180
TUESDAY, February 14, 1865.
HON. Sir N. F. BELLEAU said—Hon.
gentlemen, the discussion on the scheme of
Confederation has already been protracted,
and little really remains to be said, for all
the objections to the scheme have been
made by the one side and replied to by the
other. I may, however, be permitted to
offer a few remarks on one or two of the objections which were urged again yesterday.
For the last three years the country has
witnessed a state of things which by many
persons has been designated governmental
anarchy. Government after government in
rapid succession have grasped the helm of
state. A state of conflict existed between
political parties which was hourly on the
increase; a conflict which threatened to
arrest the progress of public business, and
which drew the minds of our statesmen to
consider whether any means could be adopted'
to remedy this state of things. The men
of influence throughout the country at
length decided to unite, and have come to
the conclusion that a remedy was to be
found in a Confederation of the British
American Provinces. It is not to be wondered at that this plan should have attracted
the attention of the present Administration,
for it was not a new one, and the question
had already been brought before the country
181
on several occasions. In the Confederation
of these provinces are to be found elements
which give promise, nay, contain the germ
of a power which will one day take its place
among the nations of the world. And in
considering this Confederation of the British
North American Provinces, I am reminded
of the fable of the bundle of sticks, which I
learned in my childhood, and which so exactly applies to the present circumstances.
This fable tells us that the sticks when
bound together were strong enough to resist
all the efforts made to break them, but
that when separated they were broken one
by one with but little effort. It seems to
me that the lesson afforded by
this fable
may be well applied to the question of Confederation—separated we are weak, united
we shall be strong. Commerce, population,
manufactures, progress, in a word, all the
elements requisite to constitute a powerful
nation are contained in the united colonies ;
but these become of little consequence if
allowed to be utilized by each separate
colony. And not only would the union of
these elements constitute the Confederation
a great power amongst the other nations of
the world, but there would be found amongst
its population a number of sturdy arms,
sufficient, with the aid of Great Britain, to
repel foreign aggression. I do not belong
to that school which pretends that in case
of invasion on the part of the United States,
the best thing we could do would be to remain passive with folded arms. That is not
my idea. Such actions may flatter the
opinions and desires of those who have
republican leanings, of annexationists and
of anti-Canadians, who are nothing less than
enemies
of the monarchical system in this
country. I have no sympathy with those
who place themselves at the head of the
republican and annexationist school, for I
see in them none of those national aspirations of which every man is always proud.
With these few remarks to shew the necessity of Confederation, and that its first
result
will be the production of a new and powerful people, I propose to consider the terms
and conditions of the scheme, and whether
Lower Canada will find in them the protection its interests demand. The first point
to which I directed my attention was to ascertain what guarantees Lower Canada would
find in Confederation for its laws, its religion
and its autonomy. I find the guarantee of
all these things in that article of the
scheme which gives to Lower Canada the
local
government of its affairs, and
the control of all matters relating to
its institutions,
to its laws, to its religion,
its manufactures
and its autonomy. Are you not
all prepared,
hon. gentlemen, and you
especially members
from Lower Canada, to make some
few sacrifices in order to have the
control of all those
things to which I have just
referred, and
which are all to be within the
jurisdiction of
the local governments. Are you
not ready to
make some few sacrifices to see
an end put
to those struggles which have
been constantly recurring during the
last few years, to
the imminent peril of Lower
Canada and of
its institutions—dangers which
still exist and
which might even now become only
too apparent were the friends who have
sustained
the combat to grow weary, or to
give way
and leave the field to their
adversaries? If we
persist in striving to obtain
too much, if we
are unwilling to make any
sacrifice, we may
lose the whole result of these
struggles and
the advantages now offered for
our acceptance. For my part the
consideration that
we shall have the control of our
local affairs
in Lower Canada, under the
Confederation,
is a sufficient inducement to
vote in favor
of the scheme now submitted to
us, even
although it offered us no other
advantage.
But, without entering into the
details, I
now propose to reply to certain
objections
which have been urged, and prove
that it is
for our interest to adopt this
plan. One of
the very first objections raised
has been
offered by the honorable member
for the
Wellington Divison (Hon. Mr. SANBORN).
He has stated that he could not
vote for
Confederation because he had not
received
the sanction of his constituents
to change
the Constitution of his country.
Whilst,
however, he makes this
statement, the same
honorable gentleman proposes,
nevertheless,
to change the Constitution which
he declares
his electors have not given him
authority
to change in any particular.
This is the
resolution which he proposes in
amendment :
Upper Canada to be represented in the
Legislative Council by twenty-four elective members,
and Lower Canada by twenty-four elective members, and the Maritime Provinces by twenty-four
members, corresponding with the twenty-four
elective members in each section of Canada, of
which Nova Scotia shall have ten, New Brunswick ten, and Prince Edward Island shall
have
four, and the present members of the Legislative
Council of Canada, as well life members as elective members, shall be members of the
first
182
Legislative Council of the Federal Parliament
the appointed members to remain for life, and
the elective members for eight years from
the
date of their election, unless removed by death or
other cause; their successors to be elected by the
same divisions and electors as have elected them.
Well, honorable gentlemen, if the
honorable
member from Wellington has not received
authority to change the Constitution of this
country, certainly he has not the right to
make the amendment which he proposes, an
amendment which is full of contradiction.
The honorable gentleman says that he has
no objection to vote for Confederation after
having consulted his electors. Well, although
he may not have much faith in the maxim
Vox populi, vox Dei, the honorable member
has declared that the rule of his conduct
has always been, Salus populi suprema lex.
I have no doubt, however, that he would
say, Salus meus suprema lex est, if he were
appointed a life member, and that he would
have no scruple as regards amending the
Constitution. The same argument has been
urged by the honorable member for Lanaudière (Hon. Mr. OLIVIER). Well, I think
that that honorable gentleman will not,
without difficulty, extricate himself from
the dilemma in which I am about to place
him. He has also stated that he had received no authority from his constituents to
alter the Constitution. If he has not received this authority, he ought to vote
against the amendment which is now proposed, the object of which is to alter the
Constitution. If this objection were a serious
one, why do not members who are desirous
of consulting their electors resign their
seats, and seek re-election on this question,
instead of setting the whole country in a
blaze by a dissolution? But no, they fold
their arms and say that a dissolution does
not affect them, the Council would not be
affected by it. They are not, then, serious in
asking for an appeal to the people. The hon.
member for Grandville (Hon. Mr. LETELLIER
DE ST. JUST)
has also read something to the
same purpose. I call upon him, then, to
resign his seat and to consult his constituents ; but as he has already tried the
experiment lately in two important places in his
division, he knows that the ground trembles
under his feet. I do not think he would
care to make the trial, as the result might
be very far from gratifying.
HON. SIR N. F. BELLEAU—I will not
go myself, but others will, and I venture to
predict that you will be left at home. I
trust, then, that we shall hear no more about
this want of authority to alter the Constitution, for it is only a roundabout way
of
defeating the scheme of Confederation, out
of pure party feeling. It has also been said
that the electors were taken by surprise,
and that they did not know what was being
done—that they did not know what the plan
of Confederation was until it was discussed
here ; but those who have taken part in public affairs since 1858 cannot say this,
for the
question has been laid before the country
for discussion several times since that period,
and always by official acts. No one has
forgotten the celebrated speech made by the
Hon. Mr. GALT, in 1858, when he joined the CARTIER-MACDONALD Ministry, in
which he declared himself to be in favor
of a Confederation of the provinces. It has
not been forgotten that Hon. Messrs. GALT,
CARTIER and Ross then made a voyage to
England to lay before the Minister for the
Colonies their views on the subject of Confederation. It is true that from that period
up to last year, but little was said about it,
because there had been a change in the
English Government, and it was necessary
to recommence all that had been done ; but
if the question was not talked about in England, it was not allowed to sleep here.
No one
has forgotten the Speech from the Throne,
delivered in Toronto in 1858, by Sir EDMUND
HEAD, in which he spoke of the necessity
of enquiring into the matter, and laying it
before the country. Most certainly no better
means of submitting it to the people could
have been adopted. Subsequently the question was mooted again and again in the
House of Assembly up to the time when,
governments succeeding each other like
flashes of lighting, it became necessary to
have recourse to a coalition, in order to put
an end to the anarchy which prevailed in
the political affairs of the country. The
coalition in question was based on the principle of Confederation. The members of
that Government, by a happy and unusual
concurrence of circumstances, had an opportunity of meeting at the Charlottetown Conference
to discuss the question, and enter
slightly upon the subject of a general Confederation. They again met at Quebec,
183
together with all the delegates from the
Lower Provinces, and the result of their
labors is the plan which is now laid before
us. But there is more to be said, for before
the present Ministry had entered upon the
consideration of the plan, with their colleagues of the Gulf provinces, His Excellency
had alluded to it in his Speech, and had said
that it was absolutely necessary that a conclusion on the subject should be come to.
And besides, the leading papers of this province and of the Lower Provinces, have
long been engaged in the discussion of the
question. The details have been examined
in all their hearings to satiety. In view of
all these facts, I would ask how it can be
said that the people do not know what the
question is? No; this is merely a pretext
which is made use of to overthrow the plan.
But another fact which goes to prove that
the people have not been taken by surprise
in this matter is, that within the last ten
months, there have been twelve elections of
legislative councillors, and it cannot be
said
that when those elections took place,
the question of Confederation was not before
the public. This would be to state a falsehood in the full glare of noonday. The hon.
member for Lanaudière (Hon. Mr. OLIVIER),
yesterday said that a Montreal paper had
stated that he had declared himself opposed
to Confederation, and he hastened to contradict the assertion. But I must say that
when he appeared before his constituents
and talked of retrograde steps -when he said
that, for his part, he should consider it a
step back in civilization, if he voted against
the election of members of this House, I
consider that it was idle of him to say that
he had not declared himself opposed to Confederation.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—The details.
HON. SIR N. F. BELLEAU—Details
and principle. I say then that at the elections which have taken place, the members
elected, unless they did not choose
to do
their duty, must have spoken of the Confederation, and above all, of the manner in
which the Legislative Council would be
treated in that Confederation. And if these
details were entered into, the people are
acquainted with the subject in question.
And not only have there been elections, but
there have been public meetings in large
numbers throughout the whole country,that is to say, wherever the opponents of
Confederation could get them up without
danger to themselves ; and at all these
meetings they did not require to be forced to
speak of Confederation, and that in the
most unfavorable terms possible. It is true
that matters were not represented on those
occasions in their true light. but the people
at any rate knew what subject was under
discussion. The honorable member for
Wellington (Hon. Mr. SANBORN)
laid great
stress on the danger which might be incurred by the Protestant minority in the local
legislation of Lower Canada. He tears that
they may not be sufficiently protected by the
Catholic majority in respect of their religion, their schools and possibly their property.
I am astonished to hear such language from the lips of a man who, like
myself, represents a division more than
one-half of the population of which is
French Canadian and Catholic, for that fact
in itself is a proof of the liberality of our
fellow-countrymen. I heard that remark
with pain ; but I can tell him that the Protestant minority of Lower Canada have
nothing to fear from the Catholic majority
of that province: their religion is guaranteed
by treaty, and their schools and the rights
which may be connected with them, are to
be settled by legislation to take place hereafter, and when that legislation is laid
before
the Houses, those members who so greatly
tremble now for the rights of the Protestant minority will have an opportunity of
protecting that minority; they may then
urge their reasons, and insist that the Protestants shall not be placed in a position
of
the slightest danger. But even granting
that the Protestants were wronged by the Local Legislature of Lower Canada, could
they
not avail themselves of the protection of the
Federal Legislature? And would not the
Federal Government exercise strict surveillance over the action of the local legislatures
in these matters? Why should it be sought
to give existence to imaginary fears in Lower
Canada? I say imaginary, because the
liberality of the inhabitants of Lower Canada—a liberality of which they gave proof
long, long ago, by enacting the emancipation of the Jews before any other nation in
the world had dreamed of such a measureis well known. No; far from wishing to
oppress other nationalities, all that the
French Canadians ask is to live at peace
with all the world; they are
quite willing
that they should enjoy their
rights, provided
that all live peaceably
together. (Hear.)
184
I cannot refrain from saying a word as to
the Protestants of Lower Canada, and as to
the liberality evinced towards them by the
French and Catholic population. It is
feared that we may combine together in
order to treat them unjustly. I may be
wrong in referring to the fact, but it is true
that the French Canadians have always lived
on more cordial terms with the English
Protestants than with the Irish, who are
nevertheless of the same religion, and of the
same belief as themselves. If this good feeling has always existed, what is there
to fear?
The hon. member for Lanaudière (Hon. Mr.
OLIVIER) has said, that the plan of Confederation was not necessary, and in that he
agreed with the hon. member for Grandville (Hon. Mr. LETELLIER). He has stated
that it would have been possible to regulate
the difficulties which we have witnessed,
without having recourse to Confederation,
from the fact that many of these difficulties
arose from the hatred existing between certain individuals. Now, for my part, I do
not believe that our political men were
actuated by motives of mutual hatred. When
I witnessed the struggles which occurred in
the House of Assembly, the votes of want
of confidence which were proposed, I always
felt that those who proposed them gave good
reasons for so doing. But I was not aware
of the existence of hatred or personal
jealousy between the parties, and that upon
the removal of such feelings, the difficulties
might be easily overcome. But the
statement is made simply for want of any sound
arguments against Confederation. The same
hon. member also stated, that the minorities
in Upper and Lower Canada wished to
know the fate reserved for them, before
voting for Confederation. If he had reflected a little, he would have learned that
the
fate of the minorities will be defined by the
law, that their religion is guaranteed by
treaties, and that they will be protected by the
vigilance of the Federal Government, which
will never permit the minority of one
portion of the Confederation to be oppressed
by the majority. The hon. member also
contends that the local governments ought
to have larger powers than those proposed
to be conferred upon them, and that the
Federal Government ought to have fewer
powers. To hear him, one cannot help
thinking that the experience of history is
entirely lost on certain individuals. He
must have been aware, however, that it is in
reference to the rights of particular
states,
that civil war now exists in the United
States; nevertheless, he would implant in
this country the same germ of discord. He
would have more power below and less
authority above. For my part I say the
very contrary, if we wish to have a strong
Government capable of enforcing respect for
its authority when it shall be necessary to
enforce it. The hon. member also stated
that he has no confidence in the exercise of
the powers of the Federal Government,
because it would be surrounded by a clique.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—I did not say that
would be the case, but that, theoretically, it
might occur, and that if it were surrounded
by a clique, the rights of Lower Canada
would be in danger.
HON. SIR. N. F. BELLEAU—That
makes no difference ; for he stated that he
feared the Government would be surrounded
by a clique. But is it not the national
representation that will surround the Federal
Government? Is that a clique? To say
that our Government is a clique, is to vilify
the institutions of the country. The Government will be responsible to the Legislature.
Let us never lose sight of the fact, that our
national representatives will always see that
Lower Canada shall have in the Federal
Government one, or perhaps two, representatives—the number is not of importance.
What is of importance is, that such one, or
such two members, should represent in her
Executive Council the national representation, which will be composed of 65 members,
in the Federal Legislature. And this, forsooth, is called a clique ! I insist somewhat
at length upon this point, because the operation of the principle of responsible government
in the Federal Legislature is lost sight
of. I beg to call the attention of Lower
Canada members to this. Suppose it were
proposed to adopt a law in the Federal Legislature calculated to injure Lower Canada,
our 65 representatives in the House of
Commons discuss the law, and decide that
they must oppose it ; they at once communicate with the members of the Government
representing Lower Canada, and inform them
that they cannot accept the measure, and
that if it be passed, they will coalesce with
the minority, which always exists under
responsible government, and that they will
overthrow the Ministry. Such is the weight
of our influence in the Federal Government;
and if this were not lost sight of, there
185
would be no grounds for fear. The influence of Lower Canada will enable her to
make and unmake governments at pleasure,
when her interests shall be at stake or
threatened.
And if the importance of this
responsibility of the Federal Government
were well understood, there would be no
anxiety about our institutions. The hon.
member also stated that he did not want to
make a backward step in relation to the
election of the members of the Legislative
Council. In reply to that, I would state
that the elective principle, as applied to the
Legislative Council, becomes unnecessary in
view of the numerical strength of Lower
Canada in the Federal Parliament, for the
House of Commons is the body that will
make and unmake ministers. Why have
the elective principle for the Legislative
Council, since we shall have it for the House
of Commons, since we shall have a responsible Government and a Federal Government,
composed of members elected by the people?
The hon. member has stated that he desired
to advance with the intellect of the people,
and not to take a backward step. These
are great words—the intellect of the people!
progress! But for my part, I do not hesitate to assert that the people will gladly
sacrifice the election of the members of the
Legislative Council, in view of the control
of all the matters I mentioned before.
The hon. member has said that the elective
principle would have been the safe-guard of
Lower Canada. I can understand this to be
the case in a House which is able to make
and unmake administrations, but in a House
which is indissoluble, I cannot discover its
importance. The safety of Lower Canada
depends, not on the elective principle, but
on the responsibility of the members of the
Executive to the House of Commons.
I may
be permitted to say one word on the subject
of the elective right, as it is the grand panacea for all the ills incident to humanity.
We must not shut our eyes against evidence.
Have we, since the union of several counties
to form electoral divisions, seen persons of
independent fortune and character, who do
not seek to make a gainful pursuit of politics,
offer themselves for election to the
Legislative
Council ? I acknowledge that the
elections
to seats in the Legislative Council which
have taken place so far have had excellent
results : the members sent hither by their
constituencies have added new lustre to the
body; but has it not now become almost
impossible to get an independent man to
stand? The contested elections in the large
divisions have disgusted many who would do
honor to the country, but who will not risk
their fortune in an election ; and if we see
such a result already, what is it likely to be
hereafter? We shall see political intriguers
making their own of the electoral divisions
as a living—living by politics and for politics
only. We shall see what has been seen in
other countries—people embracing political
life as a shield against their creditors, sheltering themselves under its aegis against
the law. Such men will fill this House,
to the exclusion of honor and honesty. I
say again, those who now compose this
House are honorable men, who are a
credit to their country—in time, their
seats will be filled by political intriguers.
Another, and a final objection to Confederation has been made, namely, that having
it, we shall not have increased the means of
defence, nor the resources of the country.
If those who talk thus had taken time to
consider the matter more carefully, they
would not hold this opinion. It is evident
that with the means of communication already
provided, and the Intercolonial Railway, if
a section of Upper Canada should be invaded
by the enemy, the combined forces of the
Confederation might be transported to the
point threatened in a very short time, and
we would be in a position to show the enemy
that united we are strong. We should be
wilfully blind not to see this. It has also
been alleged that in order to increase our
means of defence, we should build the North
Shore Railway, and that the Government
who do not this are inefficient and renegades
to their country.
HON. SIR N. F. BELLEAU—True, you
did not make use of the expression, but what
you said amounted to that in meaning.
According to the hon. member, the North
Shore Railway would be the
salvation of the
country. I believe the hon. member resides
somewhere in the north, on the line of that
road. (Hear, and laughter.) I believe that
his motto is,
Salus mea suprema lex est.- (All for myself, nothing for others.) The
North Shore Railway has had, and may again
have, its advantages; and as a channel of
communication I should be glad to see it
built, but at present the building of it would
cost too dear. When the military defences
186
projected by the present Administration
for
the protection of the South Side Railway
are completed, the north side road will not
be required. The hon. member has also
said that he is desirous of giving the inhabitants of the country time to reflect
on and
study the scheme of Confederation, and that
he does not see why we should wish to urge
on the passing of the measure so strenuously.
I have already observed that a plan was
submitted to the Mother Country some years
ago, but that a change of ministers then had
rendered the scheme abortive. The same
thing may happen again ; and if we consider
the age of the Premier of England, and the
uncertain position in which his Cabinet
would stand if he should die, it will be plain
that we have no time to lose. This is a
very sufficient reason for urging on the
measure in the minds of those who hold that
it is destined to save the country. One more
remark and I have done. The hon. member
(Hon. Mr. OLIVIER) has adjured us not
to wound the susceptible feelings of our
neighbors,—not to give umbrage to their
sensitiveness,—by entering into a Confedration which might give them a pretext
for carrying out the Monroe doctrine.
This is, I think, the most paltry reason
that could be alleged in discussing the
most important question of legislation
which has ever arisen on this continent, so far as the fate of Canada is concerned.
I think that the measure is in
every respect suitable and advantageous to
Canada. Any attempt to obstruct it by
such considerations, is a proof of pusillanimity, and I almost feel ashamed to hear
the
expression of them from the lips of a French
Canadian. (Cheers.)
HON. MR. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST
—Honorable Gentlemen, after the speech
which we have just heard, I hope a few
words will be allowed to me, for I have
been, I must say, perfectly astonished to
hear such statements fall from the lips of
the hon. member who has just resumed his
seat; and if my object was to reply to him,
I might satisfy myself with saying :-
ORLANDO, in his frenzy, I saw,
Expend all his strength and toil,
From the hold of their mother earth to draw,
Trees that clave not to the soil.
It is most certainly my right, I consider,
when I see an honorable member rise in his
place, and say that we, the councillors elected by the people, are nobody because
our
pouches are not so well lined as those
of certain honorable members, to express
my astonishment at the use of such language; for we should be permitted to hold
the opinion, that the value of the man is not
to be measured by the amount of money
which he may happen to possess. There is
such a thing as a nobility of education and
of intellect, as well as a moneyed aristocracy,
and for my part, I consider that the former is
quite equal to the latter. In all countries
in the world education has produced a feeling of devotion to the country, while riches
alone have often produced but sordid avarice.
The hon. member pretends that if the elective principle continues to be applied to
the
Legislative Council, the result will very soon
be that
all those
adventurers who seek to
live in political life and by political life, will
drive from our midst all men of merit, and
will then control the affairs of the country.
For my part, I by no means stand in dread
of such a result, for I know that there is too
much good sense among the peeplc to make
it possible that they will ever consent to
serve as a stepping-stone to political adventurers in pursuit of the advancement of
their
own personal prospects and fortune in public
life. I am well aware that some political adventurers do occasionally succeed in imposing
upon the people by means of fine promises
and a hypocritical exterior ; but the political
life of such individuals has never been of
long duration, and the results of the election
of legislative councillors by the people
remain to prove the complete absence of
foundation for the fears expressed by the
honorable member. I think, moreover, that
the results which have hitherto obtained
from the application of the elective principle
to this House, and from the election of the
members who now sit in it, are satisfactory
and do no dishonor to this honorable House.
At any rate I never yet heard such a thing
asserted. The hon. member maintains that
it is not necessary that the Legislative Council should be elective, because that
body is
intended, or has for its mission, to act as a
counterpoise between the Executive and the
Lower House. But that state of affairs
exists at the present day,—and when all
acknowledge it,—when none complain of the
present system—we are told that this privilege
is to be taken away from the people in order
that it may be restored to the Crown ! Now,
I say that such a proceeding is a step in a
backward direction. and a retrogression from
187
the advancement of the age. Is it because
certain members of the Council have never
been successful in their efforts to be elected
for any county whatever, that they wish to
deprive the people of the right of electing
their representatives? But is it supposed
that by giving the Crown the right of appointing legislative councillors, the services
of more able, more upright, and more honorable men will be secured, than if the people
were allowed to elect them? When the
Legislative Council was made elective, those
who prepared the law were of the same opinion
as the honorable member (Hon. Sir N. F.
BELLEAU) that a rich man must of necessity
be a man of greater talent than one less
blessed with this world's goods, and, in order
that the people might not err in their selection, they enacted that every member elected
to the Legislative Council should possess at
least one thousand pounds in real property ;
but now, in the scheme of Confederation,
that amount is reduced by one-half, and it
is thereby admitted that the possession of
riches is not an indispensable condition to
the possession of talent. The honorable
member endeavored to justify the haste
with which it is sought to push the
scheme of Confederation through, by declaring that Lord PALMERSTON is a very aged
man, and that his Ministry is quavering in
the balance. So, because the Prime Minister of England is old, we are to be compelled
to swallow the pill without even being allowed
time to enquire whether it is suited to our
case or not. It must be acknowledged that
this is a very poor argument. As to the fear
of seeing the scheme of Confederation thrown
out in England, in case of any change taking
place in the constitution of the Imperial
Government, I look upon it as entirely chimerical—for if Confederation is acceptable
in England and to English interests now, it
will be just as acceptable to them eight or ten
months hence as it is at present. If the plan
is a useful one, in an English point of view,
it will be carried out, let what Government
may be in power. Then let the people have
time to consider of it. The honorable member has stated that there have been twelve
elections to the Legislative Council since the
question of Confederation has been mooted ;
but those elections did not take place at a
period subsequent to the preparation of the
scheme of Confederation, and consequently
the people were not and could not be
acquainted with the details. The result of
the twelve elections in question was
neither
favorable nor the reverse to the plan of Confederation, for that plan was not then
known.
It is said because the plan was distributed
throughout the country, that therefore it
must be known. But how could it be so,
especially in its details, when we every day
see the Government greatly embarrassed at
giving explanations, or refusing to give them,
on certain points ?—when, for instance, we
see a minister in one House state that the
seigniorial indemnity will be paid by Lower
Canada alone, whilst it is declared in another
House that that debt will be divided between
the two provinces ?—when we see ministers
asking for time to reply to each of the questions put to them respecting this scheme?
How can the people be aquainted with the
local constitutions and the legislatures, when
the ministers themselves would appear to
know nothing about them? How can the
people know in what matter this five million
dollars balance of debt, to be laid upon Canada, will be divided, since those who
prepared the scheme themselves do not know?
And there is a mass of other important
details which ought to be known in order to
be able to pronounce upon the merits of the
measure, such as the proposed law in relation
to education, measures of defence, the Inter-
colonial Railway, &c. We are told, indeed,
for instance, that the Protestants of Lower
Canada and the Catholics of Upper Canada
will be protected, in so far as relates to their
school system, but we have no guarantee of
it ; and if the scheme of Confederation is
adopted before these questions are settled,
who can tell us that the Government will
have as complaisant a majority to settle those
questions as to vote Confederation? There
is another part of the scheme which is of the
highest importance, and respecting which we
are entitled to explanations before voting for
it, and that is, the measures to be taken for
the defence of the country. It is important
that we should know what is to be the nature
of the defence which it is proposed to organize and what debt we are to incur for
the
purpose. Why not let us have the why and
the wherefore of the whole business in order
that we may come to a sound decision as to
the measure. These are details which we
ought to have.
HON. MR. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST
—It is stated that the federal union pro
188vides a means of forming a great people,
and
of raising us to a position in which we may
take a place among the nations of the globe.
But if into that people, by the Constitution
itself, the seeds of discord are introduced,
will any one believe that it would not be
better to live apart, as at the present time,
than to live together with disunion in our
midst? It was also stated that on entering
into the Confederation we should have to
reduce our import duties in order that our
tariff might agree with that of the Lower
Provinces. But, as a sequence of that
statement, we must enquire upon what the
effect of that reduction of duties will fall.
For my part, I am of opinion that the deficit
which that reduction of our revenue will
produce will have to be filled up by the
agriculture and industry of Canada. By
setting this Confederation going, in order to
overcome secondary difficulties, we shall be
working out the interests of the English
dealers by reducing the import duties one-
half. And who will provide the balance
which we shall have to find in order to meet
our expenditure? The agriculturist and
the artisan of this country, who will be made
to meet that balance by direct taxation.
The Lower Provinces are not agricultural
countries, and we are told that we shall
barter our flour for the produce of their
mines and their forests. But I am of opinion that it is not by enacting political
measures that the course of trade will be
changed. Let England abandon Canada at
once, and even with Confederation, our products will always go to England, because
it
is our most advantageous market, and will
always continue to be so. So also will it be
with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; that
is to say, the products of their mines will
continue to seek the United States markets,
because those provinces now have commercial relations with the United States. Those
Provinces will follow the general laws of
commercial transactions in going to the
United States, exactly as we go to Europe
to obtain there the goods which we require,
and to dispose of our products in return.
But to return to the question of the tariff ;
I say that we must needs come to the conclusion that the deficit created by the lowering
of the tariff will fall on the agriculture
and industry of the country, and that an
inferior position is ascribed to them in
the Confederation. If the import duties
are reduced from ten to eleven per cent.
our manufactures will be denuded of all
their profit, and we shall prevent capitalists
from establishing themselves in Canada.
This will be an immediate consequence of
Confederation. I have heard it said that
the Protestants of Lower Canada ought to
be satisfied with their prospects for the
future, because we have always acted with
liberality towards them. But that is no
guarantee for them, for we would not content ourselves with a mere promise to act
liberally, if we considered that our interest or
our institutions were threatened by a majority differing in race and religion from
ourselves ; and in any case that is not the
way to ensure the peace of the country. If
we establish this principle, we should say to
the Catholics of Upper Canada that they
ought to be satisfied with the lot which we
provide for them. When we make a Constitution, we must in the first place settle the
political and religious questions which divide
the populations for whom the Constitution is
devised ; because it is a well known fact, that
it is religious differences which have caused
the greatest troubles and the greatest difficulties which have agitated the people
in
days gone by. We must learn to prevent
them for the future. When we observe a man
like the hon. member (Hon. Sir N. F. BELLEAU) acknowledge that we do not agree
with the Irish, despite the identity of our
religious belief, it may easily be foreseen
that difficulties will arise with populations
differing from us in origin and belief. We
are told to vote Confederation first, and that
the details will be arranged at a subsequent
period ; that a measure will then be brought
down to regulate the sectional or sectarian
difficulties. I am quite willing to admit
that such a measure will be presented ; but,
should not the majority choose to adopt it,
we should then be compelled to remain with
the seeds of trouble and dissension, which
the House will not have succeeded in eradicating, implanted among us. It is also
asked what kind of Local Government we
shall have; but the Government will make
no statement respecting it
until Confederation is voted. What kind of a Constitution,
and what Governor we shall have ? What
Governor ? Perhaps that is where the great
secret lies, for I believe that for some time
past the idea or the hope of being governor
has filled the head of more than one political man. What is to be the amount of the
Governor's salary? These are so many
189
questions in respect of which we are
in complete ignorance, and in relation to which the
Government will say nothing whatever.
And, with respect to the constitution of the
local governments, are we, in case the Upper
Canada majority choose to impose their ideas
upon us, are we, I say, to submit to them ?
Such a proceeding would not be fair either to
us or to the country. The hon. member (Hon.
Sir N. F. BELLEAU) tells us that we were not
sincere in asking for an appeal to the people,
because we knew that dissolution would not
reach us. Such expressions do not surprise
me, proceeding as they do from a man who
never had the honor to be the elected representative of the people, and who holds
his
seat by the favor of the Crown, but I fail to
discover by what right he judges us in such
a manner. In conclusion, I shall move the
following amendment :-
That all the words after "That" in the
first
line thereof be left out, and that the following
words be inserted in lieu thereof, viz :—"The
debate on the motion for an Address to Her
Majesty on the subject of a union of
the British
North American Colonies be postponed until such
time as the Government shall have made known
to this House : 1st. The measures it intends to
submit to the Legislature for
the purpose of
organizing the local governments and legislatures in Upper and Lower
Canada. 2nd. The
bill on the subject of
education which it intends
to submit to the present
Parliament for the protection of minorities in Upper
and Lower Canada. 3rd. The correspondence
between the Imperial Government and the Government of
Canada, respecting the defence of
the province, and
what measure the Government intends to
submit
to us for the same purpose.
4th. In what manner the Government intends to
divide between
the Provinces of Upper and
Lower Canada the
balance of our present
provincial debt, after deducting the $62,500,000 payable
by the Federal
Government. and which will be
the items assigned
to each of those provinces.
5th. The report of
Mr. Fleming on the survey for the
Intercolonial
Railway."
HON. MR. OLIVIER —Before proceeding to a vote, I will ask the hon. member
(Hon. Sir N. F. BELLEAU) who proposed
to my honorable friend (Hon. Mr. LETELLIER) and myself to resign our
seats if we
did not now choose to vote for Confederation, and submit the question to our electors,
whether the debate will be postponed
until our elections are over ?
HON. SIR. N. F. BELLEAU—As I am
not a member of the Government, it will be
understood that I cannot reply to that question. I did not propose to them to resign
their seats, but I said that if they were
serious in their objections they might resign
and submit the question to their constituents
by presenting themselves for reelection.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—I understand the
object of the hon. member in giving that
advice. He would wish to see us retire
from the House during the contest ; but that
is a trap into which we will not fall. Surprise must have been excited that I did
not correct all the inaccuracies of the hon.
member when he spoke of what I had
said ; but I preferred not doing so, as I
should have had to take up nearly every
single word of his in order to correct it,
as he distorted and altered the sense of
nearly everything that I said. I conceive
that a blush must have mantled his forehead
as he concluded his speech.
CONTENTS—Hon. Messieurs Aikins, Archambault, Armstrong, Bennett,
Bureau, Chaffers,
Cormier, Currie, A. J.
Duchesnay, Flint, Leonard, Leslie, Letellier de St.
Just, Malhiot, Olivier,
Perry, Proulx, Beesor, Seymour and
Simpson.-
20.
NON-CONTENTS—Hon. Messieurs Alexander,
Allan, Armand, Sir N. F. Belleau, Fergusson
Blair, Blake, Boulton, Bossé, Bull, Burnham,
Campbell, Christie, Crawfard, DeBeaujeu, Dickson, H. J. Duchesnay, Dumouchel,
Ferrier,
Flint, Gingras, Guevermont, Hamilton (Kingston,) Hamilton (Inkerman,) Lacoste, McCrea,
McMaster, Macpherson, Matheson, Mills, Panet,
Price, Prud'homme, Read, Ross, Shaw, Skead,
Sir E. P. Taché, and Wilson.---38
And the Council then adjourned.
This individual participated in:
