals and prosperity of London, that there
should be fifty-thousand thieves within its
walls. But it was well replied, that it was
rather a source of congratulation that the
metropolis should be able to support so many.
So instead of regretting that we shall have
so much to pay, we ought rather to rejoice
that we shall be able to pay it. Instead of
complaining that in the construction of the
railway, we shall have to pay ten-twelfths,
according to the estimate of my honorable
friend from the division of King, it ought to
be rather a source of pride and satisfaction
to us that we have a large population and
greater resources than our eastern neighbors.
I am as much opposed to needless and extravagant expenditures as any member of this
honorable House, but if the Intercolonial
Railway has become a necessity, we must
not be afraid to undertake it. I am free
to admit there was much needless waste
and expenditure in the construction of the
Grand Trunk Railway, but I question whether
there is a single honorable member of this
House who would to-day, if he could, place
us back where we were before the first sod
was turned in that great undertaking. If
war be imminent between us and the United
States, and actually ensues, the railway will
become an absolute military necessity. And
who can tell but that, at any moment, the
turning of a hand, looking at what has
already happened, we may not be launched
into the very midst of a war. It is, I believe, very well known, that as soon as it
was
learned in Washington that the St. Alban's
raiders had escaped through the bungling and
incompetency, to say the least of it, of the
Montreal officials, the first order of Mr.
SEWARD was one of non-intercourse, but it
was afterwards modified to the passport system. What, honorable gentlemen, would have
been our situation had that order been sent
out, and what guarantee have we that it may
not be sent out at any moment ? But my
honorable friend from Niagara says that the
union of these provinces would not tend to
strengthen our means of defence if, unfortunately, we should be invaded by the United
States forces, because our frontier would be
extended more than in proportion to the increase of our numbers. Does not every one
know that it is the settled conviction of the
military authorities of the States that their
mistake in the last war was invading these
provinces in different places at the same time,
and that, in the event of a second war, their
policy will be to concentrate all their strength
on some one given point—Montreal for instance ? And will my honorable friend contend
that the union and the railway will not
enable us to concentrate a greater force, and
more rapidly, on whatever point danger may
be threatened, and also that they will not
enable us to obtain aid from the British
troops more quickly at any season of the
year ? Then, as to the commercial necessity
of the railway, it does seem to me plain that
when our own Grand Trunk has a connection
with Halifax ; when the Cunard and other
steamers will discharge their valuable freight
and their passengers destined for the far
west at Halifax ; when Toronto will be
brought, in point of time, as near to London
and Liverpool as New York ; it must not only
increase the business of the Grand Trunk,
but also the business of the railways in Nova
171
Scotia and New Brunswick, which are to be
made the property of the General Government. When the connection becomes complete
there must be a mutual advantage to all.
I believe the child is now born in Canada who
will live not only to see an Intercolonial but an
Interoceanic Railway, if this scheme of union
shall be honestly and fairly carried out. The
necessity of the railway has time and again
been admitted by the several governments of
these provinces, but, owing to a want of some
power to control all, and a natural jealousy of
each other, together with our own political
differences, the scheme for its construction has
always fallen through. When visiting the
Maritime Provinces last summer, I told our
friends there that the railway could only be
had by a union—the union first, and the
railway was sure to follow. I come now to
consider the amendment of my honorable
friend from the Wellington Division, and to
which, according to the strict rules of debate,
this discussion should have been confined ; but
I have taken the same course as honorable
gentlemen who have preceded me have done,
namely , to consider the whole scheme. The
amendment brings up the question of members
being appointed for life by the Crown, or
elected for a term of years by the people. I
am among those of the reform party who
think that making the members of this House
elective was a step in the wrong direction ;
and though I am free to admit that but for
the elective principle having been applied to
this House, I should never have had the honor
of a seat within its walls, yet I am prepared to
re-affirm that opinion on the floor of this
House by my voting, as I shall do, against
this amendment of my honorable friend from
Wellington, and to sanction a return to the
nomination of members for life by the Crown,
under the advice of Ministers responsible to
the people through the Legislative Assembly.
I deny that the extension of the elective
principle to this House was ever sought for,
or petitioned for by the people at the time of
its consummation. It is quite true, honorable
gentlemen, that before the union of Upper
and Lower Canada, and during the palmy
days of the Family Compact and the irresponsibility of the Government, when the Assembly
had no control over the Executive, except by
stopping the supplies, the Legislative Council
was chosen for the mere purpose of opposing
the public will, and they did it most effectually.
Every measure calculated to elevate the people
and promote their best interests was sure to
be tomahawked, as the phrase went, by that
very obstructive body. Short-sighted politicians of those days, who did not very well
understand the working of the British Constitution, fancied the only remedy was by
making
this House elective. But the memorable
resolutions of the 3rd September, 1841, at
Kingston, established the true British principle
of responsible government, and I maintain
that since that time the people never demanded
that this House should be made elective. I
apprehend that my conservative friends and I,
who agree with each other on this point—the
nomination of members to this House—come
to the same conclusion by a very different
process of reasoning. They hold that the
elective principle applied to this branch of
Parliament gives too much power to the
people, while I, on the other hand, argue that
they have not by it as quick and as sharp a
remedy against a stubborn Council as they had
under the system of nomination. The great
beauty of the old system was the promptness
with which at the critical moment it could be
brought to bear, and the history of its operations, both in this country and in England,
clearly shews its superiority. My honorable
friend from the division of King has cited the
case of the greatest commoner of England,
the celebrated WILLIAM PITT, having appointed so many members to the House of
Lords within the first few months of his
ministerial career. Did not PITT at that
time command the confidence of the people of
England ? Does not my honorable friend
know, if he has read the history of those times,
that this great statesman steadily refused to
accept office until he saw that public opinion
was ripe for his schemes ? And was not PITT,
at the commencement of his parliamentary
career, the great advocate of parliamentary
reform ? It is true that subsequent causes,
over which he had no control, led him to
pursue a very different course. What if at
the times of the achievements by the people
of those two great victories of civil an religious liberty in England, I mean Catholic
emancipation and the passage of the Reform
Bill, the Crown, through its ministers responsible to the House of Commons and the
English nation, had not had power to coerce
the Lords into consent, but had been
obliged to wait for two years for the doubtful issue of a certain number of elections.
Such have been my opinions with regard to
the comparative merits of the nominative and
elective principles as applied to this House,
and I have not hesitated to express them
among my constituents, both before and since.
172
they honored me with this seat. I admit that
the proposed system is not the same as the old
one, because it limits the numbers, and to this
limitation I have the most serious objections ;
but I am not going to hazard the success of
the union scheme, as I sincerely believe I
would, by voting for the amendment, but I
shall take it as it is, with the hope and belief
that in the new Parliament, when the union is
consummated, the constitution of this House
may be set right. Honorable gentlemen seem to
talk as if this scheme and the Imperial Act to be
founded upon it, are finalities. I do not look
upon any human act as a finality, and I have
no doubt a way will be found by which this
amendment may be made. Was not the Constitutional Act of 1840 amended ? And will
honorable gentlemen tell us that the act to be
founded upon these resolutions cannot be
amended in the same way ?
HON. MR. LETELLIER—Will the honorable gentleman tell us how the Act of 1840
was amended ?
HON. MR. McCREA—Does the honorable
member from Grandville not remember the
increase of members in the representation of
the other House, in 1853, and the amendment
of the constitution of this House in 1856,
the very question I am now debating ? Surely
these measures were amendments of that act,
and who knows but under the new Constitutional Act—the favorite measure of my honorable
friend—the election of members of this
House, may not again be resorted to, if the
nominative principle shall not be found to work
well ? But let us examine for a moment what
the amendment of my honorable friend from
Wellington is intended to effect. It will be
seen by referring to the amendment itself, that
the honorable gentleman proposes that the
members of this House from Canada and from
the Maritime Provinces shall have a different
origin or, as it were, a different parentage,
elected by the people with us, and appointed
by the Crown from the eastern provinces. I
take it that it is very desirable that in whatever way the members of this House may
be chosen, there should be uniformity in the
system. By the honorable gentleman's plan we
shall have one-third of the members from
below representing the Crown, and two-thirds
from above, representing the people ; a curious
sort of incongruity which I think should by
all means be avoided. I may be answered
that our present House is constituted in that
very way ; but honorable gentlemen must remember that the life members are not the
sole representatives of any particular section
of the province, but are chosen indiscriminately from all parts of the province. This
is
not likely to lead to a sectional collision like
the scheme of my honorable friend, and be
sides that, the appointment of life members
in this House is not to be continued after the
seats of the present members shall have become vacant from any cause whatever. I
think the scheme of my honorable friend the
most objectionable of all. The honorable
member from Niagara has given us notice
that he intends to move a resolution to the
House that this question shall be delayed
until an appeal shall be had to the people—
HON. MR. CURRIE—The honorable gentleman is quite mistaken. I have given notice
of no such motion.
HON. MR. MCCREA—Will you give it to
me that I may see what it really is ? [Upon
being handed the notice by the Hon. Mr.
CURRIE, the Hon. Mr. MCCREA proceeded]
Ah ! Here it is ! It reads as follows :—
That upon a measure of such great importance
as the proposed Confederation of this and certain
other British colonies this House is unwilling to
assume the responsibility of assenting to a measure involving so many important considerations
without a further manifestation of the public will
than has yet been declared.
How is the honorable gentleman to get this
manifestation of the public will unless it be
through a dissolution of the other House and
a new election ? Surely the honorable gentleman does not mean to shelter himself from
the legitimate consequences of his resolution
by its technical phraseology. It certainly
comes with a very bad grace and taste from
any member of this House to propose a dissolution of Parliament and send the members
of the Assembly packing to their constituents
to undergo the wear, tear, expenses and turmoil of an election, while we can sit here
firmly in our seats, and with folded hands
look quietly on. As to the true state of public
opinion upon this important subject in this
province, it will be time enough to consider
it, when my honorable friend from Niagara
comes to press his resolution. If our own
political situation required a remedy, I think
this union is an excellent opportunity, but I
do not mean to urge that our own political
exigency should be the only reason for the
union. We should settle our own political
difficulties. But that and everything else
173
seems to conspire to this union. The imminence of war with the United States, the
certainty of the abrogation of the Reciprocity
Treaty, the danger of non-intercourse, the opportunity of the Charlottetown Convention,
and the consequent necessity of the Intercolonial Railway—all point to this Confederation.
But the expense is the bugbear of the
opponents of this scheme. If the great social
and political interests of the country are to be
served, if we are to have laid broad and deep
in the hearts of the people the foundations of
a great nationality, as my honorable friend
from Wellington has expressed it, the financial part of the scheme is but a secondary
consideration. To-day , the balance of advantage may be against us ; to-morrow ,
it may be
in our favor. Who can say , when the railway
shall be established, and when by the union
we shall have incited new enterprises and
energies, and developed the whole resources of
the eastern provinces, with whom the financial balance may rest ? I cannot close
my
remarks better than by saying, that had a
union of all these provinces existed in fact as
it has existed in the minds of statesmen since
the commencement of the present century,
the man who, in the face of our present critical position, with civil war raging in
our
vicinity, and even national war threatening
ourselves, should now propose to dissolve that
union and scatter us again into disjointed
fragments, would be looked upon as an enemy
to his Queen and a traitor to his country.
(Cheers)
HON. MR. OLIVIER—Honorable gentlemen, a French journal in Montreal, in reporting the proceedings of
a meeting recently held
at Berthier, to consider the proposed project
of the Confederation of Canada and the Lower
Provinces, and to which meeting, in the
capacity of representative of the division in
which the count is situated, I was invited,
stated that I had expressed myself against that
project, and I therefore take this, the first opportunity, of declaring that the journal
in
question was in error, and that I did not so
express myself. I did, however, say at that
meeting, that there were provisions in the
project upon which I could not look with a
favorable eye, but that I could not then pronounce an opinion, but would wait until
I
came to Parliament, when I expected the
details would be placed before the members
fully and in good faith. I must, however,
say, honorable gentlemen, that in this I have
been much disappointed, for until now, the
information so much desired and asked for has
not been supplied, and the House is left in the
dark in respect of several important matters
upon which it is asked to decide. For instance, it was stated in the resolutions,
that
means would be taken to effectually protect
the minorities and preserve to them the rights
they now possess, but we were not informed
as to what those rights were, or as to the means
to be used for preserving them untouched and
unimpaired. If we had known what these
means would be, we would have come prepared to assent to, or to dissent from them,
in
an intelligent manner, and to express our
opinions as we ought to do, but this information was not vouchsafed. I understand
that
a bill, to assure to the Protestants of Lower
Canada the uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of their rights, is to be brought
down
and passed before the scheme of Federation
itself is fully adopted and sanctioned ; but I
have not heard that any similar measure is to
be passed in favor of the Roman Catholics of
Upper Canada. I have no objection, whatever, to grant to the Protestants of Lower
Canada, for all future time, the rights they
now enjoy, or any other rights and guarantees
which may be deemed reasonable and equit—
able, but I cannot vote to adopt the resolutions until I am informed whether the Roman
Catholics of the west are to be dealt with in
the same manner. By refusing us information on this important subject, the Government
has placed us in a false position, from
which, I think, it is their duty to extricate
us. I shall not now address myself to the inquiry of whether the Confederation scheme
be
really desirable or not, but cannot help saying
that the long-standing difference between the
two sections of the province might have been
arranged, if during the last difficult y between
the respective parties the leading men on
either side had been willing to sink their personal differences and make mutual concessions.
But as it is of no use now to refer to
that subject, I will not argue the matter further. I maintain again, however. that
the
House has a right to expect the Government
will give us all the information in respect of
the details of the Confederation scheme as
may be necessary to understand thoroughly all
its provisions. My opinion is, that as much
power as possible should have been entrusted
to the local governments, and as little as is
consistent with the functions it will have to
discharge to the Central Government, and my
reason for entertaining this opinion is, that
the Supreme Government, with its power of
purse and its control of the armies, will always
174
be more disposed to stretch its prerogatives
and to trench upon the domain of the local
governments than to narrow down and retain
its authority. The scheme then, in my opinion, is defective in that it inverts this
order
and gives to the General Government too much
power and to the local governments too little.
As it is now, if the scheme goes into operation, the local governments will be in
danger
of being crushed (
écrasés) by the General
Government. The tendency of the whole
scheme seems to be one of political retrogression instead of advancement.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—I am glad the Hon.
Premier seems so strongly to approve of what
I say.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—Then I am sorry
not to obtain his approval—(laughter)—but
nevertheless I hold that the policy disclosed
in the scheme is a backward policy. I want
to progress, I want to see the country advance,
I want to see the liberties of the country unfolding and expanding ; but instead of
this
our rulers are narrowing them down and restricting their free exercise. (Hear.) They
are now proposing to take away the elective
principle in its application to this Chamber, and
that too, without even having received a petition or sign of any kind from the people
that
such is their wish. If this is not a policy of
retrogression I can hardly imagine what would
be. I was not sent here to assist in doing
any such thing, and am not aware that there
has been any evidence of a desire in the
country for a return to the old mode of appointment by the Crown. I am not aware
of one complaint, or of any dissatisfaction
whatever with the present constitution of the
Legislative Council, and I therefore regard it
as not a little strange that a few gentlemen,
without mission or warrant, should have devised such a change, and should be trying
to
press it upon the Legislature and the country.
I cannot say what is the general feeling in
the public mind in favor of a Confederation
of Canada and the Maritime Provinces, and
so far, perhaps, from being opposed to it personally, I would be glad if it could
be accomplished upon principles I can approve. I do
not wish, however, to see the local governments crushed under a great central power,
and I am sure the people cannot wish, and do
not wish, to give up the principle of election
in respect of this House. They had fought
too long for the privilege to do that, and one
thing was quite clear, we were not sent to
Parliament to destroy our present Constitution.
There is a great difference between making
machinery work and breaking it to peices,
and I maintain that we were elected to legislate within the Constitution, not to legislate
away the Constitution. When I was elected
I expected to go back to my constituents to
give them an account of the manner in which
I had fulfilled the duty entrusted to me, not
to take advantage of my position to provide
for myself a seat for life. No, my constituents never gave me this right, nor was
any
elected member entrusted with it, and whoever assume to vote away the liberties of
the
people in this manner, betray their mandate. If it was desired that the people should
surrender this right they should have been
informed of such desire in good time, so that
they might have considered the question ; but
without warning them, or consulting them,
this most highly-prized principle was bartered
away to the Lower Provinces for a Confederation which could not last. The Hon. Commissioner
of Crown Lands had told the House
that the repartition of Lower Canada according to the present electoral divisions
had been
retained for the purpose of protecting the
British population of Lower Canada. I think
that if, with the retaining these electoral divisions the elective principle was also
retained, the
French population of Lower Canada would
also find in it their protection. For then
each division would be free to choose for its
representative in the Federal Legislative
Council a man attached to the institutions
of Lower Canada, while, in giving the nomination of the legislative councillors to
the
Federal power, the latter would be at liberty
to choose whomsoever it thought proper, and,
unfortunately— a circumstance which I do
not anticipate, but which may occur — the
General Government, when formed, might be
surrounded by coteries inimical to Lower
Canada interests, and be led by them to
choose members for the Legislative Council
hostile to the views of Lower Canada. I
consider, therefore, an elective Legislative
Council in the Confederation as essential to
the interests of Lower Canada. Nothing is
gained politically by the scheme any more
than financially. The honorable member for
Niagara has abundantly proved that all the
results to Canada would be a sacrifice of
principles and of money. To assure the advan
to themselves of the scheme of Confederation,
the, Lower Provinces had stipulated first for
the construction of the Intercolonial Railway,
175
and we would in consequence have to expend
twenty millions for that object, besides paying $63,000 a year to New Brunswick for
ten
years, and $150,000 a year to Newfoundland
forever. To be sure, m the latter case we
would have the produce of the mines of that
island, but I would ask any one who knows
the value of those mines, how much they
would be worth to us?
HON. MR. CAMPBELL said, with respect
to the Newfoundland mines, that he had had
communicated to him a note from Sir
WILLIAM LOGAN, the provincial geologist,
which would probably throw some light upon
the subject. The note was written unoficially
and without the remotest reference to the
question under debate, and therefore might
be taken as good evidence in the case. It
was as follows :—
There is no part of the whole surface, according to my present impression, which deserves
more attention than Newfoundland. There is, in
that island, a great development of the formations which romise so considerable a
mineral
result in the tem Townships The coast of
the island abounds with good harbors, and the
available minerals would, in very many cases, ex.
tend to the coast. Newfoundland is the part of
the area nearest to Europe. The surface of the
island, not being in general very favorable for
agriculture, mining might become the means of
giving employment to labor and attracting population, while the island requires an
increase of
inhabitants to make the more available the important position it occupies for the
defence of the
St. Lawrence and the country beyondon its banks.
After the dinner recess,—
HON. MR. OLIVIER continued his remarks. He said: When the Council adjourned at six o'clock, I was
speaking of the
Island of Newfoundland, to which we grant a
subsidy of $150,000 per annum, and not for
one year only, but for ever. I was saying,
moreover, that I was apprehensive that some
of us were ignorant of the facts which might
have led the delegates at Quebec to grant
that sum to the Island of Newfoundland. But
it seems, if I perfectly understood what was
said, that that sum was granted as an indemnity for giving up the produce of the public
lands, mines and forests. We are told by the
Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands
Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL) that he had been informed by the provincial geologist, Sir W.
LOGAN, that there really are mines in the
Island of Newfoundland. I was anxious to
learn from the Hon. Commissioner whether
an official exploration of the country had ever
been made, whether it had ever been ascer
tained what kind of mines existed in Newfoundland. The information which he gave
was not derived from oflicial reports, and I
am extremely anxious to know whether there
is any documentary evidence of the existence
of the pretended riches of Newfoundland, in
woods, mines and public lands.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—The honorable
member may go on ; in the course of the debate he will receive satisfactory information.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—Very well ; but I
see by the statistics, on the contrary, that
there is no timber on the island beyond what
is necessary for the building of the huts or
cabins of the fishermen who inhabit it, and
that there is no land fit for cultivation belonging to the Crown; and, as to mines,
I do not
believe any ofieial exploration has been made
to ascertain their existence in the island.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—It is a well-
ascertained fact that there are mines in the
Island of Newfoundland of great value. As
to the grant of $150,000 yearly subsidy, I
must observe to the honorable member that it
was intended to make up for the revenue
given up by Newfoundland to the Confederation, amounting at resent to $400,000.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—Another reason
why I cannot approve of the plan of Confederation, as it is now presented to us, is
that I
consider it as a retrograde step in the
political progress of the country. The spirit of
modern society is to give to the people as
much litical liberty as possible; and it is
my be ief that by this plan of Confederation
we shall sacrifice whatever liberty is already
messed by the people of this country.
When I expressed this idea, a short time
since, the Honorable Premier seemed to give
an ironical assent to it, as if he considered
my notions exaggerated. I am bound to tell
him that I neither love nor approve of mob-
rule any more than he does, but I have always
held as a political principle, that as much
political liberty as possible should be conceded
to the masses, combined always with a Government strong enough to maintain order and
administer the laws ; and herein I consider that
I conform to the principles of modern society,
without giving in to the dictates of demagogy.
I am favorable to democracy, but not to demagogy, and in this sense I spoke. I say,
then,
that in taking from the people for all time,
the right which they acquired after long
struggles of electing members to this ll case,
we are retrograding, making a step backward,
and I am sure the people will not look upon
this project with a favorable eye. We are
176
told that Confederation is become necessary
for the defence of the country. For one
moment I will admit that it might increase
our means of defence, but that is assuredly no
reason for urging the adoption of the measure,
as now attempted to be done. With Confederation, neither the number of men in the
several provinces, nor the pecuniary resources
now at their disposal, will be increased. I
cannot see what vast increase of strength this
Confederation is to give forthwith, for England
is fully entitled at this moment to dispose,
without let or hindrance, of all the resources,
both in men and money, possessed by the
colony, just as well as she will be after
Confederation is effected. That is therefore
no reason to make us urge on the adoption of
the measure, especially as we risk nothing by
giving the people time to study, examine and
understand the new Constitution of which we
are desirous to make them a present. They
tell us that the Intercolonial Railway is to be
a military road. But if it be so, how happens
it that nobody has thought of another part of
the country in which a military road is much
more called for. I can hardly believe that
anybody can be serious in this, while they
overlook the real military road which would be
wanted in the event of hostilities,—I mean a
railway between Quebec and Montreal, on the
north shore of the River St. Lawrence. In
order to render the Intercolonial Railway of
any avail as a military road, the North Shore
Railway must also be built, for the present
road on the south shore may be easily cut
and occupied by the enemy. Leaving Quebec
it takes the direction of the United States,
and leaving Montreal it takes the same direction to meet the other branch at Richmond.
In case of war the Americans would have
but a short distance to advance to take
ssession of either one or the other of these
branches. I shall now proceed to examine
whether the plan of Confederation is really
what it seems to be. I hear it said that Confederation, as it is proposed, will be
a Federal
union—but it seems to me that it will be rather
a Legislative union, at least as far as regards
the most important interests of Lower Canada.
The 29th section of the scheme submitted to
us says: " The Federal Parliament shall have
the power of making laws for the peace, the
well-being, and the good government of the
Confederate provinces, and in particular in
respect of the following matters." The powers
of the Federal Government will be in reality
unlimited. The fact of the enumeration of
these thirty-seven heads does not in the least
restrain the power of the Federal Government
from legislating on everything. The exceptions are few. I would ask the Honorable
Premier, for instance, whether the Federal
Government has not the power to enact that
marriage is a civil contract ? He cannot deny
it, and I do not believe that that clause will
in any way suit Lower Canada. In a matter
of divorce, I consider that the power of legislating upon it ought to be vested in
the
Federal Government ; but as to the passing
of a marriage set, we have the authority of
the past to convince us that Lower Canada
will never be satisfied with what is proposed
in the plan of Confederation. On a former
occasion, when a member of the Parliament
of Canada moved to enact that marriage
should be made a civil contract, all the members for Lower Canada voted against the
motion, and the whole country was opposed
to it. I shall also inquire whether the Federal
Government will not have the right to enact
that religious corporations shall no longer
exist in the country, or that they shall not be
allowed to hold real property, except what is
absolutely necessary for their lodging accommodation. According to the resolutions
which
have been submitted to us, the Federal Government would certainly have this right.
It
has been said that article 15 of the 43rd
resolution replies to this objection, but I can
see nothing in that article which restricts the
right of the Federal Government to legislate
on this matter. The 43rd resolution defines
the powers of the local governments, and article 15 of that resolution declares that
they
may make laws respecting "property and
civil rights, excepting those portions thereof
assigned to the General Parliament." That
article reserves to the local legislatures nothing
relative to religious corporations, and the
Federal Government would have full power to
decree that those corporations shall not hold
immovable property. The supreme power is
that which has the right to legislate upon,
and regulate the existence of, the corporations
in question, and they can only possess civil
rights so long as the Government permits them
to exist. The same might be said of most of
the institutions to which Lower Canada is
attached. I am therefore right in saying that,
so far as those things which Lower Canada
most holds to are concerned, Confederation is
in fact a Legislative union, because upon the
Federal Government is conferred the right of
legislating upon those subjects which Lower
Canada holds most dear. It appears to me
that it is the more important not to proceed
177
so rapidly as it is proposed to do, because it is
extremely difficult to foresee what will be the
bearing of the platform which it is proposed
to erect. I have just cited the rights which
Confederation would confer upon the Federal
Government in respect of certain points ; but
there are other interests which may perhaps
he imperilled by this measure—I will cite,
for instance, the rights of the creditors of the
provinces.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—The rights of
the creditors of the province will form the subject of an arrangement between Upper
and
Lower Canada at a later period, but the creditors will have the guarantee of the whole
Confederation.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—All the details are
not included in the resolutions ; but as to
the balance of $5,000,000 which will have to
be divided between Upper and Lower Canada,
and which constitutes the difference between
the $62,000,000 of debt which will be assumed
by the Confederation, and the $67,000,000
which Canada owes, a division will be made
before Parliament is dissolved.
HON. Mr. OLIVIER—I understood that
the debts were to be divided and that the indemnity to the seigniors, for instance,
for the
abolition of the Seigniorial Tenure was to be
imposed entirely on Lower Canada. If there
are any verbal explanations beyond what is
contained in the resolutions, I am quite willing to receive them from the Government,
but that is just the reason why we should not
be in a hurry to adopt these resolutions until
we have those explanations, for it might be
dangerous not to have all these questions
settled before voting for Confederation ; who
can say whether we can settle them as well after
as before ? These promises of explanations
shew that, since all the facts are not submitted,
we may easily mistake the meaning of the
resolutions which we are called upon to adopt.
In any case, I certainly see nothing in these
resolutions which gives the seigniors the
guarantee of the Confederation as security for
their claim, and I can only judge of the resolutions by what they contain, especially
in the
absence of any explanation o the details.
The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Galt)
stated that the debt due to the seigniors
would fall on Lower Canada alone, and this
does not agree exactly with what the Prime
Minister has just said. As I said a short time
ago, when speaking of the school question, I
would not vote for a Constitution which would
not confer on the Catholics of Upper Canada
the same advantages as are possessed by the
Protestants of Lower Canada, and I consider
that this is a matter that should be settled
before taking a vote on the resolutions, for
when Confederation is once voted it may
easily happen that we shall not be able to
obtain what is promised us now. We therefore are in a position which may make us
sacrifice the minority of Upper Canada by
voting Confederation now, or make us vote
against a principle which we might perhaps
accept, if we were acquainted with all its
details. For my part, I acknowledge that I
would not cause the plan of Confederation
which is proposed to us to miscarry, if it is
possible to make it just, acceptable and useful
to all parties. But for this I will not sacrifice the interests of a portion of the
population. Another point upon which we require
explanations, and respecting which we have
none, is that relating to the constitution of the
local governments. Now, for instance, some
journals which usually express the views and
opinions of the present Government, have
stated that in all the local governments the
system of responsibility of the ministers to
the people or their representatives would not
exist, but that an irresponsible system would
be substituted for it. I ask which of you
would accept such a system, and what part
of the people would approve of such an alteration in our political institutions?
You are
told " vote for the plan submitted to you, and
the details will be explained to you at a later
period." But at a later period neither Upper
nor Lower Canada will be master of the position, and able to obtain the system of
government which may suit them, should that
imposed upon them not meet their views.
But, yet once more, why hurry you so much ?
Why, for instance, should this House be
called upon to sit twice a-day on this question
before even its details are known ? Why depart from our custom of examining matters
in
a calm and deliberate manner. Certainly, up
to the present time, not one valid reason has
been given to justify the hurry in which it is
proposed to carry this measure. Mention has
indeed been made of defence, but this is no
valid reason, for it is perfectly well known
that all the resources of Canada are now at
the disposal of England in case of need ; this
precipitate action is then neither justified nor
justifiable. I ask whether we know the plan
of Confederation which is submitted to us,
178
and, unfortunately, I must answer my question in the negative. Surprise has been expressed
in certain quarters at the opposition
which has arisen to this measure after all the
advantages which we were promised should
result from it. Thus it was said that under
Confederation we should obtain coal from
Nova Scotia without having any duty to pay.
This reasoning might appear to carry a certain amount of force with it, but I must
say
that it is in fact captions, for we find at the
present day that we can indeed get this coal,
but by paying the export duty exactl like
foreign countries. Would there, then, be no
real free trade between the different parts of
the same Confederation ? Would the position
of the provinces, in this respect, remain as it
is to-day ? The proof of what I state here is
found in Hon. Mr. GALT'S speech to his constituents:—
In Nova Scotia a considerable revenue was derived from a royalty on coal mines, and
its representatives at the conference stated that if the
General Government imposed an export duty on
coal it would annihilate one of their most important resources, and, therefore, Nova
Scotia has
been allowed to regulate herself the export duty
on coal, precisely as New Brunswick enjoys that
right as regards its timber.
This duty which Nova Scotia may impose
on the export of its coal, whatsoever it may
be styled, is then in reality an export duty,
and the result, as regards ourselves, is to
leave us still in the same position if we must
pay the duty in order to get the coal of that
province. The argument based on the fact
that we could obtain coal from Nova Scotia
without paying an import duty, is thus destroyed, since the duty will still exist.
I
have already stated that the plan submitted
for our approval is exceedingly complex, and
that it is not easy to forsee the difficulties
that will arise between the local governments
and the Federal Government. It may, perhaps, be asserted that these difficulties cannot
be very serious, inasmuch as the local governments will not possess any large powers
; but
if it is designed to make them real governments, and not mere municipalities, they
may
be opposed to the Central Government on a
host of questions. Take, for instance, the
question of the fisheries. Article 17, of the
29th resolution, gives to the Federal Parliament the power of legislating on the "
sea
coast and inland fisheries." Under the 8th
article of the 43rd resolution, the local 1egis
latures will also have the right of legislating
on the "sea coast and inland fisheries." Thus
the local legislatures and the Federal Legislature will have the right to legislate
on the
same subjects. And if the laws they make
are in opposition the one to the other, what
will be the result? And this may well happen, for we know that in the Gulf, for instance,
there are fisheries which are of the
highest importance for the people of Lower
Canada, as well as for the people of the adjoining colonies, of which the latter
have
taken possession, and sought to exclude our
people from them. Now, the Local Government of Lower Canada made laws to protect
its subjects and insure to them the right to
these fisheries, would it not be in the power
of the Federal Government to interfere and
prevent it? And if this were to happen,
would it not give rise to endless antipathies
and struggles between the two governments ?
Lower Canada would not suffer such an interference without feeling it very strongly;
and
what I have just said with reference to the fisheries might also occur with reference
to a large
number of questions. And it is quite evident
that if the Local Government, acting in the
interests of a province, were arrested in its
action by the Federal Government, the people
would take sides with their Local Government and become disaffected towards the
Central Government.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—This question
of the fisheries is, no doubt, divided between
the local governments and the Federal Government, but it is evident, that in order
that
justice may be done to each part of the Confederation in an impartial manner, the
general
legislation must be left to the General Government, while the application of the internal
details within the limits of the fisheries of a province, must be left to the local
legislatures.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—The argument I
have brought forward, with reference to fisheries, is applicable to other questions,
and is
merely to show that the present plan is complex, that there are conflicting interests
in the
different colonies, and that the settlement of
them, in one sense or in another, might be
productive of discontent in the country, and
create a spirit of dissatisfaction among the
people. Some one has said that this project
is viewed favorably in England, and that for
that reason we ought to accept it in order to
prevent the evil consequences that might anse
from our opposition to the project. For my
part, I do not believe that England would insist so strongly on the details as they
are insisted on here, but I believe her esire is,
that the plan should be just and acceptable,
179
and that it should be thoroughly understood
by the people before it is adepted; she is less
anxious to enforce the details of the project
than to see the people of the provinces content
and satisfied with it. If a large portion of
the people were opposed to the project, I do
not think that England would approve of
forcing this project upon them without giving
time to examine it or to pronounce upon it.
The opinion of the country upon this plan is,
to-day, quite unknown. I am quite aware
that certain members can vote in favor of the
project with the certainty of their course
meeting the approval of their constituents; for
instance, those whose elections have taken
place since the plan was submitted to the
country. But in those parts of the country
where no elections have taken place, it is impossible to say that the people will
be satisfied
or that they will endorse the action of their
representatives in voting for Confederation,
because we have not been enabled to make it
known. Thus when my constituents invited
me to a public meeting to discuss the
subject, I was compelled to admit that I
could not tell them what the plan of Confederation was; that I could not communicate
it to them, because the resolutions I had
received were private. I also told them that
I did not wish to form my opinion before
hearing the discussion and learning the details; but to-day we are refused the details,
and the adoption of the project is pressed
without affording us time to study it as it is.
An attempt will probably be made to injure
us in the opinion of our electors if we vote
against this project, and we shall be accused
of having opposed Confederation; but I trust
the people will see that we cannot vote for a
thing with which we are not acquainted, and
that we shall have their approval in the course
we shall adopt. When the project of Confederation is submitted to the English Par—
liament, they will take it for granted that the
people of this country approve of it; but
they will never suppose that the measure has
been forced upon the people without affording
them the opportunity of pronouncing for or
against it. But there is another thing; it is
not surprising that this project should be
looked upon with a favorable eye in England,
for public opinion is composed specially of
that of the industrial and commercial classes,
and it is the interest of those classes to favor
Confederation. But let us well consider whether the interests of those classes is
ours also.
I consider that our resent political course
should be to see to the interests of the agri
culture, the trade and the industry of our
country ,before laboring to build up that of
English traders and artisans. If by Confederation we unite provinces, the inhabitants
of
which find it their interest to have a very low
tariff adopted, it might very well happen that
the agricultural interest of Canada might not
find itself so well off, and in such a case what
would be the result? The result would be
that we should very soon have an enormous
debt, and that, should the customs revenue
not suffice to meet it and provide for the expenditure, the deficit would have to
be made
up by means of direct taxation, which would
weigh upon the agriculture and industry of
the country. If we have a tariff of twenty
per cent., it protects the industry of our native land, and is a source of revenue
wherewith to provide for the public expenditure;
but if we make it too low, real property will
suffer, for on it will be laid the burthen imposed to meet the deficit. Confederation
would appear to me to be very costly, for
money is scattered on all sides in handfuls.
Thus it is proposed to construct the Inter-
colonial Railway, which will cost at least $20000,000; to Upper Canada is given $16,000,000
to improve its canals; $150,000 a year
is given to Newfoundland, as a compensation
for mines which perhaps do not exist, and
$63,000 to New Brunswick; and after all
this the Local and Federal Governments have
the power conferred on them of adding new
taxes to those which already exist in order to
meet the expenditure; and I have no doubt
whatever but that they will avail themselves
of that permission. All this is deserving of
consideration, and these are reasons which
should induce the Government to submit the
question to the people, instead of wishing
to have it decided at once; for, even allowing the measure to be absolutely a good
one,
the people will always regard it with mistrust if it is thrust upon them. What! we
are told that we are perhaps on the eve of
a war with our neighbors, and we run the risk
of dissatisfying the people by imposing a system
upon them to which they are perhaps opposed.
It is not only in the district of Montreal that
the submission of the question to the people is
called for—the Toronto
Leader says that the
people ought to be consulted, and appears
to me to be most reasonable. For my part, I
am in favor of an appeal to the people, and I
cannot approve of Confederation being thrust
upon them without their being consulted.
Let it be well understood, if it is wished that
the population should make sacrifices for its
180
government in case of war, we must not begin
by rendering them discontened and disafected.
Let a fair and equitable system of Confederation be proposed, and let the people have
an
opportunity of examining into it and approving of it, and then no man will shrink
from
the necessity of making the greatest sacrifices
to defend the Constitution which has been
freely accepted by the people. It may be said
that the people would be compelled to march
at the point of the bayonet ; but the risk of
such a course is great, for the arm is but
feeble when it is not animated by the heart,
and to defend a country effectually the heart
of the people must be in the cause. The
Prime Minister stated that the-object of Confederation was to strengthen the monarchical
principle in this country. I do not see that
it is necessary to confer upon the Crown greater
privileges than it already possesses in England
itself. In England the members of the ease
of Lords are not appointed by the Crown ;
succession in the peerage goes down hereditary
from father to son ; but here it is proposed
that the members of the Legislative Council,
which bod corresponds to the House of
Lords, should be selected by the Crown. Why
should this be ? Why go beyond what is
done in England itself? Is it that the Crown
complains that it has not sufficient power here ?
As to the statement that it is proposed to
establish in America, by means of Confederation, a counterpoise to the influence and
power
of the United States, I would ask whether
that would not in itself constitute the best
pretext which the Government of the United
States could wish for upon which to declare
war against us. At the present time, I am
not of opinion that the American people are
desirous of seeking a quarrel with us; just
now the have quite enough to attend to.
But if their Government should think it to
their interest to declare war against England,
the best pretext which they could bring forward to excite the American people against
us would certainly be this pretended counterpoise which it is sought to establish.
It is
well known that the MONROE doctrine is a
principle to which all the people of the United
States are attached, and, should we give them
an opportunity, they would avail themselves
of it to put that doctrine into practice. Since
Confederation does not in reality increase the
strength of the colonies, why should we give
umbrage to the Government of the United
States, and provide them with the means of
animating their people against us in case of
the breaking out of hostilities? If the means
for the defence of the country were increased,
I would say, let us throw aside all these considerations, but such, in my opinion,
is not
the case. In conclusion, I would implore the
Government to grant to the people the time
and the opportunity of convincing themselves
that the Constitution which it has prepared is
agood one, and that it has really been planned
with a view to their interests ; and, in that
case, I predict that when the time for defence
comes, the people will march like one man.
But if it is intended to thrust it upon them
by main force, and without consulting them,
we must not, we cannot, expect them to defend
their land with the like zeal. I consider that
this demand is no more than just, both to
ourselves and to the people whom we represent.
So far as I myself am concerned, I 'd not
come here to fight against Confederation and
destroy it at any price, but I certainly will
not vote for it without being acquainted with
it in all its details. (Cheers)
The debate was then adjourned till tomorrow.
This individual participated in:
