189
WEDNESDAY, February 15, 1865.
HON. MR. BUREAU said—I should have
refrained from addressing the House, had I not heard the astounding language
made use of by the hon. member opposite to me (Sir N. F. BELLEAU). He has
spoken to us of annexationists and republicans, and of the dangers with
which they menaced the country. I am far from surprised at such
language on his part, for an ardent supporter as he is of
the present Government, who desire to effect Confederation with a view to
strengthen the monarchical principle in this country, he is doubtless alarmed
at the tendencies of some of the members of this
190
Cabinet, and at the republican sentiments to which they
gave utterance. I, however, believe that the annexationists who are most
to be feared are not those of whom he speaks, those who holdly and openly
express their opinion on the questions which now agitate the country, but
those rather who endeavor by all possible means, to sow the seeds of
discord between us and our neighbors in the United States, and to plunge us
into war. Surely those who boldly proclaim their opinions to the whole
country, cannot be accused of disloyalty when they do it with the view of
serving their country. I do not believe that there is a single member in this
House who would wish to see our country annexed to the United States. I
think, on the other hand, that all are striving to find the means of
establishing a government and a political condition that shall bear equitably
on all sections of the population without distinction of race or creed—a
system which will secure the stability of our institutions and the
general welfare of the country. The hon. gentleman has also referred to the
dangers of the elective system as applied to this House, because scheming
politicians without a stake in the country might acquire popularity, and
work their way into the House. Let that hon. gentleman read the history
of his country, and he will find that the principal men who have occupied the
leading political positions were children of the people, who, thanks to
their education, their talents and their perseverance, have attained to
the control of the business of the country. Let him call to mind the history
of the past, and he will remember that there was a time when the
Legislative Council had become an obstacle to all reform and to all
progress. But thanks to our energy and to our perseverance, a liberal ministry
has been enabled toobtain the long-sought-for reforms. The
LAFONTAINE-BALDWIN Administration, seeing that there was no possibility of
obtaining reforms on account of the obstacles raised by the
Legislative Council as then constituted, had recourse to the
appointment of new liberal councillors; and by the adhesion of the older
ones, they succeeded in carrying their measures. The times at which these
appointments were made, were as follows :— In 1848, the SHERWOOD-BADGLEY
Administration appointed the Hon. D. B. VIGER. In this case
we had a Liberal nominated by a Tory Ministry. Afterwards, on the accession
of the LAFONTAINE-BALDWIN Ministry, Sir
E.P. TACHÉ and the Hon. Messsrs. JAMES LESLIE, QUESNEL, BOURRET,
DEBEAUJEU, ROSS, METHOT, J. E. TURGEON, MILLS, CRANE, JONES and WYLIE,
were appointed. Had it not been for the nomination of these members, and
the adhesion given by some others, it would have been impossible to
reform the Legislative Council. But what results may be anticipated from the
proposed constitution of the Federal Legislative Council ? By
limiting the number of the members of this House, the prerogative of
the Crown is, in fact, restricted, and a system is adopted, exactly the
reverse of that which exists in England. And in the event of serious
dificulties arising between the House of Commons and the Upper House, what
would happen ? The same thing would happen which has already occurred
before, but with this difference, that the Crown would not have the power
of infusing new elements, and legislation would thus be at a stand-still.
The only course to be pursued under those circumstances will be to ask the
Imperial Government to amend the constitution of the Council,
as the people will be powerless from our having deprived them of the
right of electing councillors. For my part, I am convinced that this new system
will not be productive of beneficial results. I do not propose to repeat
here all the arguments which have been already urged against
the projected changes; but I must say, as holding my authority from the people,
that the question of Confederation has never been adverted to during the
two elections which I have passed through, and that, therefore,
I do not think that my constituents expressed their opinion on this
question when they elected me, or that they conferred upon me the right
of changing the constitution of the Legislative Council, without
consulting them in the matter. I am aware that in 1859
Confederation was referred to in a paragraph of the Speech from the Throne,
but I also remember that at that time I combated the idea of
Confederation, because the carrying out of the views expressed in that
paragraph would have resulted in giving all the influence to one section of the
province at the expense of the other section. At that period
it was not the question of Confederation which was discussed, but the
question of representation based upon population, and the Upper
Canada Separate School question. I stated at the time, as regarded those
separate schools, that the
191
minority of Upper Canada must not be abandoned to the mercy of the majority, and
we
succeeded in obtaining for them a system of separate schools which, however,
does not appear to satisfy the minority. In Lower Canada. the Protestant
minority has always been satisfied with the school system, until quite
lately ; and they have now begun to agitate with the view of obtaining, as they
pretend, a more equitable distribution of the moneys appropriated for
school purposes. For my part, I know that they have no foundation for their claim,
and I remember that when I was Secretary of the
province, I drew the attention of the Superintendent of Education to the
unequal distribution of the money, as it appeared that the Protestant
minority of Lower Canada received a larger amount than they were entitled to.
He replied that the distribution had been so made by his predecessor, and
that he had not deemed it advisable to make any change. Thus we see that
uneasiness prevails among the minority, both in Upper Canada and Lower
Canada, and even among the majority in Lower Canada. But I was astonished to
hear the remedy announced by my honorable colleague (Hon. Sir N. F.
BELLEAU), in the event of the Federal Government endeavoring to
prejudice the interests of Lower Canada. He tells us that as Lower
Canada is to have sixty-five representatives in the Federal Legislature
out of 194, these sixty- five members from Lower Canada will
always be able to preserve their rights by taking sides with the Opposition to
turn out the Government. Does the hon. member really suppose that all the
members from Lower Canada would make common cause on any question ? Does
he not know that there will always be a minority among them of different
origin and religion who will probably take part with the Government
or with the majority? In such a case, what would the Opposition from
Lower Canada avail about which he talks ? Do we not know that the
dificulties which gave rise to the plan of Confederation were produced by
theccalition of an Upper Canada minority with the Lower Canada majority ? And
what happened to Upper Canada might very well happen to Lower Canada. By
rejecting the principle of the double majority adopted by a liberal
ministry, the apple of discord was thrown among the legislative body which
originated the present dificuties. Another great error committed by the
members from
Lower Canada was the overturning of a
government which had maintained the principle of an equality in representation. We
now see to what that has brought us. The
hon. member (Hon. Sir N. F. BELLEAU)
had said that our institutions would be protected under the Federal Government. But
how ? By the resolutions as they stand
they would not be so guarded ; and would
not the General Government put its veto on
every act of the local governments ? And
while on this subject, I should like to know
what is to be the organization of the Local
Government of Lower Canada. As far as I
can see, it is this—that nearly all our local
revenue is to be taken from us, and we are
to be allowed a subsidy of eighty cents per
head. And yet this is not all. There will
be a debt of $5,000,000 to be shared between
Upper and Lower Canada ; and how is this
sharing to be brought about ? If, as we are
told, Lower Canada is to be charged with
the payment of the debt contracted for the
redemption of the Seigniorial Tenure, that
alone will represent a capital of about
$4,118,202, including $891,500 indemnity
to the townships. Is Lower Canada to
undertake the payment of that sum ? Certain sources of revenue in Lower Canada are
devoted to the redemption of the Seigniorial
Tenure, but if the Federal Government
absorbs these sources of revenue, who will
assure us that the Local Government will not
repudiate the Seigniorial debt now by the
Federal scheme sought to be imposed on it?
The Local Legislature will say, perhaps, that
the Imperial Government has not the right
of annulling the act which imposes on
United Canada the payment of the indemnity
to the seigniors, and will probably refuse to
assume the whole responsibility of it, alleging
that the General Government ought to pay
it. And if the Local Government takes this Â
course, what will the General Government
do ? On this question it will be easy to
excite the passions of the people, prejudiced
as they already are against the seigniors.
Chiefly, and above all, we are bound to respect vested rights. We are recommended
to vote with blind confidence, but we are
refused the details, which might satisfy the
country and the honorable members of this
House. Why not lay the constitution of
the Local Government before the House?
We are told that the possession of her civil
code is to be guaranteed to Lower Canada,
but we are not informed how it is to be done.
192
Then the Federal Government will have
the right of settling questions of divorce
and marriage. With respect to divorce I
shall make no remarks, because I think it
best that the decision of such questions
should be left to the General Government,
an exception being made in favor of co—
religionists. What shall I say on the subject of marriage—the basis of all our
institutions ? Is it not dangerous to have it
at the mercy of the Federal Government?
We shall soon be told probably that it is but
a sounding affair, and before long, mayors
will take the place of the
curés, and will
celebrate the marriages of their constituents.
Our laws which regulate our marriages at
resent are very important to us, and are
based on the Roman law. These are the
only laws suitable to Canadians, and the wise
provisions characterizing them were the fruit
of the experience of several ages. We
should not incur the risk of any change in
them by a legislature, the majority of whose
members do not hold our Opinions on this
subject. The hon. member (Hon. Sir N. F.
BELLEAU) might have favored us with his
opinion on this head, but he did not, and I
regret that he did not. There is another
question deeply interesting to Lower Canada,
but it seems that on that neither must we
permit ourselves to speak. That question
relates to the interest of money. Do we
not know that the question of the rate of
interest has something to do with our civil
laws? Is that also of no importance? An
Upper Canada majority has already saddled us with a law abolishing the rate of
interest. Free trade in money was not
suitable to Lower Canada, and the right of
legislating on the question is now sought to
be entrusted to the Federal Government.
What will be the result? Who will assure
us that the law limiting the rate of interest
will not be repealed as it respects all cases,
and that banks and corporations will not be
allowed to exact such rates of interest as
they may think fit, as private persons may
now. This might become the fate of Lower
Canada. Why not allow the local legislatures
to regulate the question according to the
exigencies and the ideas of communities
which they represent, as the same is now
fixed and decided in the United States, where
the rate of interest varies in the several
states? Thus Lower Canada will be prevented from regulating a question which has
been decided for us by Upper Canada against
our wishes. I confess that I am surprised
at this, because I see in the present Administration men who have done battle at my
side on that very question. The local legislatures will have the power of making laws
on the subjects of immigration and agriculture; but the Federal egislature will have
the same power, and it is evident that it will
have the upper hand on these matters; that
the laws of Lower Canada, for instance, may
be overridden by means of the veto of the
Federal Government. But there is something yet more fraught with danger for us.
The Federal Government will have the right
of imposing taxes on the lprovinces without
the concurrence of the coal governments.
Under article five of the 29th resolution, the
Federal Government may raise moneys by
all modes or systems of taxation, and I look
upon this power as most excessive. Thus,
in case it should happen, as I said a moment
ago, that the Lower Canada Government
refused to undertake the payment of the debt
contracted for the redemption of the Seigniorial Tenure, the Federal Government
would have two methods of compelling it to
do so. First, by retaining the amount out
of the eighty cents per head indemnity to
be accorded to the Local Government, and
secondly, by imposing a local and direct
tax. The Lieutenant Governor of the Local
Government will be appointed by the Federal
Government, and will be guided by its
instructions. We are not told whether the
Local Government will be responsible to the
Local Legislature; whether there will be only
one or two branches of the Legislature, nor
how the Legislative Council will be composed, if there is to be one; we are refused
any information whatsoever on these points,
which are nevertheless of some importance.
I regret, therefore, that the amendment proposed yesterday by the hon. member for
Grandville, should have been rejected, since
it would have enabled us to obtain important
information before voting on the question.
I do not see that the reasons advanced yesterday by the Hon. Sir N. F. BELLBAU, to
justify the haste with which it is attempted
to pass this measure, are legitimate and
conclusive. We are told that the present
Ministry in England is in favor of this pro.
ject. For my part I do not think the measure
will be adopted without important amendments. Unfortunately the measure will.
perhaps, be amended in England in a sense
ighly prejudicial to Lower Canada in
193
particular. We shall probably see influences
brought to hear there, as occurred once be—
fore when the Legislative Council was made
elective. The Lower Canada members will
recollect that when the law was passed in
England, under influences which to this
day remains unearthed, the clause was blotted out from our Constitution which we in
Lower Canada justly regarded as our only
safeguard against the encroachments and
the domination of Upper Canada ; and
in point of fact, for the striking out or
changing of that clause, Upper Canada would
never have demanded representation by
population, and the difficulties which have
resulted from this question would not have
occurred, and we should have heard nothing
of the Confederation measure which is now
before us. Had the people of Upper Canada
been well convinced that the Constitution
could not he changed, they would have submitted to sacrifices rather than create a
useless agitation. It is said that we are to
have guarantees for our institutions. But
who will say that the guarantees left to us
may not vanish when the measure reaches
England, in the same way as the guarantee
we had against representation by population ? At all events I still maintain that
our
institutions are not guaranteed in any way
whatsoever, and this is clearly shown by Sir
N. F. BELLEAU himself, as I have already
had occasion to prove. We are asked to
sacrifice the election of the Legislative
Council ; but is the system proposed a better
one ? I do not think so, for to my mind the
mode in which it is proposed to constitute
that House appears to be unsound in every
way. Not only are the people to be deprived
of an important right, but the prerogative of
the Crown is to be infringed by limiting the
number of members to be appointed. It is
painful to take a backward step of this kind,
and to abandon a reform, the fruit of the
persevering struggles of so many eminent
men ; and I believe that if we consent to this
change, the consequences of the act will soon
be seen. In order to show that the defects
of the system are very real, I will cite the
opinion of the Hon. the Secretary of State
for the Colonies, set forth in his despatch to
the Governor General, relative to the project
of Confederation and to the new Constitution
for the Legislative Council. This is what
Mr. CARDWELL says :—
The second point which Her Majesty's Government desire should be reconsidered is the
Constitution of the Legislative Council. They appreciate the considerations which have influenced
the
Conference in determining the mode in which this
body, so important to the constitution of the
Legislature, should be composed. But it appears
to them to require further consideration, whether,
if the members be appointed for life, and their
number be fixed, there will be any sufficient
means of restoring harmony between the Legislative Council and the popular Assembly,
if it shall
ever unfortunately happen that a decided difference of opinion shall arise between
them.
After this formal condemnation of the project of Confederation, and in view of our
own experience, it seems to me that we are
quite justified in opposing it, and in anticipating that the Legislative Council will
become again, as it formerly was, an obstacle in
the way of all reform and of all progress,
unless the present plan of Confederation be
amended. (Cheers.)
HON. Mr. FERRIER said—Honorable
gentlemen, I had almost resolved to give a
silent vote for the resolutions now before the
House, but having, especially since I have
had the honour of a seat in the Legislative
Council, been accustomed to take note of
passing events in the history of Canada, I
think I may he allowed to occupy a short
time in speaking of what has transpired in
this country in past years, and more particularly of what has transpired within the
last
twelve months. In past years there were two
great questions which agitated both Eastern and Western Canada. The one was the
Seigniorial question in Lower Canada ; the
other was the Clergy Reserve question in
Western Canada. These two questions, for
many years, occupied the attention of the
Legislature and of the statesmen conducting
successive governments. At last a settlement
of these important questions was arrived at—
I believe satisfactory to the majority of the
people. Since that the no great questions
of public interest have occupied the minds of
the people, or have been urged either by the
Government of the day or by the leaders of
the Opposition. The consequence has been
that a political warfare has been waged in
Canada for many years, of a nature calculated
almost to destroy all correct political and
moral principle, both in the Legislature and
out of it. Has it not been the fact that any
man who, through life, had sustained a good
character, either as a private individual or a
professional man, no sooner accepted office in
the Government than the Opposition and the
Oppsition papers would attack him at once
as giving joined a very doubtful company?
194
Or, when a man of plain sense came and visited the Legislature, and took his seat
in the
galleries to listen to the debates, did he not
hear so frequently the charges of political crime,
bribery and corruption, that he left the House
with very different views from those with
which he entered it ? Every member of Parliament has felt this demoralizing influence,
and it has met him at the polls, and nothing
but money, in some cases, could secure his
election. (Hear, hear.) I come now to the
period of 1863-64, when we find two political
parties nearly equal in strength, with a majority supporting the Government of only
two
or three. That Government found it necessary to appeal to the country by a general
election. After that election the Government
of the honorable and gallant Knight (Hon.
Sir E. P. TACHÉ) was formed. It existed
only a very short time, and on the 14th of
June of last year came what has been called
the dead-lock. Then, honorable gentlemen,
there was, for eight or ten days, a breathing
time for the parties who had been engaged in
this political strife. It was a breathing time
to them, as it were, to reflect upon the past
and to endeavor to look forward to the future.
It had been thought by many that the spirit
of patriotism in the hearts of our statesmen
was a dead principle. In their strife they
seemed to have forgotten the best interests of
Canada. But, during these ten days, the spirit
of patriotism revived. This was a memorable
period in the history of Canada. The leader
of the Opposition, the Hon. GEORGE BROWN
—I speak it to his honor—was the first to
declare what he was ready to do, and what he
proposed was so reasonable that very soon the
acceptance of his propositions was brought
about. I have pleasing recollections in referring to that period, particularly as
having had
an opportunity of giving a word of advice on
the evening of the day these propositions were
made. I may refer to it, as the name of the
gentleman I allude to, Mr. MORRIS, a member of the Legislative Assembly, was incorporated
in the documents that were submitted to
this honorable House, when the result of the
resolutions was laid before us. Meeting Mr.
MORRIS one evening, he informed me of what
the Hon. Mr. BROWN had proposed. I thought
it was so reasonable, and looked so like a
deliverance from the dilemma we were in, that
I recommended him at once to communicate
it to the leading members of the Government,
and I accompanied him to a member of the
Government, who is also a member of the House,
now present. He told that honorable gentle
man what Hon. Mr. BROWN had communicated to him, and be (Mr. MORRIS) was authorized
to make an arrangement for the other
members of the Government to meet Hon. Mr.
BROWN. We all very well remember the time
I am speaking of, and the astonishment of
many that a reconciliation could have taken
place between gentlemen who had been so
long opposed to each other. I do not know
that I ought to repeat what was the
on-
dit of the day with reference to it. But, I
think I can remember this being said, that,
when Hon. Mr. GALT met Hon. Mr. BROWN,
he received him with that manly, open frankness, which characterizes him, and that,
when
Hon. Mr. CARTIER met Hon. Mr. BROWN,
he looked carefully to see that his two
Rouge
friends were not behind him—(laughter)—and
that when he was satisfied they were not, he
embraced him with open arms and swore
eternal friendship— (laughter and cheers)—
and that Hon. Mr. MACDONALD, at a very
quick glance, saw there was an opportunity.
HON. MR. FERRIER—That Hon. Mr.
MACDONALD saw there was an opportunity of
forming a great and powerful dependency of
the British Empire ; that the gallant Knight,
the Premier of the Government, with his
liberal, cautious, and comprehensive mind,
did not object, and that the Commissioner
of Crown Lands, with his usual courtesy, his
vigorous and acute mind, agreed. ( Hear,
hear.) To the best of my recollection, that
was the way in which it was said out of doors
the propositions of Hon. Mr. BROWN were received by the gentlemen composing the Government
of that day. You all remember how
delighted we were to find that political bitterness had ceased. We all thought, in
fact.
that a political millennium had arrived—and
the Opposition was nowhere. (Laughter.)
The business of the session progressed very
rapidly, and we were soon relieved from our
responsible duties here. Immediately after
the close of the session, the agreement entered
into was fully carried out. Hon. Mr BROWN
and the other two honorable gentleman who
entered the Government with him, were added
to it, according to the agreement. These
honorable gentlemen went to the country, and
they were all returned, except one, and he
very soon afterwards found a place. The
Government thus formed, had, I believe, a
majority of two-thirds of the population of
Canada in their favor ; and, so far as my observation has gone, two-thirds of the
pres
195
also, have supported them in this scheme of
union. The Government, thus sustained,
soon began to act, and their first movement
was to take the provincial steamer and go off
to Prince Edwar Island. I remember well
standing on the bank of the river at Rivière
du Loup, seeing the steamer pass down, and I
wished them God-speed. They went to the
Conference at Charlottetown, and I have no
doubt they acted in a manner worth of gentlemen going to propose a union. We know
too that they were well received. There had
been a growing love in these provinces towards
Canada for some time. This was manifested
when they gave an invitation to this Legislature to visit them, after the close of
last session. And I only regret that the Legislature—
every member of it—did not accept that invitation. Those who did, came back much
better informed than when they went there.
We had the satisfaction of seeing those who
probably are going to be our partners in this
union. And I do assure you, that for one, I
can speak of the people of the Lower Provinces, as an energetic, active, industrious
people, quite equal to ourselves. (Hear, hear.)
And, as regards the resources of these provinces, I had no idea of them approaching
the reality, before I paid that visit We saw
farms there on the banks of the River St.
John, quite equal to any farms in our western peninsula, which is called the garden
of
Canada. The members of the Conference at
Charlottetown, as I understood, after discussing the whole question, and arriving
at something like an understanding, returned to their
respective governments, and arranged to have
a Conference, representing in a more oflicial
manner all the provinces. Some gentlemen
have objected that this was an unauthorized,
self-constituted Conference. But I believe,
it can be shewn that they had the express
authority of the British Government for entering into these negotiations. The Lower
Provinces sent members of their several governments, and they did more—they appointed
the leaders of the Opposition to accompany
them—so that the people of those provinces
were fully represented. They did, in fact,
what was equivalent to that which has been
done in Canada, where our coalition Government represents both classes of politics.
The
able statesmen, composing the Conference
which assembled at Quebec, thus represented
the whole people of these provinces. It has
been objected that it was impossible that a
Conference, meeting only for a few days, could
have devised a measure that would be of a
character which we could accept. But, honorable gentlemen, when men meet together
honestly to carry out a purpose, they can do
a great deal in a very short time. (Hear,
hear.) And I believe the gentlemen composing the Conference which assembled here
in this city were men of honest purpose, and
earnestly bent on framing a Constitution that
would be for the best interests of our country.
We cannot expect it-to be infallible, because
no human act is such; but it is of such a
character that I do not think we can ever
have another opportunity, if this is let slip,
of receiving again a document so well calculated to answer the ends designed. There
could be no merely party government either
here or in the Lower Provinces which could
produce a document that would be so acceptable, or ought to be so, to the whole people.
(Hear, hear.) I think it is unfair to make
comparisons tween Upper and Lower Canada and the Lower Provinces. When we take
partners for life we take them for richer or
poorer, and endow them with all our worldly
goods, and I think we should go on the same
principle in carrying out this union with the
Lower Provinces. have been surprised at
some of the arguments which I have heard
some of the opponents of this scheme bring
against it. I was assuredly surprised at the
course taken the other day by my honorable
friend from Niagara (Hon. Mr. CURRIE), who,
in trying to make out a point, spoke of our
commercial and agricultural interets here as
being very small, and in speaking of our shipping and the amount of tonnage employed
in
doing the business of Canada, said, "Oh!
that only exists on paper."
HON. Mr. CURRIE—I beg my honorable
friend's pardon. In any remarks I made I
certainly did not say that either the commercial or agricultural interests of Canada
were small. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. FERRIER—When my honor—
able friend makes this statement, I have
nothing further to say about it. I supposed
I was correct in the impression I gathered
from his remarks, but I must have misunderstood him. But I must say this, that I
thought he was exceedingly unkind when he
took up newspapers and read from them a catalogue of the supposed political sins of
his own
friends, the party he formerly acted with. As
these honorable gentlemen are now devoting
themselves to what I regard as being for the best
interests of the country by carrying out this
scheme of union, I think really my honorable
friend would do better to support them.
196
HON. MR. FERRIER—I am giving my
opinion—nothing more. But my honorable
friend proceeded to refer to the Grand Trunk
Railway—(hear, hear)—that monster corpor ation which, one would have inferred from
my honorable friend's remarks, had really
laid desolate every district of Canada through
which it had passed. For my own part I
cannot understand what damage the Grand
Trunk Railway has done to Canada. We
have had thirteen millions sterling of English
capital—(hear, hear.) —expended in building
the Grand Trunk ailway and the Victoria
Bridge, which is the greatest work in the
world. Canada has paid somewhere about
three millions to complete the Grand Trunk
--about one-fifth part of the sixteen millions
that have been spent, and it is the cheapest
bargain she ever made. (Hear, hear.) We
have the benefit of the whole of this expenditure. If there has been extravagance
in it,
those English stockholders have been the
suferers. We can only have suffered a fifth
part of what they have done, and we have
the benefit of the whole of it. That I think
is the view we ought to take of the Grand
Trunk Railway in connection with Canada.
(Hear, hear.) Then the Intercolonial Railway has been referred to. That road has
become, I think, even at present a necessity.
It should have been made some years ago,
and it would have been made but for the
political incapacity of the Government of that
day, which prevented it. (Hear, hear.)
HON MR. CURRIE—Let me remind my
honorable friend that two members of that
Government—Hon. Messrs. MCDOUGALL and
HOWLAND—are in the present Government.
HON. MR. FERRIER—It is fortunate
that some men see the error of their ways,
and do better, and I trust it has been so in
the present case. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
If we had had this road to the sea-board at
the present time, it is very likely the Reciprocity Treaty would not have been repealed.
(Hear, hear.) We want the road at the present moment for the business of the country.
Some honorable gentlemen say that, if the
road were made to-day, we would have nothing
to send over it. The fact is, these honorable
gentlemen, when they make such a statement,
show that they have not taken the trouble to
enquire what the position of the trade of the
country is. For the last ten days we have
had about 100 cars standing loaded at Point St.
Charles, and no way of getting them off. These
cars are full of produce for Boston and New
York, and the two roads leading to these
cities have so much to do, that they are unable to do the business of their own country
and of ours too. And, while these cars are
thus detained, they are wanted for Western
Canada, where the people are evermore crying for cars, and we cannot get rid of the
produce we have.
HON. MR. SIMPSON—Will my honorable
friend state what kind of produce these cars
are loaded with, and where it came from ?
HON. MR. FERRIER—The whole, I believe, is the produce of Canada. (Hear, hear.)
One portion of it is for the supply of New
York and Boston, or for shipment there; and
another portion is to be distributed along the
routes by which these railways run. I was
so particular as to make these enquiries of
Mr. BRYDGES the day before yesterday.
HON. MR. FERRIER—We have also a
large accumulation of cars standing full of produce at Portland, and no ships to take
it away.
Such is the present state of the Grand Trunk
Railway, and it is a very awkward position to
be placed in. As the gallant Knight (Hon. Sir
E. P. TACHÉ) told us the other day, it is just as
if a neighbor's farm stood between us and the
highway. That is the position of the United
States, they stand between Canada and the
sea board, and they have now been pleased to
say, "we will not allow you to pass through
our farm "—because, although the Reciprocity
Treaty is not yet repealed, they have put a
check on intercourse by this passport system,
and by the way in which they work the
present law with reference to the produce we
are taking along. For instance, if pork is sent
on, an affidavit must be put in that that pork
is the produce of Canada. Now, it is a difficult thing to make such an affidavit.
At this
season of the year loads of pork come from all
quarters, and after it is all packed into a
barrel, it is almost impossible for any man to
make an affidavit where it was raised. (Hear,
hear.) It is the same with flour. A miller
frequently mixes flour brought in from the
United States, and how is an aflidavit to be
made whether that flour is mixed or not '?
There may be four-fifths of it the produce of
Canada, and yet the other fifth prevents it
from going. Hence, the trade is so hampered
by all these obstructions put in the way by the
United States Government, that it is very
seriously interfered with. And, that being
the position of our trade, I beg to ask whether
197
the Intercolonial Railroad is not now wanted?
I have some memoranda here taken from some
statements I have had an opportunity of looking
at, and I find that the Lower Provinces require 600,000 barrels of flour and grain
annually beyond what they raise themselves.
Now that they take flour from Boston and
from Portland, a considerable quantity of it
is carried down by the Grand Trunk Railway
to Portland. It is then taken round to St.
John, and is taken up the St. John river,
and distributed all the way along, until within
sixty miles of our own Canadian frontier at
Rivièra du Loup. Now, I would ask any
sensible man whether it would not be as easy
for the Intercolonial Railway to take this produce and distribute it along the line,
just as
the Grand Trunk is now doing in the State
of Maine? St. John is just 600 miles from
Montreal—the same distance that Portland is
from Sarnia. Well, to move this quantity of
flour that I have mentioned, 600,000 barrels,
would occupy one train every working day
through the year. I think that is a sufficient
answer to any honorable gentleman who says
there is nothing to do for this Intercolonial
Railway. (Hear, hear.) In 1862, New
Brunswick sold goods to the United States to
the value of $880,000, and purchased $2,916,000—thus paying to the United States $2,
000,000 in hard cash. Nova Scotia exported
$1,879,000 to the United States, and purchased from the United States $3,860,000—
thus paying them another S2,000,000. These
two provinces, therefore, paid to the United
States in one year, the sum of four millions
of dollars. There is a trade now between the
United States and those provinces of ten
millions of dollars a year. The proposed
abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty discards
that trade, and should we not here in Canada
lay hold of it ? (Hear, hear.) Is not every
mercantile man wide awake and ready to lay
hold of it at once, if there was a possibility of
doing so ? but there is no such possibility,
excepting by the Intercolonial Railroad.
Another thing I wish to point out is, that half
the importations of tea into New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia are supplied from the United
States. Now, that is precisely an article
which we could send along the railway at a
very low figure—and every honorable gentleman is well aware that Montreal and Quebec
compete with New York and Boston in the
tea trade. Upper Canada merchants know
that they would never go to Montreal to purchase the large cargoes of tea sold there
if
they could do better in New York. And I
maintain, therefore, that Quebec and Montreal are in a position, as soon as they have
the opportunity, to do the business of those
provinces, better, in fact, than the United
States can do. (Hear, hear.) Under the
Reciprocity Treaty and the bonding system,
in about the period of fifteen years, the trade
between ourselves and the United States has
increased from $9,000,000 to $37,000,000—
being four hundred per cent. In 1862, the
Canadian imports passing through the United
States in bond amounted to $6,000,000. And,
unless we are careful in looking into the progress of trade here as well as in the
United
States, we may lose what is absolutely necessary for the prosperity of our country.
It
requires men to be wide-awake in these days
of rapid progress to keep pace with the march
of events. (Hear, hear.) And I am prepared
to shew, as I have already to some extent
endeavored to shew, and my own mind is
made up on it, that, before the Intercolonial
Railroad can be made, we will have enough
business for it to pay expenses—(hear, hear)
—so that no loss can accrue to the provinces
when the road is made—that is, three years
hence, if it were set about now. But, I suppose, if this union is brought about, some
time
will be taken, after the Confederation is
formed, to decide upon the mode of proceeding
with the construction, and, if it is gone on
with even in the most rapid manner, it would
take at least four years before it was in full
working order. I think it is much to be
regretted that we have been so long in commencing it. In view of the present state
of
our relations with the United States, it ought
to have been in existence now, and I say that
in another year it would have paid expenses.
(Hear, hear.) Honorable gentlemen object
to the scheme of union because it was not
published sufficiently to make the people of these
provinces acquainted with it. I do not understand that objection. Every clause of
the document now under consideration was published
in Quebec, before the delegates left the city
HON. MR. SIMPSON—But it was denied
that it was a correct copy of the resolutions of
the Conference.
HON. MR. SIMPSON—The copy of the
document I got was marked " Private," and I
could not, therefore, make use of it.
HON. MR. FERRIER—I dare say honorable members, in receiving the document, un
198
derstood very well what the word, " Private "
meant. (Hear, hear.) I was invited to attend a very large meeting, comprising nearly
all the leading merchants in Montreal, just
after the delegates left for home. We spent
a whole night over it ; I believe it was early
in the morning before we parted. A third
part of those present, I think, came apparently determined to oppose the scheme. Fortunately
we had a gentleman there who had
made himself thoroughly acquainted with it,
and who was able to go into explanations and
deal with all the whys and wherefores that
were urged by the various objectors. The
result was, that when we closed the meeting
there was only one man who declared himself
positively opposed to the scheme— (hear,
hear,)—and this man said he opposed it, because, in his opinion, it would give the
French Canadians power to crush us British
out of the Lower Provinces. I maintain,
honorable gentlemen, that the public opinion
of Canada is not opposed to the scheme of
Confederation. (Hear, hear.) If it had been
so, we should have petitions against it poured
in upon us from every quarter. I do not
think the scheme is perfect, but we should try
with an honest purpose to work it out, and
if it is found defective, it is not, of course,
like the laws of the Medea and Persians—it
can be altered. We have had the Constitution of 1841 altered more than once—twice
at least—since the union. If we find that
some parts of the machinery do not work—if,
after the establishment of the Confederation,
we find some little error has been made—we
will then, no doubt, have power and authority
also to alter it. I trust this scheme of Federation will be carried by a large majority
in
this House, as well as in the Legislative Assembly, and that the legislatures of the
Lower Provinces will also adopt it. If so,
honorable gentlemen, we shall enter on a new
era in the history of British North America.
(Hear, hear.) I believe that a Divine Providence guides the destinies of nations,
and
I believe a Divine Providence has directed
the statesmen who were present at that
Conference in their deliberations, and has
brought conflicting interests into harmony
in a most wonderful way. (Hear, hear.)
What was our political condition on the
fourteenth of June last— only about eight
months ago ? What was our political condition then, and what brought the leaders
of the political parties who were then fiercely contending with each other, almost
as
in a death struggle, for power, into relations of intimate friendship ? What led
the Governments of New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward
Island to send their leading statesmen, representatives of both their political parties,
to
meet our Coalition Government ? I say it
was an over-ruling Providence. A party government could never have arrived at such
a
scheme of union as this. If we reject this
proposed Confederation, we refuse to lay the
foundations of a great nation, as a dependency of the British Empire. When I came
of age I considered what country I should
adopt. I adopted Canada. I have now lived
in it for forty-four years. I have been identified with the progress of its institutions—
of those at any rate of Lower Canada, and
particularly of Montreal. I have had the
pleasure of taking part with others in organizing some of them. I have seen some of
them prosper, and others that will probably
fail, as we may expect will be the case
in a new country. I have, during these
years also, travelled over a large part of
Europe. I have travelled too over parts of
Asia and Africa. I have seen people under
monarchical governments—some of them tolerably prosperous, others of them less so.
I
have seen people under despotic governments
—some of them pretty comfortable, and others
crushed down to the lowest depths of slavery.
I have seen republican governments in Europe, and of course I have seen the great
Republic here on this continent. I have seen
people, too, living under the government of
the Church. But I have seen no people like
those living under the government of Great
Britain, or enjoying such perfect freedom, and
such complete protection for life and property,
as those living under the flag of Old England.
(Hear, hear.) And had I my choice to make
to-day, after an experience of forty-four years, I
should still choose Canada as my home. I feel
that at my age I have not long to live ; but,
during the time that I shall be spared on
earth, I would be willing to devote all my
energies to the carrying out of this scheme—
and I do pray it may succeed—because it is
laying anew the foundations of one of the
most important dependencies of the British
Empire. I trust I shall not live to see it in
any other condition than as a dependency of
the British Empire. Honorable gentlemen,
I shall have pleasure in voting for the resolutions of the honorable and gallant Knight.
(Cheers.)
199
HON. MR. SEYMOUR said :—Honorable
gentlemen, I desire to make one or two remarks in reply to something which fell from
my honorable friend the Commissioner of
Crown Lands, in reference to the objections
I took on a former occasion to the details of
this scheme. That honorable gentleman,
after explaining one or two minor points, disposed of the others by saying that I
opposed
everything. As that statement might imply,
if honorable members of this House were not
acquainted with me, that my course had been
factious, I desire to state what I have opposed. Having been always a strong advocate
of retrenchment and financial reform, I
have opposed the exorbitant expenses of the
Government. I have opposed the extravagance which has made the expenses of the
civil government of Canada exceed those of
any other country on the face of the globe,
in proportion to the revenue. I have always
opposed the expenditure of money without
the authority of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
I have always opposed the extravagant grants
and subsidies to the Grand Trunk Railway
Company. (Hear, hear.) My honorable
friend opposite (Hon. Mr. FERRIER) has
spoken of the benefit of the Grand Trunk
Railway, and of the great expenditure of
English capitalists in the work. lt is true
the work was undertaken by them, but
Canada has borne her full share—has fulfilled every agreement. And more than that,
Canada has paid at the rate of thirty thousand
dollars per mile for her railways ; Canada
has contributed $15,142,000 in principal,
and $5,400,000 in interest, without taking
into consideration a large number of smaller
matters. If a calculation be made from
these amounts, it will be found as I have
stated, that Canada has paid at the rate of
$30,000 for all the railway which was required, namely, from Quebec to Toronto,
which would have connected with the Great
Western, and formed a Trunk line through
the province to Sarnia. If large sums have
been expended ; if large sums have been
squandered, have not English contractors
benefited ? Are the people of Canada to be
blamed ? The scheme was planned by English capitalists, and Canada fulfilled every
obligation. (Hear, hear.) Now, there is
another matter which I have opposed. I
have always opposed the loose system of
management of the Crown lands, a system
by which our splendid domain has been frittered away. I do not mean my remarks on
this subject to apply to my honorable friend,
the present, Commissioner of Crown Lands.
He has only been in office a few months, and
I have not read his report. But I refer to
the past, and I say that the whole of that
domain has been squandered away in useless
expenses. There is another matter which I
have opposed—the Militia Bill of 1862. I
admit that I opposed that measure. That
was a measure which was going to entail
upon the country an enormous expenditure,
which would have exhausted our resources
at a time when that expenditure was not
required. Why, honorable gentlemen, was
not the
Trent difficulty settled at the time ?
Had not the American Government complied
with the demands of Great Britain, and what
threatened us to authorize that expenditure ?
There is one expenditure which I opposed,
which might perhaps be questioned. I opposed the Supply Bill in 1858, and I had
then voting with me my honorable friend
the Commissioner of Crown Lands. (Hear,
and laughter.) Whether that vote can be
defended from a constitutional point of view, I
cannot say ; but every vote I have given in
this House, or the other branch of the Legislature, has been given in accordance with
what I conceived to be the interests of my
native country. (Hear.) My honorable
friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands,
alluded the other day to the conservative
feature of the Senate in the United States,
in allowing the same representation to small
states as to the larger states. But this does
not at all affect the general arrangement,
because the large majority are large states.
But while my honorable friend approves of
this portion, he should have expressed an
opinion on the whole system. In the United
States, no change of Constitution can be effected without the consent of two-thirds
of
both branches of the Legislature, and that
must afterwards be sanctioned by three-
fourths of the state governments. This is
a conservative feature also. Then, what are
the constitutions of the state governments ?
I have here a clause taken from the Constitution of one of the states (Connecticut),
which provides that :—
Whenever a majority of the House of Representatives shall deem it necessary to alter
or
amend this Constitution, they [may propose such
alterations and amendments, which proposed
amendments shall be continued to the next General Assembly, and be published with
the laws
which may have been passed at the same session,
and if two-thirds of each house, at the next ses
200
sion of said Assembly, shall aprove the amendments proposed, by yeas and nays, said
amendments shall, by the Secretary, be transmitted to
the town clerk in each town in this State, whose
duty it shall be to present the same to the inhabitants thereof, for their consideration,
at a town
meeting legally warned and held for that purpose ;
and if it shall appear in a manner provided by
law, that a majority of the electors present at
such meetings shall have approved such amendments, the same shall be valid, to all
intents and
purposes, as a part of this Constitution.
That is the way one of the oldest states
guards the rights and liberties of its people.
Then here is another extract from the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, one
of
the new states, showing how the people there
are protected against hasty innovation :—
Whenever two-thirds of the General Assembly
shall deem it necessary to amend or change this
Constitution, they shall recommend to the electors, at the next election for members
of the General Assembly, to vote for or against a convention ; and if it shall appear
that a majority of the
citizens of the state, voting for representatives,
have voted for a convention, the General Assembly shall, at their next session, call
a convention,
to consist of as many members as there may be
in the General Assembly, to be chosen by the
qualified electors in the manner, and at the times
and places of choosing members of the General
Assembly ; which convention shall meet within
three months after the said election, for the purpose of revising, amending, or changing
the
Constitution.
Now, in addition to this, what have we
seen ? Have we not seen changes in the
Constitution latterly in respect to slavery, and
have they acted upon this till they have
been ratified by the state governments ?
Now, compare this mode of procedure with
that adopted in regard to the scheme—and
very properly called a scheme—of Confederation submitted to this House. How were
these delegates called into existence ? Are
they not self-appointed ? (Hear) Did not
the members of the Executive Council of
Canada constitute themselves delegates ?
(Cries of " no, no," and " yes.") And the
members of the Executive Councils of the
Lower Provinces, did they not also constitute
themselves delegates ? They prepared a
scheme which they have laid before Parliament, and what is that scheme ? It was
embodied in resolutions sent to members of
the Legislature before the meeting of the
House, marked " Private," both on the outside and inside. Did any honorable member
feel himself at liberty to go before his constituents and explain it to them ? Did
any
honorable member feel himself at liberty to
call his constituents together, and say, here
is a scheme on which I will have to vote at
the next session of the Legislature ? No, he
could not do it. Some of the newspapers did
publish what purported to be the resolutions,
but were they copied all over the country so
that the people might see and judge of them ?
No, they were not, and what was the reason ?
Did not the Provincial Secretary write his
mandate to the press, that any newspaper
that did not support Confederation, was not
to receive the Government patronage ? Not
being an elective member, I did not feel
myself at liberty to address the people on
these resolutions. Did any member take
them to his constituents and explain every
detail of them ?
HON. MR. MACPHERSON—Don't let the
honorable member endeavor to create a false
impression. I, for one, held two meetings
a day for some time, and fully explained the
scheme to my constituents.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—Did my honorable friend tell them how much this
Intercolonial Railway was to cost, or how
much Upper Canada was to pay for it ? That
it was to be established by the Government,
and kept up as a public work ? I should be
glad to hear my honorable friend on these
points before a popular assemblage. (Hear,
hear). We have been told by my honorable
friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands,
that concessions had to be made, but how
were these concessions made ? Unfortunately they were all made one way ; they were
made to the Lower Provinces. No concessions to Canada, east or west, but all in
favor of the Lower Provinces. And could
you expect anything else would be the result
of the Convention, when the small province
of Prince Edward Island, and the small province of Newfoundland, sent representatives
in the same manner and the same number
as the whole province of Canada ? Could it
have been expected that the delegates from
Canada would supply all the talent ? However much I esteem the talents of the members
of the Executive Council, I believe
there are those in the Lower Provinces who
possess the talent necessary to arrange a
scheme of this kind. When Canada, with
its 3,000,000 of population and $11,000,000
of revenue, was represented there by twelve,
and the Maritime Provinces, with only
800,000 of population and a revenue under
$3,000,000, was represented by nearly two to
one, could it be expected that a favorable
201
arrangement could be made. (Hear.) My
honorable friend says that they voted by
provinces, but it was all the same. Now,
what was the first concession? The first
concession was in granting twenty. eight
members of this House to those rovinces,
with only 800,000 inhabitants an paying a
small amount of revenue, whereas in Upper
Canada we have 1,500,000 of population, and
contribute $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 to the
revenue, and yet have only twenty-four
members. Here is the first concession to
make the Lower Provinces come in to support the scheme And is it not a fact that
this House will have the control of the
legslation to a certain extent, and are we
not entitled to it? Then there is another
point in connection with the Lower Pro—
vinces, which I will here notice. The
frmehise is lower there— it is almost universal. Persons entered upon the assessment
roll for a small amount of personal property
may vote for members of the Confederate
Parliament. Here members are elected by
persons assessed for real property to a certain
amount. This is another matter which
should have been attended to. It is not
right that members should be sent to the
General Parliament on these terms. (Hear,
hear.) The whole scheme is, in fact, a
history of concessions, and all on one side.
The arrangement of the public debt at a
rate per head, instead of according to revenue, isanother mistake. My friend, the
honorable member for Saugeen Division,
Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON), stated the other
day that my arguments were fallacious;
that in this case the rate per head of
population was the one which ought to
be adopted. Is not the revenue the
means of payment of the debt? In population to be considered? I will satisfy my
honorable friend that his reasoning was not
correct, at least it is not what I would expect from a gentleman occupying the position
he does in the country. Is population always wealth? No. It is wealth when it
can be profitably employed ; it is wealth
when you can employ it in manufactures, or
in the cultivation of good farming lands;
but look at the case of Ireland, where popu- Â
lation has been a source of poverty.
HON. MR. MACPHERSON— What I said
was, that past revenue was not a fair criterion of what each province was to pay.
In future we would have a uniform tariff. I
am sure that my honorable friend will not
say that in this country population is a source
of poverty.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—My honorable
friend says he adopts one plan for the past
and another for the future. What justice
is there in that? We have only to look at
the roposed system to see the effect it has.
If New Brunswick, with a million revenue,
be allowed to put her debt of seven millions
upon the Confederation, then, upon the same
rule, Canada should enter into the Confederation with all her debt and more. The estimated
revenue of Canada in eleven millions.
Any one could figure that out and see that
Canada should have had no debt left for the
local governments to pay; but on this principle of concession, why, of course, Canada
must suffer. Now, to shew the working of
the system, look at the effect of the rate of
80 cents a head. Upper Canada will pay
$1,540,000 to the General Government, and
receive back $1,120,000 for the Local Government—that is, supposing Upper Canada
contributes two-thirds of the revenue of the
united provinces. That has been admitted
by one who now holds a hi gh position in the
Government. This is the fine scheme which
my honorable friend from Saugeen lauds.
You pay according to wealth, and the difference against Upper Canada is $420,000,
or in other words, Upper Canada pays
$1,540,000 out of one pocket and receives
back $1,120,000 in the other. This is the
working of the system which has been carried out, very much against the interests
of
not only Upper Canada but all Canada. The
third concession is the amount to be paid to
Newfoundland, as a set-off against or not
being indebted. There may be, I admit, a
show of fairness in this, but the sum is a great
deal too large. Canada will go on increasing,
whereas from Newfoundland we can expect
very little. The fourth matter is that of the 80
cents a head. to which I have just alluded,
and I have shown the working of that, and
it is decidedly against it. Then comes
the $63,000 a year to New Brunswick,
for ten years. I was very glad to hear
my honorable friend from Saugeen (Hon.
Mr. MACPHERSON) disapprove of that. I
am glad to find him, so strong a supporter of
this scheme, admit that that was wrong. I
have made my calculation in an Upper
Canada point of view. So long as the union
was maintained, however, my voice was never
raised by way of comparison. I desire to
maintain that union. (Hear, hear.) But
202
now we are forced to take this scheme as it
is, without any amendment in any particular.
I only now wish to point out that of the
principal which this $63,000 represents, and
which my honorable friend from Saugeen
cannot endorse. Upper Canada will have to
pay $367,000. Then $150,000 a-year to
Newfoundland is a sixth concession, made
for worthless lands. This is equal to a capital of three millions. The lands of the
other
provinces are well taken care of ; but those
in Newfoundland, what are they worth ?
They are entirely valueless. When my honorable friend the Commissioner of Crown
Lands has all these lands to control, I am
sure he will have his hands full. The lands
of other provinces were worth retaining, and
they were left under their own management ;
but as these happened to be good for nothing,
they were put upon the General Government. Had they been good for anything,
they would also have been reserved. There
is another question. It is proposed to take
the government railways of New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia, and make them provincial
works. I suppose we shall be told that the
canals of Canada are also taken, and made
public works of the Confederation. But
there is a very great difference between these.
The railways had only an existence of a few
years, they would be worn out soon, and
must be kept up at the expense of the Confederate Government. What advantage
could they be to the Confederate Government ? What are our expenses now for
public works ? Have we not seen the tolls
removed on our canals, and will it not be a
part of the policy of the Confederate Government to remove the rates paid on these
railways, and they will be kept up, as all
public works are, at an enormous loss to the
Government. (Hear, hear.) My honorable
friend from Niagara the other day, I thought,
on one point, was not quite correct in what
he said in respect to Upper Canada. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) From the census of
1861, I find that the cash-value of farms in
Upper Canada was $295,162,315, and in
Lower Canada, $168,432,546, making a total
of $463,594,861. The live stock in Upper
Canada was valued at $53,227,516 ; in Lower
Canada, $24,572,124. Wheat, Upper Canada, $24,640,425 ; Lower Canada, $2,563,114.
Other grains, Upper Canada, $38,123,340 ; Lower Canada, $23,534,703. Now,
in timber, mineral wealth, manufactures and
fisheries, Upper Canada is quite equal to
Lower Canada and the Maritime Provinces.
I believe that if Upper Canada could be left
alone, if it was not to be burthened and its
back broken by these concessions, the whole
of Canada would become still more prosperous, provided we did not enter into any
further useless and wasteful expenditure.
Compare these resources with those of the
Lower Provinces ! The gallant Premier,
the other day, stated something with respect
to the wealth of those provinces—with respect to their mines and timber. But the
timber must become exhausted, and consequently that country cannot grow richer ;
whilst in Canada, with a good productive
soil and an industrious population, we must
go on increasing in wealth. What is the
value of the mines which we are to get ? In
Nova Scotia the royalty on coal is only $28,000, and the revenue derived from the
gold
fields, $20,000 ; and what else have we to
obtain from these provinces ? Why, in
Nova Scotia they have no timber, and consequently their revenue cannot increase ;
whilst we in Canada must inevitably go on
and grow in prosperity, because the elements of our wealth are in the soil and
climate. (Hear, hear)
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Surely my honorable friend does not pretend to say that the
revenue of Nova Scotia cannot increase ?
Why, it has doubled in one year.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—What else have
they besides their coal fields ? It is not
pretended that they have any timber. If
you increase the tariff, you will increase the
revenue ; but it must not be expected that
the revenue can be doubled. They will
lessen their consumption if you increase the
tariff. It is fallacious reasoning to say that
when you double the tariff you double the
revenue.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—For the year
1859, the revenue of Nova Scotia was
$689,000, and it increased the next year to
$1,249,000, and went on increasing, and yet
my honorable friend says that it cannot increase.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—I have not the
statements which the honorable gentleman
has noted from, but the figures I have given
are those of 1862. There are excise duties,
but I believe that the local duties will be
paid to the local governments. The complaint which has been made by Upper Canada
has been, that although they contributed
two-thirds or three-fourths of the revenue,
203
they did not possess a corresponding control
of the legislation, and that they did not receive back in proportion to the amount
they
paid. Will this be remedied by this measure ? Draw a line east of Montreal, and do
you not find the control of the Legislature
there, in consequence of the concessions
made to the Maritime Provinces ?
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The balance
will be restored when the Red River Settlement comes in.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—I am afraid that
no one here will live to see that country
come in. I have listened with a good deal
of attention to the speeches of my honorable
friends, and I have read the reports of the
debates in the other branch of the Legislature, and the only argument I have heard
brought forward in favor of this scheme, is
that it will strengthen the connection with
the Mother Country. (Hear, hear.) Now,
honorable gentlemen, I yield to no one in
saying that that connection ought not to be
broken. I say we are infinitely better here
under the flag of Great Britain than under
that of the United States. (Hear, hear.)
But no reason is assigned ; we are not told
in what way the connection is to be strengthened. Can you alter the geographical position
of the country ? Will you have any more
people or means ? Your revenue is not
increased, nor is your population, nor is your
geographical position altered. Is it because
the people of the Lower Provinces are ready
to expend a large sum for the defence of the
country ? Why, to show you what those
provinces consider it necessary to do in this
direction, I will read a short extract from a
statement of the Financial Secretary of Nova
Scotia :—
As regards the sum proposed to be granted for
the militia—$20,000— honorable gentlemen might
think it a large amount in the present state of the
finances ; but, looking at the large sum already
expended , and still being expended in Canada—
the efforts being made in New Brunswick for a
similar object—would it be creditable to us as
Nova Scotians, particularly considering the efforts
put forth by the British Government to protect
us, to expend a less sum ?
The large sum of $20,000 was to be expended, and that at a time when the expensive
Militia Bill, to which I have alluded, was
before this House. (Hear, hear.) Twenty
thousand dollars was the sum that was proposed by the Legislature of Nova Scotia,
the
next important colony to Canada, at a time
when we were told here that we were in
danger from our neighbors across the line.
But something more was said by the Financial Secretary. The present Premier was
pressing to strike out this item and put
$8,000 instead, and the Financial Secretary
said :—
Under ordinary circumstances he would agree
with the honorable member as to striking out the
$12,000 extra grant for the militia ; but considering the large sum about to be expended
on this
service by New Brunswick, the enormous expenditure of the Home Government for our
protection, and what they expected of us, he considered the appropriation necessary.
He would
be ashamed of the Government if they had not
proposed this vote, and he was prepared to stand
or fall by it, as he felt that the honor of the
country was at stake.
The honor of the country was at stake in
this $20,000. New Brunswick the same year
spent $15,000. Now, I opposed the expensive Militia Bill submitted to this House ;
but then the Government had expended over
half a million dollars a year in militia expenses ; and I admit they are going on
very
properly now. (Hear, hear.) Then we
have been told that this Confederation
scheme is going to raise the credit of the
country. My honorable friend from Saugeen
ventured the statement that on the intelligence of the adoption of these resolutions
in the Conference reaching England, funds
rose fifteen to seventeen per cent. Now,
does any honorable gentleman suppose for a
moment that that was the cause for this rise ?
(A voice—It was.) I have here from the
files of the London Times, the quotations of
Canadian Securities, and on the 7th of
November,—the date of His Excellency's
letter, conveying information of the adoption
of the scheme,—the inscribed stock was 86
to 90.
HON. MR. MACPHERSON—I stated a
fact when I said that that rise took place in
consequence of the resolutions. I would like
my honorable friend to explain it in any
other way.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—We know that
there are various causes which operate in
raising or depressing stocks in England,
the rate of interest of the Bank of England,
&c. Well, on the 7th of November as I
said, the quotation was 86 to 90, and I find
that on the 25th November, giving time for
the news to reach England, it was only 88
to 92. And now, with a strong probability
of the measure passing, what is the price ?
The last quotation is 81 to 83.
204
HON. MR. MACPHERSON.—I suppose
the honorable member knows the reason of
this decline. Soon after what was done in
the Conference was known in England, the
St. Alban's raid took place, and the consequence of the events connected with that
was a fall of 17 or 18 per cent. in our securities.
HON. MB. SEYMOUR—In consequence
of the wise policy of the statesmen of England friendly relations had been maintained
with our neighbours. It is true the passport system was put on, but it is to be removed
again, and all things are to become as they
were before, with the exception, perhaps, of
the Reciprocity Treaty. Every man of
business knows that that rise in stocks was
not caused by anything connected with the
Confederation scheme. Why should it?
What is it that increases the value of stocks
and depreeiates them? Is it not the confidence of cap italists who have invested in
them, that the interest will be paid. But
under this Confederation scheme will not
our expenses be increased? This Intercolonial Railway must be built and kept up, and
this must be at the cost of Canada. You
have got your local governments to keep up,
and you have got your Confederate Government to keep up, and if we look at the experience
of the past, is it likely there will
be any reduction in the future? (Hear,
hear.) I have got figures here to show what
the cost of the two governments was before the
union of the provinces. The whole expense
of the government of Lower Canada, with the
salaries of officers, &c., was ÂŁ57,618. In Upper Canada we were as economical. We
were
then under the rule of the Family Compact,
and a worse compact we might have. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) They were high-minded, and they did not stoop to matters of corruption,
as others have done since. (Hear,
hear.) The whole expenses of the two governments were only a little over ÂŁ100,000
a
year. What are they now ? Some two years
ago the expenses of the civil government
alone, not including the cost of the militia,
were $3,000,000. Here, in a little more
than twenty years, the expenses have increased seven-fold, notwithstanding that we
have only one Government. Now, what are
we to expect from the Confederate Government? Every honorable member knows
that things must be made pleasant for everybody, and when you are forming a Confederate
Government, these expenses must be
continued. You cannot turn people adrift,
and you must either employ or pension them.
Are we to suppose that because there is a
Federation, these expenses will be lessened?
I admit that in the Lower Provinces they
have managed their afiairs with less expense
than we have. But now we will have the
local governments to pay for. We will
have another stafl' to keep up for each province, which will add very materially to
our
expenses. The money must come out of the
pockets of the people, who will have to pay
it either by direct or indirect taxation.
What possible difference can it make to the
people of this country, whether they pay it
directly by taxation or in duties? Direct
taxation must be imposed, and that to a large
extent, by the local governments.
It being six o'clock, the SPEAKER left the _
Chair.
After the dinner recess,—
HON. MR. SEYMOUR, continuing his
remarks, said—I think, honorable gentlemen ,
that, taking into consideration the vast importance of this scheme—its importance
in a
financial point of view alone, without saying
one word about the principle of changing the
Constitution without consulting the people—
there should be an appeal to the country
before it is carried into effect. A point
which I did not enter fully into before the
recess was the argument that Confederation
would strengthen the connection with the
Mother Country. Now, do we not see all the
financial reformers in England, with the
Times and other influential organs of the
press, which on financial grounds were desirous of separating the colonies from the
parent
state, all advocating this measure in the
warmest possible manner? Undoubtedly the
imperial government will sanction the scheme,
but it is the policy now of that Government
to sanction anything of a local character that
the colonies desire. Well, in addition to
the press that is favorable to the separation
of the colonies from the Mother Country, and
financial reformers like GOLDWIN Smith
and others who have favored the same views,
what was stated a short time ago by the
Under Secretary of State for the Colonies
to his constituents ? In speaking of this
scheme, he said it was favored by the Imperial
Government for the purpose of preparing us
for a change in our relations ; for the purpose of educating us to defend ourselves.
(Hear, hear.) Was it not very strong language, coming as it did from no less a personage
than the Under Secretary for the
205
Colonies, that the Imperial Government is
ready to favor a separation whenever we
asked for it ? (Hear, hear.) Now, I am
not one of those honorable gentlemen who
wish to see the day arrive when the colonies
will ask for such separation. I am not one
of those who wish to educate the people to
that idea, but would rather impress upon
them the paramount importance of endeavoring to maintain the union and connection
with the Mother Country. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. DEBEAUJEU—What is the
opinion of the foreign press with regard to
us ? Has it not threatened us, so that it is
our duty to be prepared ?
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—I suppose my
honorable friend alludes to the press of the
neighboring republic. We have certainly
seen some of those newspapers, but very few
of them threatening to invade and overrun
us, but have you heard anything of that kind
from the Government of the country, and
are not our relations with it of the most
friendly character ? Are you to be governed
in your conduct by the rash utterances of a
few newspapers,—perhaps sensation newspapers ?
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—Not since he
entered the Government. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—Well, that is a
matter of very little importance. (Laughter.)
Now, honorable gentlemen, I have shown
that this scheme has no precedent, even on
the other side of the line. Among all the
wild republican theories of our neighbors,
they have never proposed to change the
Constitution in this manner—never changed
it, at all events, without the consent of the
people, obtained in some form or other.
Reference has been made, I think, by my
honorable friend in front (Hon. Mr. ROSS
to the union of England and Ireland. Well,
every honorable member knows the means
employed to bring about that union. MAY,
in his
Constitutional History, states that
ÂŁ1,500,000 sterling were spent in carrying
it. But how was the representation dealt
with in that case ? Did England, being the
richer country, possessing the largest share
of wealth and capital, give a preponderance
of the representation to Ireland, as we propose to give to the Lower Provinces ?
HON. MR. ROSS—That was a legislative
union, while in this the representation will
be based on population.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—That does not
affect the case. After the Irish union was
effected, what was the representation of Ireland in the House of Commons ? It was
100 members in a total number of 656 ; and
in the House of Lords 28 Peers, in a House
of 450 members. And although it was considered by England an absolute necessity
that the union should be brought about, she
did not give a preponderance, and scarcely a
fair share, of the representation to the sister
kingdom.
HON. MR. ROSS—That is because in the
English Parliament they do not recognise
the principle of representation by population.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—My hon. friends
will say that this proposed change is neither
American nor English.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—No, it is neither
one nor the other ; it is a mongrel Constitution. (Laughter.) In England no important
change in the laws is ever carried with- out being discussed in Parliament, session
after session, followed by an appeal to the
people upon it. Even so unimportant a
change—or what would, in comparison with
this scheme, be here regarded as so unimportant a change—as the extension of the
franchise, has been discussed in Parliament
for years, and submitted to the people before
passing into law. Now, I would like to enquire of honorable gentlemen, what are the
legitimate functions of the Legislature of this
country. Do we not assemble here for the
purpose of enacting good and wholesome
laws for the people ? (Hear, hear.) Those
laws may be repealed, if they chance not to
meet public approval ; but here you propose
to change the Constitution—to change the
whole fabric of society—in fact to revolutionize society, without asking the consent
of the people, and without the possibility—
at any rate, the reasonable possibility—of
this important change ever being reconsidered. Does not this important subject affect
every freeholder in the country as much as
it affects us, and are there not thousands of
people in the country who have as great an
interest in it as the members of the Executive Council of Canada ? And yet, forsooth,
these gentlemen prepare a scheme, bring it
down to this House, and tell the representa
206
tives of the people that they are not at liberty
to ascertain the wishes of the people respecting it, nor to alter it in any manner,
but
that they must take it as it is. Still we are
told, notwithstanding all this, that this is
freedom, and that we are a free peeple.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—Well, that is all
very well, but we are told we must accept
the scheme as it is ; and all the influence
that the Government can use—which I fear
will be successfully used—(hear, hear)—will
be employed to carry it through without the
people having an opportunity of saying yea
or nay upon it. We are told it is not British to permit this—even to pass a short
act
allowing the people to vote upon it ; but if
this is not British, neither is the proposition itself. (Hear, hear.) I entreat honorable
members not to pass a measure of
this importance without delaying it some
little time, at all events, for the purpose of
obtaining an expression of public opinion
upon it. The people who are to be governed
by it, who are for all time to come to live
under this Constitution, certainly have a
right to be consulted before it is consummated ; and for the special well-being of
the country, I hope and trust it will not pass
without affording them that opportunity.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. BENNETT said—Honorable
gentlemen, after the many able and eloquent
speeches we have heard on this subject, it
may be presumptuous in me to offer any remarks —(cries of "go on.")—but I cannot
consent to give a silent vote upon the question before the House, and I think I would
be wanting in my duty to those who sent me
here if I did not make some observations
upon this important subject. (Hear, hear.)
I think honorable gentlemen ° 1 agree with
me that this project is one of the most important—indeed, the most important—that
has
ever been brought before the Legislature of
Canada. (Hear, hear.) We are about to
witness a great change in the Constitution of
the country, the like of which has not been
seen since the union of the provinces ; and I
am free to say that a change of some kind or
other is imperatively demanded, for I think
that if the present state of things were allowed to continue it would be difiicult,
if not
impossible, to carry on the Government as it
has been carried on for the last three or four
years. (Hear, hear.) We have been told by
the honorable and gallant gentleman at the
head of the Government that we have been
on an inclined plane, and I am sure that if
some remedy had not been proposed we would
have found ourselves sliding into a state of
anarchy from the bitterness of feeling which
prevailed in the country. I am not so sanguine,
as some honorable gentlemen seem to be, that
when we get Confederation we shall have a
sort of political millennium, that we shall have
no more political storms and agitations, but
that we shall then enjoy nothing but the calm
and sunshine of political life. But I think
we will find ourselves pretty much in the
same position as before with regard to parties
—that we shall have a Government party and
an Opposition, for in all free constitutional
governments it is better to have an opposition
than to be without one. I object, not to
a healthy opposition, but to a factions one.
(Hear, hear.) From the difference in the
laws, language and institutions of the several
provinces it is clear that a legislative union
of them is out of the question. The principle of the double majority, as a remedy
for
our diflicnlties, has proved to be a failure;
representation by population, which would
have satisfied pper Canada, has been persistently denied by Lower Canada ; and,
therefore, I see no resource but to fall back.
upon the project of the Confederation of the
provinces. (Hear, hear.) I would like to
remark upon the peculiar position in which
the elected members of this House stand in
reference to this subject. It has been said
that, if they vote for the resolutions, they vote
to make themselves members of the House
for life ; that this was not contemplated by
the constituencies when they were elected ;
and that it would be destroying the franchise
and taking away a right from the people
which the House had no authority to do.
Well, all I can say is, that I have heard no
such objections from the people of the constituency which I have the honor to represent.
All I have heard from them is a call
for delay in the consideration of this question,
and I maintain that delay is not fatal or
injurious to it. (Hear, hear.) We have
delayed it already for weeks; in New Brunswick it has been postponed till after the
general election; and can any one show me that
it will injure the measure to put it off for a
short time longer? Surely it is good now,
it will be just as good twelve months hence.
(Hear, hear.) The resolutions have been
drawn up by able, talented, but fallible men ;
and therefore we ought to weigh them care
207
fully before finally passing them. (Hear,
ling.) I have no doubt it is the opinion of
every man——even of the delegates who framed
these resolutions—that if he had the power
he would change them in some particular.
If I had the power I have no hesitation in
saying that I would change them; but we
must take them as a whole or reject them
altogether. When I hear of amendments
being moved by different honorable gentlemen, therefore, am reminded of the looker-
on at a game of chess. He imagines that he
could improve many of the moves made by
the players, but it would be found, if his suggestions were followed, that the end
would be
that he would find himself checkmated and
the game lost. (Hear, hear.) In looking
over the resolutions I have found some things
that are good, and some that are open to objection; but, upon a careful balance of
both,
I have come to the conclusion that the good
preponderates. (Hear, hear.) I would, therefore, hesitate to take upon myself the
responsibility of risking the defeat of the measure
by voting for any amendment to them.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. ALEXANDER said—I shall
not now trespass at any length upon the indulgence of this House. My honorable friend
from Port Hope (Hon. Mr. SEYMOUR) possesses the esteem and respect not only of the
Legislative Council, but of the country, from
the straightforward and consistent course he
has ever pursued on the floor of Parliament in
regard to all great questions of public interest,
and it is with very great diffidence and reluctance that I venture bto challenge the
figures, generally, stated by my honorable
friend, in the position he took, and the deductions he drew from them, in reference
to the
proposed Confederation. But my honorable
friend took surely a most gloomy view of the
subject. He apprehend the worst consequences and results from the proposed alliance.
The reply to that is that it just
depends upon ourselves—it depends upon the
members of the new Confederate Legislature
whether good or evil shall flow from it. (Hear,
hear.) If they proceed to work out the Constitution with reasonable frugalit and care,
determined to keep down the public expendiure, and prevent all jobbery in the carrying
out of public improvements, then, I am satisfied that the Confederation may be carried
out
without materially increasing the public burdens; or, at all events, that our position
will be
such, that they will not fall more heavily upon
us as a whole. The honorable gentleman
particularised certain instances of alleged injustice, such as the financial arrangements
with regard to Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Why, surely there can be no great injustice
to Canada, in our agreeing on the one
hand to allow certain subsidies, not of large
amount, while we take the whole of their
excise and custom duties with the power of
levying a uniform tariff. As regards the probable adequacy of the revenue of the proposed
General Government to meet all the items of
ordinary expenditure, I will leave my honorable friend from Port Hope to disprove
the
correctness of the figures given by the Minister
of Finance at Sherbrooke. For my own
part, I would not presume to challenge the
statements of so able a Minister of the Crown.
But it is said that to meet the expense of the
Local Government, we would require to have
recourse to heavy direct taxation upon Upper
and Lower Canada. I shall proœed to show
that this would not be necessary, unless the
Local Legislature ran out. Let us see what
will be the position of Upper Canada, which is
to receive upon the basis of 80 cents per head,
$1,120,000. The local items which will have
to be met out of that appropriation will be as
follows :—
| Education .................. .................................. |
$274,112 |
| Hospitals and charities .............................. |
126,000 |
| Penitentiary and reformatories....... ......... . |
76,000 |
| Agricultural societies ................................... |
52,000 |
| Roads and bridges ........................................ |
80,000 |
| Police ................................................................ |
15,000 |
| Literary and scientific institutions. ........... |
7,000 |
|
$629,112 |
| Legislation . ................................................. |
100,000 |
| Civil Government, Lieut.-Governor and staff ........................................................... |
120,000 |
|
$849,112 |
| Leaving a balance for other purposes. . . |
270,888 |
|
$1,120,000 |
The prevailing desire in my section of Western Canada is, that the Local Legislature
shall only be one Chamber of thirty members,
with a very limited inexpensive Executive—
a sort of large municipal deliberative body—
which would involve a small expenditure, and
if such views are carried out, there are no
reasonable grounds for apprehending the necessit for direct taxation. But I did not
inten when I rose to enter again at length
upon such details. I was only desirous to
explain the course which I shall be obliged to
pursue in reference to the amendment of the
honorable member for the division of Welling
208
ton. After the leader of the Government, in
another quarter, has declared that they will
look upon any amendment of an important
detail as a defeat of the whole scheme, I am
not prepared to take the responsibility of voting for an amendment which would have
such
an effect. (Hear, hear.) But while I am
satisfied that I am acting in accordance with
the views of my constituents in voting in the
negative, I do think that an opportunity should
be afforded to any of the members of this
House to record the views of their constituents
upon this or upon any of the other details to
which they take exception, and I therefore
beg to move in amendment, seconded by the
Hon. MR. SKEAD,—
That it is proper that any members of this
House should be afforded an opportunity of recording their views in regard to the
proposed
change in the manner of appointing the members
of the Legislative Council. But that the way
to effect this in the most satisfactory manner,
without endangering the safety of the Confederation as a whole, will be to enter a
memorial or
protest upon the Journals of this House, embodying their views upon this important
detail of the
Confederation. A copy of such memorial or
protest to be transmitted to the Imperial Government along with the resolutions now
before this
House.
HON. MR. AIKINS—I should like to
know in what position I would be placed if
the amendment of the honorable gentleman
was carried. (Hear, hear.) If I support
the amendment of the honorable member
from the Wellington Division (Hon. Mr.
SANBORN) it would appear, from this amendment, if it were adopted, that I would have
to support the substantive resolutions also.
I would like to know how these two things
can be done at the same time.
HON. MR. BOSSÉ—I do not think the
amendment is in order, and I raise that objection to it.
HON. SIR N. F. BELLEAU— The rules
of the House provide for protests being made
by members, and the amendment is, therefore, unnecessary.
HON. MR. CURRIE—I would like to hear
some further explanation from my honorable
friend from the Gore Division, respecting this
amendment.
THE HON. THE SPEAKER—The amendment is not in order. The effect of it would
be simply to aflirm the 23rd rule of this
House, which provides that any member may
enter his protest against any action on the
part of the House. This amendment is simply a reiteration of that rule, and I must,
therefore, declare that, in my opinion, it is
out of order. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. AIKINS—As the honorable
member from the Gore Division particularly
desires to express an opinion upon the question whether the elective principle shall
be
abolished or not, I will, with the permission of the House, give notice of a motion
which I intend to move, in amendment to the
main resolution before the House :—
That the legislative councillors representing
Upper and Lower Canada in the Legislative
Council of the General Legislature, shall be
elected as at present, to represent the forty-eight
electoral divisions mentioned in schedule A of
chapter first of the Consolidated Statutes of
Canada, and each such councillor shall reside or
possess the qualification in the division he is
elected to represent.
HON. MR. CURRIE—At this stage of
the debate I will take the opportunity of referring to some figures just used by the
honorable member from the Gore Division, who
gave us the impression that the local governments would have much more than sufficient
means to carry on their local aflfairs from the subsidies granted to them by the General
Govern—
ment. Now, it is very easy to make this
statement, but if the honorable gentleman
will look back to the time of the union of
Upper and Lower Canada he will find that,
immediately before that union, the cost of
governing Upper Canada by its separate Legislature, with a population of 450,000,
was
$770,000 a-year; and we have heard it stated
to-day that the people were then governed
cheaply, honestly and properly. If it cost
$770,000 to govern 450,000 people in Upper
Canada in 1839, how much, in the same proportion, will it cost to govern 1,396,000
of
people now in that section under the Confederation ? The answer is, $2,170,000 a-
year, or, in other words, just about double
the amount of the local subsidy.
HON. MR. ALEXANDER—The honorable gentleman forgets that the Federal Government will incur a large part
of the expenditure of that province formerly borne by
the Local Legislature.
HON. MR. CURRIE—I am quite well
aware of the burdens the Gener Government will bear, and also aware that powers
will be given to it over certain subjects formerly dealt with b the Local Legislature.
As to Lower Can it had at the time of
209
the union, 650,000 inhabitants, 200,000 more
than the population of Upper Canada, although its government cost only $573,348 ;
and in the same proportion, provided the new
Local Legislature is equally economical as
the old, this sum will be increased to
$1,230,000—some $400,000 over and above
the local subsidy, which excess will, of course,
have to be raised by direct taxation. These
figures, taken from the Public Accounts,
are easily accessible by the honorable member
from the Gore Division, and are, of course,
entirely reliable.
HON. MR. ALEXANDER—The figures
I presented to the House are also reliable,
and I challenge the honorable gentleman to dispute them.
HON. MR. ARMAND—I have listened attentively to the honorable members who have
spoken to the question before the House,
some of whom have manifested fear in regard to the changes proposed to be introduced
in the Constitution, and I am far from blaming them, but it is to be observed that
none
of them have proposed a remedy for the difficulties of the situation. Two or three
said
that the measure had taken the Legislature
and the country by surprise, but it seems to
me that those honorable members have forgotten that the question of Confederation
was discussed both in Parliament and in the
country in 1859, and that since then the
Legislature and the press have occupied themselves with it often enough. Did not the
Legislative Assembly last year name a committee to inquire into the difficulties which
seemed to be hurrying us on to anarchy, and
did not that committee report that the remedy
for those evils was Confederation ? Those
honorable members also seem to forget that
since the Government disclosed its policy
through the magnificent speech of the Minister of Finance to his constituents at Sherbrooke—a
speech circulated in all parts of the
country by the press of the various political
parties—24 elections have taken place, 13 for
this honorable House and 11 for the other.
Of the 13 for this House three candidates
only declared themselves opposed to Confedmtion, and of those three, but one was elected.
Of the 11 for the Assembly, one only objected to it, and it is said that he will now
vote for the measure. Relative to that provision in the resolutions of the Conference,
having ' regard to the elective principle in the
Legislative Council, I have already stated my
opinion, and I would tell the honorable mem—
bet for the Wellington Division that it seems
to me that the delegates, who are all eminent
men, could not have come to such a conclusion
except after mature deliberation. I can well
understand that before England permitted us
to adopt its Constitution—gave us responsible
government, allowed us the control of our
own affairs; and when its governor swere not
advised by ministers responsible to the people, but were surrounded by advisers who
were more like clerks, who to preserve their
salaries were often obliged to submit to the
arbitrary will of their master—I can easily
conceive, I repeat, that it was expedient to seek
a remedy for the wrongs under which we
then labored. But to-day, when the parent
state requires that its governors shall choose
advisers responsible to the people, the elective
system is no longer needful in relation to finance or to the tranquillity and safety
of the
people. As to finance, I will certainly not say
that officers of the Government take advantage of their position to speculate in setting
up ephemeral candidates—most assuredly not;
but will say that many citizens, little careful
of their true interest and of the future of their
country, convert election days into days of
speculation, by giving rise to corruption, violence and perjury; and I shall be ready,
whenever required, to prove as clearly as that two
and two make four, that in several divisions
the election resembled civil warfare more than
proper election contests. I know that many
persons, I will not say urged by an inordinate liberalism, degenerating into demagogy—
for I do not believe we have in our young
country any of those fierce demagogues—but
I will say, that there are persons who wish that
all the ofices under the State should be submitted to universal suffrage, because
they
know that in such circumstances they could
impose upon the sympathy and the judgment of the people. But I would say to
such persons— gentlemen, do not suppose
yourselves wiser statesmen than those of
the Mother Country, who have established
their Constitution after centuries of efforts
and contests, and who work it after the
experience of centuries. I would further
tell them " do not suppose yourselves better
able to appreciate the British Constitution
than Monsieur MONTALEMBERT, one of the
great
literati of the day, the historian and
eminent statesman; or than M. BERRYER,
the prince of the French bar, both of whom
proclaimed but recently that that Constitution
was one of the most beautiful and free that
could possibly be desired." I congratulate
the Government upon desiring to preserve so
210
much of this law as may appear rational and
good. I refer to the territorial divisions and
the propriety of causing them to be represented by persons who have vested interests
therein ; and indeed how could any one represent with equal devotion and advantage
a
division, as the man who had sacred rights
therein, whether by personal residence or the
ownership of the property upon which his
qualification rests, and who clings to it because it has descended to him from his
ancestor, or because he has acquired it by the
sweat of his brow, his vigils and his toils?
I hope it will not be said that I intend by my
remarks upon this law to disparage the residents in the towns, for the division which
I
have the honor to represent embraces part of
the most populous city in Canada, and I only
accepted the charge after the refusal of two
of its most eminent citizens—eminent equally
by their large fortunes and their social position. But probably those gentlemen had
learned by their own experience or by that of
others, that public life did not present sufficient charms to cause it to be eagerly
coveted.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. CURRIE—Before recording
my vote on the amendment before the House,
I feel it my duty to say a few words in reference to that amendment. I cannot say
that I
altogether concur in the manner in which it is
drawn, but at the same time I feel called upon,
as an elected member, to support it. I feel
that it would ill become me—that l would be
hardly discharging my duty to my constituents—if I were to sit silently by and give
my
vote to change the Constitution under which I
was elected. (Hear, hear.) I feel that there
is something extraordinary in the fourteenth
of these resolutions before the House, and I
would like to hear the Government give a
full explanation as to the manner in which
that resolution was arrived at in the Conference.
Bear in mind, honorable gentlemen, that the
eleventh resolution declares that "the members of the Legislative Council shall be
appointed by the Crown under the great seal of
the General Government, and shall hold office
during life." Thus the House will see that
By this resolution the Crown has the right for
all future time to select the legislative councillors in Upper Canada from any part
of the
country which the Crown sees fit ; but in
Lower Canada there is this difference that, according to the sixteenth resolution,
" each of
the legislative councillors representing Lower
Canada in the Legislative Council of the General Legislature, shall be appointed to
represent
one of the twenty-four electoral divisions mentioned in schedule A, of chapter 1st
of the
Consolidated Statutes of Canada, and such
councillor shall reside or possess his qualification in the division he is appointed
to represent." Then the fourteenth resolution declares that " the first selection
of the members
of the Legislative Council shall be made,
except as regards Prince Edward Island, from
the legislative councils of the various provinces, so far as a sufficient number be
found
qualified and willing to serve." Now, honor—
able gentlemen, I have always understood—
my reading of books on constitutional law has
given me to understand—that the greatest of
England's statesmen who have spoken on the
question of the Royal prerogative, have always
broadly laid it down as a rule that the prerogative should never and could never be
limited. How is it then that these thirty-
three individuals, talented, able and gifted,
as no doubt they were, who met in the room
behind me and sat with closed doors, saw fit
to hamper and cripple the operation of that
good rule? (Hear, hear.) Should the prerogative of the Crown in the selection of members
of this House be limited? It may be
true that, residing in many of the divisions in
Lower Canada represented in this House,
there may be good men, competent men, well
qualified men ; but it is equally true that
there may be just as good, able and talented
men, outside of them as in it. Why, then,
should the doors of this House be closed
against these men ? Why is it, I would like
to know, that the prerogative of the Crown is
to be restricted so as to prevent the choice of
these men ?
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—I can give explanations to the honorable gentleman. He
must be aware that Lower Canada is in a different position from Upper Canada, and
that
there are two nationalities in it occupying
certain portions of the country. Well, these
divisions have been made so as to secure to
both nationalities their respective rights, and
these, in our opinion, are good reasons for the
provision that has been made.
HON. MR. CURRIE—I do not think my
honorable and gallant friend sees the point of
my remarks. I would ask why in the first
selection the choice of the Crown is restricted
to the members of this Chamber, when probably others out of it could be found whose
presence here would be of more advantage to
the public ?
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—I do not know
what advantage would be derived if the Crown
211
had the right of making selections from all
over the country. If that had been proposed,
I think many honorable gentlemen would have
found fault with it. (Hear, hear.) It was
due to courtesy that the members of this
House should not be overlooked, and not only
that, but there were acquired rights which
had to be respected. My honorable friend
appears to dissent from this statemcnt. Well,
the last choice of the people are now in this
House, and by the fact of their election they
have acquired a right to a seat; and I think
those gentlemen who have been appointed for
life have gained rights which should not be
overlooked. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. CURRIE—The honorable and
gallant gentleman says we have an acquired
right. I admit we have a right to sit here
during the term for which we have been
elected ; but what right have we to seat ourselves here for the remainder of our lives
?
The people did not send us here to make this
change in the composition of this House.
(Hear, hear.) And what right even have the
appointed members of this House to seats here
during their lifetime ? I have a despatch
here, written by the late Duke of NEWCASTLE,
who will be considered pretty good authority
upon the point, to the Lieutenant-Governor of
Prince Edward Island, on this very question.
I need not read the words of the despatch,
but the sense of it is, that legislative councillors have no right of property in
their position, but simply a naked trust which the
Legislature may at any time call upon them
to surrender to other hands, if, in their opinion,
the public interest shall require such transfer.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—That is merely
a matter of opinion. That may for a time
have been the view of the Imperial authorities
but previous to 1856 they held and said
directly the contrary. (Hear, hear.) They
then said that they had granted certain privileges to certain gentlemen for life,
and that
they would not commit the injustice of withdrawing those privileges when the gentlemen
had done nothing to forfeit them. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. CURRIE—I am surprised at
the honorable and gallant Premier questioning
the ability of the distinguished gentleman
who wrote the despatch to which I have just
referred. Whatever may have been the
opinion of the Colonial Office in 1856, this is
a later opinion, for the despatch is dated the
4th of February, 1862. The honorable and
gallant gentleman says they do not propose to
take from any honorable gentleman the rights
he now enjoys. I could understand this
argument they did not propose to take away
the rights of any honorable member of this
House; but I cannot understand it when you
propose to drive from this House faithful
subjects who have served their country honestly in the Legislature, and I am afraid
we have not yet had from the gallant
Premier that explanation to which the House
is entitled. (Hear, hear.) Why is it that
the legislative councillors from Prince Edward Island are excepted? In that province,
as we know, the Legislative Council is elective, and it is an elected Chamber that
is now
in existence there, but the members of it are
excepted from the provisions that apply to
the legislative councils of the other provinces.
Why is this? I think there must be some
reason, in the first place, for breaking the
good rule that in no way shall the prerogative
ofthe Crown be restricted; and, in the second,
for making an exception in regard to one that
does not apply to the others. I think a reason
may be found for this in the fact, that it was
doubted whether the resolutions in a different
shape would have passed through some of the
chambers that compose the legislatures of the
different provinces. (Hear, hear.) I would
like to know what justice will be done if this
change is carried out? What, for instance,
will be done with to two honorable
members who come from the city of Hamilton ?
One of them (the Hon. Mr. MILLS) is an
appointed member; the other (the Hon. Mr.
BULL) was the almost unanimous choice of
the people only a few months since. Under
the working of the resolutions, one of these
honorable gentlemen will forfeit his seat.
HON. MR. CURRIE— If it does not follow
that one of these honorable gentlemen will lose
his seat, it must follow that some other portion of Upper Canada will be unrepresented
in this House. (Hear, hear.) Let honorable
gentlemen take either horn of the dilemma
they please. It may be quite true that the
gentlemen who have been sent here possess
the confidence of their constituents, but it
does not follow that they will be retained
in their seats. It is plain that a great
injustice will be done these honorable
gentlemen, some of whom have served
their country faithfully, without, in any
way trenching upon the rights of the Crown
or infringing on those of the people ; and I
think the conclusion this House and the
country, as well as the other branch of the
Legislature, will arrive at, is that these te
212
solutions were devised because they were
better calculated in this shape to be palatable,
if not to this Chamber, at least to other
houses of the legislatures of British North
America. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—Like other hon.
gentlemen who have preceded me, I am overcome with the importance of this subject
;
and I would fail in my duty were I to give
a silent vote on the very grave question now
before the House. I feel that, in the language of my hon. friend from the Eastern
Division, it is a question of the greatest possible importance ; and I think the House
has
great reason to congratulate itself on the manner in which the discussion of it has
been
approached—in the way in which it has been
treated, both by the friends of the resolutions
and by those who have opposed them. (Hear,
hear.) Difference of opinion there must be
on all great public questions. ( Hear, hear.)
It is idle to expect that we should all be
agreed on this any more than on any other
great public question ; and after all, the most
correct judgment, which can be formed on
any occasion, is but an approximation to the
truth. (Hear, hear.) All those who have
preceded us in the work of constitution-
making, have left, on the structures which
they have erected, the impress of that attribute which prevades humanity—imperfection.
We have a very lamentable instance
of this in the case of our neighbors on the
southern side of the line. As was well said,
by a prominent member of the Government
in another place, the Constitution of the
United States "was one of the most wonderful works of the human intellect—one of the
most marvellous efforts of skill and organization that ever governed a free people.
But
to say that it was perfect would be wrong."
The wonder is that men with the limited
amount of experience which its authors
possessed, should have framed such an instrument. It has stood many rude tests,
and but for the existence in the social compact of our American friends, of an element
in direct antagonism to the whole genius of
their system—negro slavery—the Constitution of the United States would have continued
to withstand—yes, and after the
extinction of that element, will continue to
withstand—all the artillery which their own
or foreign despotism can array against it.
Their institutions have the same features
with our own. There are some points of
variance ; but the same great principle is
the basis of both—that life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness are the unalienable
rights of man, and that to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed. This is the secret of the
strength of the British Constitution, and
without a free and full recognition of it, no
government can be strong or permanent. I
am free to admit that the scheme before us
has some defects, which, in my judgment,
will mar its well-working ; but, at the same
time, I am confident that, if it should become law, these defects can and will be
remedied. The gentlemen composing a majority of the Conference, who were the
authors of these resolutions, honestly thought
that their views were right, but the time will
come when they or their successors will see
that they were wrong, and the errors will be
rectified. We are told the resolutions must
be either accepted or rejected. Therefore,
the question which we must solve is, whether
these defects are so serious as to render it
our duty to reject them, or are the advantages
likely to result from their adoption more
than equivalent to the drawbacks. I hold
that the substitution of appointment by the
Crown for the elective principle, in this
Chamber, is a great objection. I have
always been an advocate of the elective principle ; still I shrink from the responsibility
of voting against the scheme because of
that objection. (Hear, hear.) We had
reached a condition almost bordering on
anarchy ; and I am sure from the conflict of
passions that prevailed—and it is not my
design to blame one political party or the
other for it, I simply state a fact, freely conceded by both parties—that a state
of things
existed for which a remedy of some kind must
be found. And it is a cheering fact that in the
midst of this state of things we have found
men patriotic enough to merge former differences and unite together for the purpose
of framing a Constitution which will secure
exemption from the evils under which we
have labored. And although it may entail
—I am not here to state that it will not entail—additional cost upon the country,
yet
that is not a valid argument against the adoption of the scheme. (Hear, hear.) The
House and the country have to take this into
consideration, whether, if it be rejected, we
can devise a plan better fitted to extricate us
from our present difficulties, and which will
command the support of all the parties to
this compact. It seems to be unnecessary to
go into the discussion of the question as to
213
whether union of the British North American Provinces is desirable. Every hon.
gentleman who has spoken, has given his
assent to that proposition. But objections
have been urged against the resolutions before the House, an some of those objections
have assumed a tangible shape. They have
been presented in the amendments moved
by my honorable friend from Wellington and
by my hon. friend from Niagara. My vote
shall be given for the resolutions, notwithstanding their defects, because I believe
that
the benefits which we shall derive from their
adoption will far outweigh them. (Hear,
hear.) We have been told that this scheme
is new, that the country is not informed
upon the subject, and that the people do not
understand it. There was a time in the history of this country—and that time has not
very long gone by— when this plan of government, or at any rate the leading principles
embodied in it, were discussed and approved
by a very large number of the people. In
1859, a numerous and respectable body representing the Reform party of Upper Â
Canada, met in the city of Toronto. That
convention was composed of, I think, 560
members, who substantially adopted it as the
policy of the party. Among other resolutions which the convention agreed to were
two which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House. The 4th resolution was
to the following effect :— Â
That without entering on the discussion of
other objections, this assembly is of opinion that
the delay which must occur in obtaining the sanction of the Lower Provinces to a Federal
union
of all the British North American Colonies,
[laces that measure beyond consideration as a remedy for present evils.
The object of this resolution was clearly
not to ignore the larger project of Confederation of all the British North American
Provinces, and I think I shall be able to
convince the House, from what fell from
myself on that occasion, that it was not so
considered. But the difficulties then surrounding us were of a grave character and
an immediate remedy was desired; and, as
the resolution expresses it, the obstacle in
the way of a Federal union of all the provinces, and which prevented its acceptance
as an immediate remedy, was the delay
which would necessarily occur in obtaining
the consent of the Lower Provinces. But
the 5th resolution adopted at that meeting
embodied in it some of the main features of
the resolutions of the Conference.
thus :—
That in the opinion of this assembly the best
practicable remedy for the evils now encountered
in the Government of Canada is to be found in
the formation of two or more local governments,
to which shall be committed the control of all
matters of a local or sectional character, and
some joint authority, charged with such matters
as are necessarily common to both sections of
the province.
HON. MR. ROSS—Or, in other words,
there was a hope at that time that Gonfederation would be accomplished. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—Yes; and I was
going on to show that that was the sense in
which I and others in that body viewed the
resolution at the time; and my hon. friend
from the Niagara Division was a member of
the convention. Ishall quote from a speech
I made upon that occasion, which will show
at all events the sense in which I regarded
the resolution I have just read. It is sometimes an advantage in advocating measures
to have no embarrassing antecedents. This
is my lot on this occasion, or I should, perhaps, have been reminded of them by my
hon. friend from Niagara. It will be remembered by those who were present at the
meeting, that Mr. SHEPPARD moved a resolution, in amendment, affirming the propriety
of dissolving the union between Upper and
Lower Canada; but in doing so, he said, that
if our object was to establish a large nationality, he would withdraw it, and support
the
main resolution. In reply to him I said :—
Mr. SHEPPARD has stated that if he could see
that the tendency was towards the acquisition of
a national existence, then he was with us; he
could see the propriety of a course of that kind.
Now I, for one, have no hesitation in saying that
such is its tendency, and that that man is blind to
the future of this country, nay, more, that heis not
a true patriot, who does not believe that some day
or other this great British North American continent will have a nationality. I think
every
man, looking at the history of the past judging from that what may the history of
the
future of this country, must feel that one day or
other—and this, perhaps, at no very distant
period—we shall have a great North American
nationality . It is no part of our scheme that
there shall not be a federation of all the British
North American Provinces. We admit the possibility of that in one of the resolutions
already
passed, but we say that we cannot afford to wait for it, for the extravagance of our
present system is so great that the country cannot stand it much longer. With regard
to dissolution of the union,
214
pure and simple, we say you can't get it—it is not
advisable that you should have it, because it is a
step in the wrong direction. It is going back.
We adopt the principle of Federation, as a step
in the right direction, which will, in the meantime, relieve us from the pressing
difficulties under
which the country labors, and which also looks to
the future—to a Federation of all the British
North American Provinces first, and beyond that
to the admission of other territories into the great
North American Confederacy.
Having thus shown the views which were
entertained at that time, I feel, honorable
gentlemen, that we are perfectly consistent
in supporting the main features of this
scheme. (Hear, hear.) I think it will be
in the recollection of honorable gentlemen,
that while this meeting in Toronto took place
on the 9th of November, 1859, there was
also another meeting in the city of Montreal,
on the 25th of October preceding, the proceedings at which to a great extent influenced
the decision of that convention. The
meeting at Montreal, composed of Lower
Canadian Opposition members of Parliament,
gave forth to the world a very important
and able document—a document which on
its face was partly advisory to the members
of the Reform party of Upper Canada, who
were about to meet in Toronto. It was
signed by the following gentlemen : the
Hon. Messrs. A. A. DORION, L. T. DRUMMOND, L. A. DESSAULES, and THOMAS
D'ARCY MCGEE. If the House will bear
with me, I will quote from it as briefly as
possible, because it is impossible for me to
present, in any language of my own, arguments so cogent, and so satitfactory, in support
of the scheme now before the House.
(Hear, hear.) After setting forth the
necessity of immediate action and deprecating
dissolution of the union pure and simple,
these gentlemen—who formed a committee
of the Liberal party of Lower Canada to
prepare this manifesto—say :—
Neither can we comprehend how the re-adjustment of representation could effectually
prevent
the recurrence of the conflicts and collisions
arising out of the distinct character of our two-
fold population. In each section there would
still be minority and majority parties ; and unless
the principle of a double majority could be enacted as a fundamental law, we should
be exposed
to an endless round of the same complaints that
we now hear, of one section ruling the other
contrary to its well-known public opinion, and to
see reproduced in our politics the same passions,
the same intrigues, the same corruption and
insincerity. The enactment of the double majority is not advocated in any quarter.
I am sorry that my hon. friend from the
Grandville Division is not in his place, for I
think the remedy he proposes is so ably
shown in this document to be insufficient to
meet the exigencies of the case, that even
he would be convinced of the inadequacy
of the views he has just now announced.
The language I have quoted is just what we
say now, that representation by population
per se would not afford sufficient means of
extrication from our difficulties, and would
not give us the hope which the new constitutional system, of which it forms a main
feature, does afford, that we will be rid of
the evils which have distracted the country.
(Hear, hear.) Upper Canada, were that
principle engrafted into our legislative union,
would undoubtedly have greater power and
weight, but as the manifesto justly says :—
We should be exposed to an endless round of
the same complaints that we now hear, of one
section ruling the other, contrary to its well
known public opinion.
We should still have Upper Canada versus
Lower Canada ; because local difficulties,
arising out of real or supposed interference
with the customs, laws, religious institutions,
or sectional questions of any kind, would
provoke and perpetuate the same bitter and
hostile feelings which have so long annoyed
and vexed the people of both sections of the
province. (Hear, hear.) The Federative
system is the only cure for this great evil.
(Hear, hear.) The manifesto of the committee proceeds to say :—
Your committee are impressed with the conviction that whether we consider the present
needs
or the probable future condition of the country—
the true, the statesmanlike solution is to be sought
in the substitution of a purely Federative for the
present so-called Legislative union. The former,
it is believed, would enable us to escape all the
evils, and so retain all the advantages appertaining to the existing union, while
by restricting the
functions of the Federal Government to the few
easily-defined subjects of common or national
concern, and leaving supreme jurisdiction in all
other matters to the several provinces, the people
of each sub-division would possess every guarantee for the integrity of their respective
institutions
which an absolute dissolution of the union would
confer.
It is impossible to state in stronger or
more appropriate terms than these the advantages set forth in the leading features
of
this scheme—they are in exact accordance
with the principles here so luminously and
powerfully stated. One would suppose that
215
the hon. and gallant Knight, or the hon. the
Commissioner of Crown Lands, had written
the paragraph ; even they could not offer a
better defence. (Hear, hear.) But I wish
to call to the next paragraph of this manifesto the attention of my hon. friend (Hon.
Mr. AIKINS), who thinks that these resolutions have not been long enough before the
public to enable them to form a correct
judgment upon them. I trust the House
will bear with me while quoting from this
State paper ; but really I feel that the arguments which it urges are so good that
they
are the best defence of the resolutions that
can be offered :—
The proposition to Federalize the Canadian
union is not new. On the contrary, it has been
frequently mooted in Parliament and in the press
during the last few years. It was, no doubt,
suggested by the example of the neighboring
States, where the admirable adaptation of the
Federal system to the government of an extensive territory , inhabited by people of
divers
origins, creeds, laws and customs, has been amply
demonstrated ; but shape and consistence were
first imparted to it in 1856, when it was formally
submitted to Parliament by the Lower Canada
Opposition, as offering , in their judgement, the
true corrective of the abuses generated under the
present system
Thus it appears that the gallant Knight
and his confrères of the Conference have not
the credit of originating this scheme—the
honor belongs to the Liberal party of Lower
Canada ; and it is somewhat surprising that
these gentlemen, who not only adopted it
themselves but recommended it to Upper
Canada, are the only parties who now oppose
it. (Hear, hear.) Now, mark the significance of the paragraph which follows :—
The discussion now going on in Upper Canada
justifies the hope that the Liberal party of that
section of the province will at the approaching
convention pronounce in favor of Federation.
It, therefore, now becomes imperative upon the
Liberals of Lower Canada to determine whether
they will sustain the views enunciated in Parliament in 1856, and urged upon every
subsequent
occasion when constitutional changes were discussed.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—The hon. gentleman says " hear, hear," but what was recommended in this paragraph
has been
done. Our friends called on the Liberal
party in Upper Canada to adopt their scheme
at the convention of 1859. It was then
adopted. It has now been adopted by both
parties in Upper Canada ; nay more, it has
been adopted by the Conservative party in
Lower Canada, and shall the country now
be told that the only party who oppose it,
are the Liberal party of Lower Canada, who
claim the credit of being its authors. The
arguments are so cogent that I must continue
to quote them :—
If Lower Canada insists on maintaining the
union intact,—if she will neither consent to a
dissolution of the union, nor consider the project
of a Federation, it is difficult to conceive on
what reasonable grounds the demand for representation according to population can
be resisted.
The plea for such a resistance has hitherto been,
that danger might arise to some of her peculiar and
most cherish institutions ; but that ground will
be no longer tenable if she rejects a proposition
the effect of which would be to leave to her own
people the sole and absolute custody of those
institutions, and to surround them by the most
stringent of all possible safeguards, the fundamental law of the land, unalterable
save by the
action of the people affected by them.
Could there be anything stronger or more
to the point than this. He will not admit
it, but no doubt this document has contributed largely to the conversion of my
venerable and gallant friend at the head of
the Government. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
I have such faith in the efficacy of it, that
in the hope of making more converts I will
go on with it :—
Your committee will not be expected, it is
presumed, to do more than indicate the conclusions at which they have arrived with
respect to
the more prominent features of the proposed
system of Federation. They are clearly of
opinion that whatever be the number of the provinces into which it may ultimately
be thought
advisable to divide the Province of Canada, the
old division line between Upper and Lower Canada must be preserved. In the distribution
of
powers between the Local, or State, and the
Federal Government, the controlling and pervading idea should be to delegate to the
Federal
Government such authority only as would be
essential to the objects of the Federation ; and
by necessary consequence to reserve to the sub-
divisions, powers as ample and varied as possible.
The customs, the post-office, the laws concerning
patents and copyrights, the currency, and such
of the public works as are of general interest to
the whole province, would form the chief if not
the only subjects with which the General Government should be charged ; while everything
relating to purely local improvements, to education,
to the administration of justice, to the militia, to
laws relating to property, and generally all
questions of local concern ; in fine, on all matters
not specifically devolving on the Federal Government, would be lodged in the governments
of
the separate provinces. * * * In conclusion,
216
your committee strenuously recommend to the
Liberal party of Lower Canada the propriety of
seeking for a solution of the present difficulties in
a plan of Confederation, the details of which
should be so matured as to meet the approbation
of a majority of the people of this province,
and, in order to further this, and to promote the
most ample discussion of the subject as well in
Parliament as throughout the country.
It may be said in reply, that this document
refers only to the Federation of the Canadas.
The scheme before the House provides for
that most fully ; but if the principle be good
as regards Canada, it will be equally beneficial as regards the other British North
American Colonies. (Hear, hear.) The
hon. member from Wellington, in the very
able speech which he delivered the other day,
and to which all who heard him must have
listened with very great pleasure, enunciated his views in his usual forcible and
lucid style ; and whether there is a coincidence of opinion with him or not, one cannot
but respect the intelligence, moderation and
candor with which he expresses his views.
(Hear, hear.) I trust that in giving my opinion upon some points of his remarks I
shall
be guilty of no want of courtesy although
differing from him. (Hear.) The hon.
gentleman, at the outset of his remarks, said
that this Constitution, in order to be strong,
"must be planted deep in the hearts and
affections of the people," and that "there
would be no good hope of its permanency
without this." So true and correct is this
position, that if I did not believe, honestly
believe, that the Constitution which we are
now discussing commanded the approbation of
a large majority of the people—I am speaking now more particularly of the section
of
the province to which I belong—I would
be one of those to advocate our delaying its
passage until we ascertained beyond all doubt
what the feelings of the people are ; but I
think there is no reasonable ground to
doubt what their views are. (Hear, hear.)
They were shown, in the first place, as
pointed out by my honorable friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands, in the fact that
nearly all the elections of members of this
and the other branch of the Legislature that
have taken place since the formation of the
Government, have resulted in its favor.
That, I think, is very strong testimony of the
popular approbation. (Hear, hear.) Then
we have no petitions against it. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—"None for it," the
hon. gentleman says. Why, the country
has demanded the scheme for years. (Hear,
hear.) What have I been proving to the
House but that the very party of which the
hon. gentleman is a member resolved upon
this in 1859. I do not think the feelings of
that convention in its favor could have been
more distinctly expressed. I certainly so
understood it, and a large majority of the
560 gentlemen present so understood it.
(Hear, hear.) It has been before the country
in Lower Canada since 1856, when our
friends from Lower Canada formally brought
it before Parliament. Are there any petitions from Lower Canada now against it ?
(Hear, hear.) Are there any from Upper
Canada ? Has there been a single public
meeting in either section against it ? ( Hear,
hear.) In Lower Canada, an hon. member
says, there have been two or three. It has
been said—I do not declare it, but make the
statement on public rumor—that they were
failures, small demonstrations of opposition.
But in Upper Canada we have had no demonstration whatever against it. An indirect
attempt was made the other day at
Toronto by an effort to condemn the Intercolonial Railway in connection with Confederation,
but it was a manifest failure. (Hear,
hear.) I think, then, that we are justified
in assuming—and, indeed, are bound to
assume—that the people do not object to it,
and that they fully understand its character ;
for in spite of what may be said to the contrary,
it has gone through the length and breadth
of the land, having been widely circulated
by every newspaper in the country ; and
it is a flimsy argument for honorable
gentlemen to use, that because the resolutions addressed to them were marked
" Private," they could not be communicated
to the public. (Hear, hear.) They have
been spread all over the country ; but we are
told the entire press has been subsidized by
the Government. To say that the press was
influenced in any manner by the circular to
which allusion has been made, is absolutely
ridiculous. (Hear, hear.) There are a few
newspapers in either section of the province
—certainly there are few in Upper Canada—
that have spoken against the scheme ; but
nine-tenths of them in both sections are in
favor of it, and have discussed it in all its
bearings—yet we are told that the public
has not been sufficiently informed upon it,
that in fact there is no public opinion in
217
respect to it, and that hence there are no
petitions or demonstrations against it. I
think this is a mode of reasoning which my
hon. friend (Hon. MR. CURRIE) ought not
to adopt—it is an argument unworthy of his
intelligence. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend
from Wellington the other day attacked the
character of the Conference, and the attack
has been repeated since, by styling it a " self-
elected body." This designation was not
correct. So far as Canada is concerned,
we were represented by the Canadian Government, formed for the express purpose of
carrying into effect a plan of Federal union
—union of the Canadas at all events, and if
possible of all the British North American
Provinces. It will not be denied that the
Government possesses the confidence of large
majorities in both Houses of Parliament,
and of the people of the province. (Hear,
hear.) The representatives of Canada, therefore, could hardly be called a self-elected
body, that is in the sense in which my hon.
friend has applied the term, namely, that
they represented nobody but themselves.
To maintain this is indeed to go a great
length, for it is practically to ignore both
Houses of Parliament, and the very principle of representation. (Hear, hear.) Then,
as regards the representatives of the other
provinces, they were appointed by the sanction of the Crown, on the invitation of
the
Governor General, and were selected from
various political parties, to consider a question of the utmost interest to every
subject
of the Sovereign, of whatever race or faith,
resident in these provinces ; and they have
arrived at a conclusion destined to exercise a
most important influence upon the future
condition and welfare of the whole community. My honorable friend from Port
Hope (Hon. Mr. SEYMOUR) referred to-day
to the American mode of revising their
constitutions. The honorable gentleman
very correctly stated the manner in which
the Federal Constitution may be amended, but he is in error as to the mode
in which state constitutions may be revised.
One of the most important of the States revised its Constitution in 1846. I refer
to
the State of New York. The
modus operandi
on that occasion was as follows :—An act was
passed in the State Legislature authorizing
the electors at large to choose delegates to a
convention, for the express purpose of revising the Constitution. The instrument
passed by the convention was then submit
ted to the Legislature for approval ; but the
Legislature had no power to alter it. It had
either to be rejected or accepted as a whole.
It was so accepted, none of the details being
altered. My hon. friend will see that while
the Conference was composed of leading representatives of the people in the various
provinces, those conventions are composed
of gentlemen elected by the people for that
special purpose ; and that the only difference
between them is in the mode of selection.
However, in both cases, all political parties
are represented. My hon. friend from the
Home Division (Hon. Mr. AIKINS) in speaking of this Conference the other day, said
he would have preferred if it had been a
party matter, and he took the ground that if
it had, it would have been better for the
country.
HON. MR. AIKINS—I beg the honorable
gentleman's pardon. What I said was, that
I regretted very much that the measure had
not been taken up and discussed as a party
measure ; for although I was of opinion that
it could not be carried as a party measure, if
it had been so taken up it would have been
more thoroughly scrutinized and discussed
before the people.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—I think the explanation of my hon. friend quite bears out
what I stated, that he thought it should be
made a party measure.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—Where can the
hon. gentleman find an instance of the revision or change of a constitution being
made
a party measure ?
HON. MR. AIKINS—Tbe hon. gentleman
can find it on reference to the action of the
Toronto convention and the Lower Canadian
Liberal party, to which he has just alluded.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—The hon. gentleman, I see, has not changed the ground
which he took the other day, and which is
precisely as I stated it. He thinks it would
have been to the public advantage if this
question had been taken up and discussed
by a party. In this, in my judgment, he is
entirely wrong ; and I say he can find no instance of a constitution having been revised
by a party.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Well, I submit an
instance—the amendment to the United
218
States Constitution, prohibiting slavery,
which was passed last month, and which was
proposed by a party.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—A number of
the representatives in the Federal Congress
who voted for it were democrats, and without their concurrence and support it could
not have been carried. Besides, that was
only an amendment, not a revision of the
Constitution. The Constitution of the United
States was not the work of a party. The
revision of the Constitution of the State of
New York, in 1846, was not the work of a
party. It is not desirable that any Constitution should be the work of a party ; in
so important an undertaking all party spirit
should be laid aside. (Hear, hear.) Why ?
Because men of all parties are alike interested
in the formation of a Constitution, and
because in the construction of such an instrument, the collective wisdom of the leading
men of all parties is needed. Besides,
a Constitution so framed will be more likely,
as my hon. friend from Wellington has so
well said, to live in the hearts and affections
of the people. (Hear, hear.) To shew the
good sense of our neighbors on this point,
they do not give the revision of a Constitution—and the work of the Conference was
a revision of our Constitution—to any party,
but to men specially chosen for the purpose,
from all parties ; and I think the Governor
General, and the Lieutenant-Governors of
the Lower Provinces acted most wisely
when they selected men of all shades of
political opinion to compose this Conference
and to prepare this Constitution, because all
party views and feelings being laid aside,
the whole object and motive of the members
of the body was to devise a scheme which
would best tend to promote the good of their
common country. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member from Wellington has suggested a
very important objection to the scheme ;
and I am free to admit that, if the position
he took were a correct one, then it would not
be my duty, or that of any elected member
of this House, to assent to the measure.
In order that I may not misrepresent the
position taken by the hon. gentleman, let
me quote his language, as reported in the
newspapers. He held :—
That the elective members had received a
sacred trust to exercise ; that they were sent here
by their constituencies to represent them, and to
do that only. Under these circumstances,
how could they conceive they had the power
to vote away the rights of their electors ? That
was not their mandat, and if they did, they
would be doing that which they had no authority
to do ; they would be doing that which they could
not do without going beyond the authority confided to them.
Now, it must be frankly admitted that if
the hon. gentleman's position be correct,
then his objection would be fatal to any
elected member giving his concurrence to
the scheme of the Conference. But, hon.
gentlemen, let us enquire what is the position of a representative. Two elements
enter into the idea of representation—
namely, power and duty. A representative
derives the former from his constituents
acting by their majority, under the Constitution. From what source does he derive
the latter ? Obviously not from his constituents, because even the majority are not
agreed on all points connected with the discharge of his duty. My hon. friend (Hon.
Mr. SANBORN) has spoken of the position of
a representative, as being that of a trustee.
I shall quote from a very able work on the
British Commonwealth, in which that position is, to my mind, very fully and very satisfactorily
proved to be incorrect. COX says :—
Any trust, to be obligatory in conscience,
must be defined by the self-same persons who
appoint the trustee, or the person who is to
fulfil the trust. His powers and duties must
be derived from identically the same authority,
for it obviously would be contrary to morals, as
it is to law, that a man would be bound in conscience to exercise, in a particular
way, powers
delegated to him by several others, when they
themselves, while delegating those powers, differ
as to the mode in which they are to be exercised.
For, which of the different ways is the trustee to
choose ? By whom of those who appoint him
is he to be guided in preference to the rest ? At
the most he is bound to exercise his trust in a
particular way in those particulars only respecting which the trust makers are agree
. Let us
now apply this abstract principle of equity to the
relations between a representative and his constituents. Regard him as their trustee.
With
respect to the source of his power there is no
ambiguity ; it is derived from his constituents
acting by their majority. But from whom does
he derive the duty of expressing this or that
opinion in Parliament ? In what particular are
the trust-makers agreed ? The very majority
who voted for him are rarely, perhaps never, all
agreed on any one point on which their opinions
have been compared with his. Some of them
differ from him on some points, some on others,
but they all voted for him, from personal consideration, or because of their agreement
with
him on those points which they respectively
deemed most important. In the minority, also,
are probably some electors who assent to some,
219
and dissent from others, of his opinions. The
essential conditions of a valid trust to express
particular opinions in Parliament are then wanting. The persons nominating him to
his office,
do not concur as to the opinions which he is to
express. How then can a trust exist which it is
impossible to define. The real trust imposed on
the representative is co-extensive with those
obligations, which alone the trust-makers can
generally confer on him,— namely, to exercise his
representative power honestly and discreetly.
This argument, of course, assumes that the candidate as not defined his parliamentary
obligations by unconditional pledges.
The only other possible limitation might
exist in the Constitution. I shall look then
at the instrument from which we derive our
powers as legislative councillors, and shall
quote from the Imperial Act of 1854, intituled " An Act to empower the Legislature
of Canada to alter the Constitution of the
Legislative Council, and for other purposes."
The first section is as follows :—
It shall be lawful for the Legislature of Canada,
by any act or acts to be for that purpose passed,
to alter the manner of composin the Legislative
Council of the said province, and to make it consist of such number of members, appointed
or to
be appointed or elected by such persons, and in
such manner as to the said Legislature may seem
fit, and to fix the qualifications of the persons
capable of being so appointed or elected, and by
such act or acts to make provision, if the shall
think fit, for the separate dissolution by the Governor of the said Legislative Council
and Legislative Assembly respectively, and for the purposes
aforesaid, to vary and repeal in such manner as to
them shall seem fit, all or any of the sections
and provisions of the said recited act, and of any
other Act of Parliament now in force which relates to the Constitution of the Legislative
Council of Canada.
Then, in the 3rd section it is provided—
That it shall be lawful for the Legislature of
Canada, from time to time, to vary an repeal all
or any of the provisions of the act or acts altering the Constitution of the said
Legislative
Council.
These are the powers given us by our
Constitution. (Hear, hear.) They are of
the most ample character. We were elected,
pursuant to an act passed in consequence of
the exercise of these powers. And, coming
from the people, the members of this House
were put in possession of these powers the
moment they were elected. None of them
at their elections pledged themselves not to
exercise the powers granted by the Constitution. They were not asked by their constituents
to do so. How then, by voting for
this or any other measure altering the con
stitution of the Legislative Council, can they
be said to betray the trust reposed in them
by their constituents? My hon. friend from
Wellington admits that under the Constitution we have the power to alter the constitution
of this House in so far as it relates to
Canada, but he says we are not authorized
to extend our action to the other provinces,
in a scheme of Federal union. That is
begging the question. I answer his objection that any change affecting the elective
principle is a breach of trust. Besides,
we do not propose to enact a system
of Government embracing all British North
America. We have not the power to do so.
We merely propose to address Her Majesty
on the subject. The Imperial Parliament
alone has that power; but if we have power
without a breach of trust to alter the constitution of the Legislative Council of
Canada
(and my hon. friend admits this), then,
certainly, we cannot be guilty of a breach of
trust in suggesting a change embraced in a
Constitution for the various provinces. I
will not yield to my hon. iriends from Wellington and Niagara, in attachment to the
elective principle, as applied to this House.
I have always been an advocate for it, and I
am so still, but we cannot get it inserted in
this instrument; and much as I deplore its
absence from our proposed Constitution, I am
not on that account prepared to reject the
resolutions. This scheme, like all other
constitutional compacts, is a compromise
between the conflicting opinions of its
framers; and on the whole, it is a fair
compromise. This feature is not peculiar to
our plan of Confederation. My hon. friend
will find in the Federalist, and from the
correspondence of the able men who framed
the " Articles of Confederation," that compromise and concessions of opinion were
submitted to. But out of them all grew
the wonderful fabric of the American Constitution. In the resolution which my hon.
friend proposes, there is, according to his
own admission, compromise. He admits
that he cannot in its integrity procure the
application of the elective principle to the
Legislative Council. He even proposes to
add to the Opposite principle; why, then,
does my hon. friend object to similar concessious on our part, when we believe that
the
probable advantages of the whole scheme far
outweigh its defects? (Hear, hear.) As
regards limitation in the general powers of
Parliament contended for by my hon. friend,
I hold that it is not to be found in the
220
unwritten Constitution, made up of historical
and parliamentary precedents, any more than
in our written Charter from the Imperial
Parliament. That great commentator,
BLACKSTONE, says of Parliament:—
It hath sovereign and uncontrollable authority
in making, confining, enlarging, restraining, repealing, revising and expounding of
laws.
So, Justice STORY, in speaking of the
American Constitution, says :—
Where a power is granted in general terms the
power is to be construed as co-extensive with the
terms, unless some clear restriction upon it is
deducible from the context.
Chief Justice MARSHALL says :—
The Constitution unavoidably deals in general
language, hence its powers are expressed in
general terms, leaving to the Legislature, from
time to time. to adopt its own means to effectuate
legitimate objects, and to mould and model the
exercise of its powers as its own wisdom and the
public interest may require.
The only other authority I shall quote
is from DUER'S Constitutional Jurisprudence :—
No axiom is more clearly established in law
or reason than that, wherever an end is required,
the means are authorized; wherever a general
power to do a thing is given, every particular
power necessary for doing it is included.
But my hon. friend's motion is utterly inconsistent with the position which he has
taken. He takes ground in his speech
which is upset by his motion. According
to that position he is bound to the elective
principle, and he is therefore on principle
bound to do all in his power to remove
obstructions to its well-working. He is
bound even to remove the present nominated
members from the House. What does his
resolution propose? It proposes not merely
to allow the nominated members to remain
for life, but to add ten to their number!
This is surely not giving free scope to the
elective principle. Were the Lower Provinces to have the power which my hon. friend
proposes to give them, they would appoint
ten of their youngest men to seats in this
House, who might be here for years after
those to whom they were an offset had
been removed from the House. (Hear,
hear.) Besides, he proposes to give the
present elected members seats for eight
years, and then, of course, the whole
of them would go back for re-election at
once. I am net convinced by any argument which I have heard that the elective
principle, exercised in some way, is not the
best mode to compose this House. It has
worked well so far. All the fears which
were entertained in reference to it have
proved groundless, and I believe it would
continue to work well, and therefore, I disapprove of the change proposed in the
resolutions. But I am not on that account
prepared to reject the whole scheme.
With all its detects (and I believe those
defects will be remedied) I accept it, because
it will be productive of good to the country
at large. Therefore, I shrink from the responsibility of rejecting it. (Hear, hear.)
I
have to apologize for having detained the
House so long—(cries of "no, no," "go on")—
but, before sitting down, I must refer to the
amendment of which my hon. friend from
Niagara Division (Hon. Mr. CURRIE) has
given notice. It is as follows :—
That upon a matter 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, with
out a further manifestation of the public will than
has yet been declared.
My hon. friend does not tell us, in this
resolution, which he intends to move—
HON. MR. ARMSTRONG—I scarcely
think it is in order to discuss a resolution
which has not been moved yet.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—It forms part
of the general subject brought before the
House. It is on the notice paper, and
I think I am quite in order in referring to
it. I was about to say that my hon. friend,
in that notice does not tell us whether
he intends to propose that public opinion
shall be tested by an appeal to the people
in the way of a dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, or by submitting the scheme
in its integrity to a popular vote. If we
recommend the former course, we should
place ourselves in rather a strange position.
If we advised His Excellency to dissolve the
House of Assembly, while we sat quietly by
to see what was going on, it would be in
effect saying—"We have scruples as to
whether public opinion has, or has not endorsed these proposed constitution] changes
;
but, if your Excellency will be so kind as to
dissolve the House of Assembly, those
scruples will be resolved by a general election." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I think
221
that would be an extraordinary course for
this House to take—and a course which I
think would not he considered by the country at large a very becoming one. (Hear,
hear.) If the other plan be what my hon.
friend intends by his notice, then I say it
is a process of ascertaining the popular sanction entirely unknown to the British
Constitution. It is a process unknown even to
our friends on the other side of the line,
except in those cases where the general or
state Constitution expressly provides for it.
Where such provisions are not contained in
the state constitutions, it is invariably held
that submission to the popular vote, in order
to give the force of law to any legislative
act, is unconstitutional and void. In reference to the practice, SEDGWICK, an eminent
American authority, says :—
Efforts have been made, in several cases, by the
state 1egislatures to relieve themselves of the responsibility of their functions,
by submitting statutes
to the will of the people in their primary capacity.
But these proceedings have been held, and very
rightly, to be entirely unconstitutional and invalid.
The duties of legislation are not to be exercised
by the people at large. The majority governs,
but only in the prescribed form. The introduction of practices of this kind would
remove all
checks on hasty and improvident legislation, and
greatly diminish the benefits of representative
government. So when an act to establish free
schools was by its terms directed to be submitted
to the electors of the state to become a law only
in case a majority of the votes were given in its
favor, it was held in New York that the whole
proceeding was entirely void. The Legislature,
said the Court of Appeals, have no power to make
such submission, nor had the people the power to
bind each other by acting upon it. They voluntarily surrendered that power when they
adopted
the Constitution. The government of this state
is democratic, but it is a representative democracy, and in passing general laws the
pie act
only thro h their representatives in the legislature. In Indiana, the principle is
now framed
into a constitutional provision which vests the
legislative authority in a Senate and House of
Representatives, and declares that no law shall
be the taking effect of which shall be made
to spend upon any authority except as provided
in the Constitution. And under these provisions
it has been held that so much of an act as relates
to its submission to the popular vote was null and
void.
That is the general principle, according to
American practice. And as I have said, the
process of submitting any statute to the popular vote, in order to give it the force
of
law, is unheard of in British constitutional
practice. (Hear, hear.) I shall not detain
the House by going into the question of expense, as I promised to do. I will simply
say in conclusion, that I do think it is our
duty as patriotic men, as men actuated by an
honest desire to extricate our country from
the difficulties in which it is placed, to deal
fairly with this scheme, and as no other has
been presented—as those who oppose it have
not presented for our consideration any other
—have not even suggested the possibility of
any other to extricate us from the evils of
our position—and believing that in the main
this scheme, as regards its great leading outlines, will effect that purpose—then,
I say, it
is our duty as honest and patriotic men, to
approve of it and to sanction it by voting for
the resolutions in their integrity. (Hear,
hear.) I have resolved, like my honorable
friend from the Western Division, and my
hon. friend from the Brock Division (Hon.
Mr. BLAIR) to vote against all amendments
which may be offered to it. We have been
told distinctly by the members of the Government that we must either accept or
reject it as it is—that amendment is impossible. I can very well understand the reason
of that. It was adopted as a compact between the representatives of the different
provinces who had assembled in Conference
for the express purpose of' framing this Constitution. Were we to make any inroads
upon those resolutions, then the other provinces might claim and might exercise the
same right. This instrument is not perfect.
We all admit that there are points in it to
which we object; and there are points in it,
I dare say, to which our friends in the
Lower Provinces object. It is a compromise,
and I think it is a very able, and in the main
a very fair compromise. It is such a compromise as ought to commend itself to every
reasonable and candid mind. I think, therefore, that all amendments should be vetoed.
And I am not afraid that, in taking that
course, we shall not be justified by the people
at large. (Hear, hear.) The people understand the meaning and effect of these amendments
perfectly well. Perhaps I should not
call them "buncombe," but they savour very
much of that kind of thing. I think the
members of this House need have no fears
of public opinion in this matter. As regards
the people of Upper Canada—for whom I am
in a better position to speak than for the
people of Lower Canada—I am satisfied they
will endorse our approbation of the resolutions ; although, as we do, they may object
222
to some of the details. I have not hesitated
to state my own disapproval of some of
them.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—I disapprove of
some of the details, just as strongly as my
hon. friend from the Home Division (Hon.
Mr. AIKINS,) or my hon. friend from Niagara
Division (Hon. Mr. CURRIE). But I look at
it in this light: here we are offered a Constitution which will deliver us from many
of
the great evils under which we have been
laboring. I feel that in the main it will have
that effect; and that this will be the result,
could not have been stated more clearly or
forcibly than we find it in the document
which I read, as coming from the Lower
Canada Opposition, and signed by Hon. Mr.
DORION, Hon. Mr. DRUMMOND, Hon. Mr.
DESSAULLES, and Hon. Mr. McGEE. I think
that document contains arguments in its
favor which are unanswerable. (Hear, hear.)
In the circumstances, then, in which we are
placed, and in the absence of any other more
feasible scheme, I believe that, in spite of
all its objectionable features, the good which
will result from it as a whole, will more than
counterbalance all the difficulties and all the
evils which may possibly grow out of it.
(Hear, hear.) And besides, it is not a finality. We have every reason to believe that
those principles, which, I think, should
have been embodied in it, are such as
will ultimately prevail. I have confidence
enough in the representatives of the people,
and in the members of the Upper House
to be nominated by the Crown, and who
will compose that branch of the new Legislature formed under this Constitution.
I say I have confidence in them to believe
that, if the opinions which I hold in respect
to those details shall prove to be correct,
the defects referred to will be removed from
the Constitution. There will be no more difficulty in excising the nominative principle
from the future Legislative Council, than
there was in excising it from the former
body. I might say there were greater difficulties in the one case than in the other.
(Hear, hear.) Looking then at the advantages likely to result from the adaption of
the resolutions—the establishment of peace
and harmony among the people of this country—the getting rid of those terrible difficulties
and conflicts which have beset our
path, we ought not to hesitate. Whatever
hon. gentlemen may say now, they did not
estimate them slightly when they were complaining of the conduct of the governments
of the day, and my hon. friend from Niagara (Honorable Mr. CURRIE) inveighed against
the evils which then existed as strongly as any man could do. Looking, then I say,
at the abuses and difficulties which have arisen under a legislative union; and, thence
arguing the impracticability of going en with that kind of union, and believing that
the great advantages likely to result from this scheme of Federal union will much
more than counterbalance the evils likely to arise from it, I do say it is our duty
as honest and patriotic men to adopt the resolutions presented to us by the Conference.
(Cheers.)
HON. MR. SANBORN said—I have no desire to take up the time of the House, and shall only do so for
a moment or two. I have been unable, from ill health, to be present during the speeches
on the amendment which I had the honor to submit, and I shall merely avail myself
of this opportunity to answer two or three of the arguments which have been advanced
by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat. It appears to me that the difficulties
under which my hon. friend labors can be very easily removed; and that, if he is really
in harmony in sentiment with those who sustain the amendment now before the House,
he ought not to hesitate to give it his support. On a former occasion I endeavored
to show that the amendment did not impair the scheme at all; that it did not place
us in antagonism with any of the other provinces; that it was entirely a matter of
our own concern,—the election of members to the Legislative Council—and that it was
of no consequence to the other provinces how those
members were elected, if they had relatively
the same number as we. My hon.- friend
accuses me of being inconsistent in taking
ground in favor of the elective principle,
while proposing still to retain the nominated
members in their seats, and also to add ten
new members from the Maritime Provinces.
To this, I would answer that it is an exceptional condition in which we are placed.
"Fe
cannot obviate the difficulty. A similar difficulty presented itself to those who
sought
the change when the elective principle was
introduced into this House, and they met it
just in the same manner in which we propose
to meet it here. The life members were
retained while recognition and sanction were
223
given to the elective principle, and the House
remains now a visib e memento of the carrying out of the very position which I take
on the present occasion. (Hear, hear.) The
ground taken then, and to which the Hon.
Premier (Hon. Sir ETIENNE P. TACHÉ) gave
the sanction of his name and reputation,
was a recognition of the principle embodied
in the amendment now before this honorable
House. ( Hear, hear.) If we gained anything by introducing the elective principle,
we propose to keep that advantage, by retaining it just in the same form, and bear:
ing the same relation to the proposed Legislative Council as it is retained in and
bears
relation to this House.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—But, under the
present union, there is no federative necessity
for relative equality of numbers in the Legislative Council, as there will be under
the
proposed union.
HON. MR.SANBORN—I admit no necessities of the kind. These necessities are entirely artificial. In
that respect, I think hon.
gentlemen are entirely in error in the position they take. And, though I concede to
my hon. friend from Erie Division (Hon.
Mr. CHRISTIE) every credit for great candor
and soundness of judgment, still I must say
that, when he enters into the province of
law, he is travelling a little, as we say in the
profession, out of the record—and that any
one who is familiar with the doctrine of
trusts could not fail to see the falseness of
his reasoning in that particular. As regards
a trust, of course, the person who has a mandate given to him, must act according
to his
discretion under the circumstances. But
then he must do so within the trust that is
given him and not beyond the trust.
HON. MR. SANBORN—My hon. friend
cites the act empowering the Legislature of
Canada to change the constitution of the
Legislative Council, and on this act he bases
his whole argument. If I convince him that
that act does not cover his argument, will
he then concede the point ? That act, to
which my hon. friend refers, was passed for
a specific purpose, to enable Parliament to reconstruct this House. It had answered
its
purpose when the constitution of this House
was changed, but it cannot properly be invoked as giving authority with reference
to
bringing in other provinces to form a new
Confederacy.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—But my hon.
friend will observe, that we are not legislat
ing now—that we are merely passing an
Address.
HON. MR. SANBORN—We must feel
that, according to the rules of law, we are
asked here to go beyond the duties which
our electors sent us into this House to discharge. I contend that neither any act
on
our own Statute Book, nor any Imperial Act,
authorizes us to assume that they elected us
to come here to demolish the whole fabric of
our Constitution; and to seek to form another
and entirely different political system, embracing a number of other provinces, so
that
our identity is entirely swamped and lost.
I must say that, if my hon. friend feels
bound at all by the trust committed to him
by those who sent him here as a representative of the people, I conceive he is necessarily
bound to this, that he must sustain
the elective principle with regard to the
constitution of the proposed Legislative
Council. It is impossible, I think, to arrive
at any other conclusion. (Hear, hear.) My
hon. friend made use of one expression, with
apparently some degree of reluctance—the
term " buncombe." I think that was suggestive, and very suggestive. For, if those
who are favoring this principle favor it for
what my hon. friend characterizes as " buncombe," then they are seeking popularity
with the people—they are seeking what the
people want—(hear, hear)—and that argument certainly does not avail my hon. friend
in his present position ; for he maintains
that the people fully understand this thing,
and want it. If this be the case—if the
whole Province of Canada is bent upon having this scheme—then those who are trying
to resist it are standing alone, and are either
acting patriotically, or are beside themselves.
They cannot certainly be acting from any
desire to obtain popularity, because, according to my hon. friend, they are just doing
what the people do not want them to do.
(Hear, hear.) I know that the position of
my hon. friend is somewhat embarrassing.
He resides in a section of the province.
where he feels there is a difficulty that needs
to be removed in some way or other ; and
he is now endeavoring to show that the best
means of removing that difficulty is to embrace a great many other difficulties of
a
huge character, and of which we cannot
fully comprehend the consequences. When
an hon. gentleman is prepared to take that
ground, I think it would be better for him
to take it in silence, than to attempt to sustain it by reason. As regards Lower Canada,
224
we are not situated in the same way. There
is the French party, and there is the English party in Lower Canada, who are situated
very differently from the people of Upper
Canada ; and the people of Upper Canada
have a disposition not to recognize their
peculiar circumstances, or to have any concern for them at all. If my hon. friend
will
pardon me, I would say that his whole
philosophy is in favor of Upper Canada. In
speaking of the public opinion of this province, it was always Upper Canada—he had
no idea of Lower Canada as having any existence or any rights.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—My hon. friend
is quite mistaken. I quoted as lengthily
from the manifesto of the Lower Canada
Opposition, as from that of the Upper
Canada Opposition.
HON. MR. SANBORN—I am now speaking of the English of Lower Canada ; and,
as regards the people giving a distinct assent
to this proposition, my hon. friend will admit
that the English of Lower Canada have not
given such an assent.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—I stated that I
could speak with more confidence as to the
public opinion of the section of country to
which I belonged, than with regard to Lower
Canada.
HON. MR. SANBORN—The resolutions
to which Hon. Mr. DORION was a part , and
which were read by my hon. friend, conceive to embody, not what Mr. DORION'S
party, or any one political party rather than
another desired. I take it for granted that
British subjects of French Canadian origin
generally have their feelings in that direction—that is, they desire large power for
the local government—in fact they would
desire the local governments to be the real
governments, and that the Federation should
be very much nominal, for very minor purposes, and with very weak powers in the
Central Government ; while, on the other
hand, the English population of Lower
Canada would take the opposite view, and
desire larger powers in the Central Government, and smaller powers in the Local Government.
This, I think, was the view to
which the resolutions read by my hon. friend
had reference. Now, as regards the Reform
party of Upper Canada, let us see what they
had reference to—whether it was anything
like the Constitution which is now proposed.
I hold in my hand a pamphlet—the Address
of the Reform Constitutional Association to
the people of Upper Canada in 1859—and
I find here what they conceive to be the true
remedy thus stated :—
" The true remedy !" What then is the remedy
best adapted to deliver the province from the
disastrous position it now occupies ? We answer
—dissolve the existing legislative union. Divide
Canada into two or more provinces with local
executives and legislatures having entire control
over every public interest except those, and those
only, that are necessarily common to all parts of
the province. Let no public debt be incurred by
the legislatures, until the sanction has been obtained by direct vote. Establish some
central
authority over all, with power to administer such
matters, and such only as are necessarily common
to the whole province. Let the functions of this
central authority be clearly laid ; let its powers
be strictly confined to discharging specified duties.
Prohibit it from incurring any new debt, or levying more taxation than is required
to meet the
interest of existing obligations, discharge its own
specified duties, and gradually pay off the nationaf
debt. Secure these rights by a written constitution, ratified by the people, and incapable
of
alteration except by their formal sanction.
This was the programme laid down by the
Upper Canada Reform Convention of 1859.
HON. MR. SANBORN—Various parties
had a hand in it. I find the name of Hon.
Mr. MCDOUGALL, the present Provincial
Secretary, attached to it. And I suppose
my hon. friend from Erie Division (Hon. Mr.
CHRISTIE) was one of them.
HON. MR. CURRIE—They proposed that
the Constitution should be submitted to the
people ?
HON. MR. SANBORN—Yes; it was to
be ratified by a direct vote of the people.
And the beauty of the thing was, that the
Central Parliament was to be bound not to
increase the debt of the provinces, but
gradually to pay it off. (Hear, hear.) I
apprehend the Reform party of Upper Canada at that time was wiser than the same
party in these days.
HON. MR. SANBORN—If my honorable
friend would take that platform, or something
like it, I should be happy to give it my best
consideration at once ; and I should be very
glad if they would only give us a small part
of it, of which I think they must see the
justice—namely, written guarantees, so as
to assure us that our rights of property shall
not be overturned by the Local Parliament ;
225
to prevent, for example, a Squatter's bill—
(laughter)—being passed at the very first
opportunity in the Local Parliament, demolishing all the rights of property. I see
my
hon. friend opposite (Hon. Mr. CRAWFORD)
look melancholy, because he foresees that,
when the new Constitution is adopted, twelve
months will not pass before that becomes
law in Lower Canada, and all protection for
proprietors, so far as that is concerned,
brought to an end. But this is only one
instance, significant of what will take place.
It is perfectly well known, and none can
realize it better than those who have a much
greater horror of the progress of popular
sentiments than I have, that the tendency
in the popular mind is to break down monopolies of every kind, and to go to extremes
in dealing with vested rights, even those
which are established and founded on substantial principles of justice. Now, these
rights, at the very least, ought certainly to
be confided to the highest legislative authority. I go further and maintain that guarantees
for those rights ought to be placed in the
written Constitution, that they ought to be
beyond the power of interference by the
legislative authority, and that they should
be guarded by the judicial decisions of the
highest courts in the country. In that case
there would be a protection for property, but
in this Constitution there is no such protection for property either in Upper or Lower
Canada. And here is the point to which
I ask the attention of my honorable friends
of all parties—a point which I think all of
them have been too little concerned about,
and which applies just as well to Upper as
to Lower Canada. For I say that, if some
security is not given to the people in one of
these ways for maintaining vested rights
and interests of this character, the most
disastrous results will arise in every Local
Parliament ; because, when these parliaments are constructed, they will necessarily
consist of a different class of men from
those who now compose the legislatures of
the various provinces. There will be such
inducements to men of the highest order to
get elected to the Central Parliament, that
the consequence will necessarily and naturally be the result to which I point. (Hear,
hear.) I should like to refer to one argument which was used by my hon. friend from
Saugeen (Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON)—who is
not now in his place—that the appointment
of members of the Legislative Council in
the proposed Federal Parliament is not in
fact an abandonment of the elective principle, because the appointments are to be
by
the Ministry of the day, who must have the
confidence of the people. That is certainly
a most extraordinary argument. If it held
good at all, it should apply equally to both
Houses, and the Legislative Assembly should
be appointed by the Ministry, because the
Ministry have been selected by those who
have been elected by the people. This is
the clear, logical deduction from my hon.
friend's argument, if it is good for anything
—because, if appointment by the Ministry
is not an abandonment of the elective principle, you would still have an elective
Legislative Assembly, although its members were
appointed by the Government (Hear,
hear.) But this was also well answered on
a former occasion by my hon. friend behind
me (Hon. Mr. AIKINS.) It is not simply
the first appointment that we oppose. It is
the appointments afterwards, as the first
members die out or resign, and their successors are appointed on the nomination of
the future local governments. Instead of
this producing a favorable result, it appears
to me it will have just the opposite effect.
The reason is plain. If, in the very first
instance, the prerogative is exercised, not by
the Sovereign or the Sovereign's representative, unbiassed, but is exercised by a
party
government, you have a House constituted
at its very first meeting of a party character.
In the other branch that particular Government has a majority. But it is possible,
that that party may not long retain power.
In the nature of things it is not probable
that they will. No party does. But the
Upper House remains permanent, and you
provide by your very first operation for that
dead-lock—that conflict between the Upper
and the Lower House, which has been spoken
of. (Hear, hear.)
This individual participated in:
