LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
FRIDAY, February 17, 1865.
HON. MR. CURRIE said—Hon. gentlemen, with the consent of my hon. friend
opposite (Hon. Mr. DICKSON) who is entitled to the floor, in consequence of having
moved the adjournment of the debate, I
rise for the purpose of proposing the resolution which for some length of time has
been
before the House, on the notice-paper. It is
one which, I think, should commend itself
to the good sense and impartial iudgment
of the members of this Honorable House;
and I shall be surprised if it shall meet any
degree of opposition from the hon. gentlemen representing the Government in this
branch of the Legislature. (Hear, hear.)
The resolution is as follows :—
That upon a matter of such great importance
as the purposed Confederation of this and certain
other British colonies, this House is unwilling to
assume the responsibility of assenting to a measure involving so many important considerations,
without further manifestation of the public will
than has yet been declared.
It is not aimed at either the destruction
or the defeat of the resolutions before the
House. It simply asks for delay until such
time as the people of the country can more
fully express their views on the matter than
they have hitherto had an opportunity of
doing Hon. gentlemen, I stated, when I
first addressed this Chamber in reference to
the proposed address, that I was not opposed
to the Confederation of the British Provinces in itself, but that I was opposed to
many of the details embraced in the resolutions upon which this House is asked to
found an Address to Her Majesty the
Queen. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. ROSS)
who followed me upon that occasion, stated
among other things, that I had attempted
to decry the Lower Provinces, and that I
had attempted also to decry the credit of
Canada. I appeal to hon. members present,
who were good enough to listen to me on that
occasion, to point out a single word which I
said, reflecting upon the credit of the people
of the eastern provinces. Instead of having
said anything to their discredit, I thought
I had paid them a very high compliment.
So far from reflecting upon the character of
the public men of those provinces, I alluded
to but one of them by name, the Hon. Mr.
TILLEY, and I paid him the compliment,
which he fully merits, of stating that he
must be ranked among the leading and most
prominent of British American statesmen.
(Hear, hear.) As to my decrying the credit
of Canada—if, to tell the truth—if, to speak
the honest convictions of one's mind—if, to
state to the world what the Public Accounts
of our country tell us—if this be to decry
the credit of our country—then I am guilty
of the charge. But the hon. gentleman went
on and told us, that my speech was so illogical that it was unworthy of notice.
HON. MR. CURRIE—The hon. gentleman said what amounted to that. And yet
to my astonishment be found it necessary to
reply to me in a speech four columns in
length—a speech, however, in which he
failed to controvert a single position which
I had the honor to take on that occasion.
Then I was charged with having attacked
statements of fact made by our public men.
HON. MR. CURRIE-The hon. gentleman from Toronto says " Hear, hear." But
I ask, is it not the duty of hon. gentlemen, standing on the floor of this
House, to correct misstatements which have
been sent to the country? Was I doing
anything more than my duty, when, in
my humble way, I endeavored to correct
what, if not misstatements, were at least
evidently incorrect statements? We have
had too much of that kind of thing in this
country. And since my hon. friend from
Toronto (Hon. Mr. ROSS) has chosen to
remind me of it, I must say that I think it
is much to be regretted that certain statements have been made in this country, and
sent from this country, which, instead of
helping to build up our credit, have done
much to injure it. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps
I could not allude to anything more forcibly
in point, than the flaming prospectus sent to
the world under the auspices of my hon.
friend from Toronto, in which he promised
the confiding capitalists of England a
270
dividend of 11 1/2 per cent. on the stock they
mi ht subscribe to the Grand Trunk Railway.
HON. MR. CURRIE—No ; he was not so
modest as to put it at 11 1/4.
(Laughter.) It
was 11 1/2 per cent. I was
charged with
attacking the statements of the Hon. Mr.
TILLEY. I stated, when last addressing the
House, that Hon. Mr. TILLEY informed a
public meeting—I think in St. John, New
Brunswick—that the tariff of Canada was in
fact an 11 per cent. tariff, and my hon. friend
from Toronto said that Hon. Mr. TILLEY was
correct in making that statement.
HON. MR. ROSS—What I said was that the
average duty on the whole imports of the country, including the free goods, was 11
per cent.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Then I must say
that that is a very novel way of arriving at
the tariff of a country—to take all the dutiable goods, to add to them all the free
goods,
and then to average the duty on the whole.
It may be a very convenient, but it is not a
correct or honest mode in my opinion.
HON. MR. ROSS—It is precisely what
Hon. Mr. TILLEY did; and I did it in the
same way.
HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend
told us that our present able and talented
Finance Minister had stated the tariff of
our country to be an 11 per cent tariff. I
asked my hon. friend when the Finance
Minister stated that ?
HON. MR. ROSS—I said that, taking
the statements Hon. Mr. GALT had furnished with reference to the tariff of customs
duties, and the amount of imports of dutiable
and free goods, and finding the average of
the whole to be 11 per cent., Hon. Mr. TILLEY
had made a statement based on Hon. Mr.
GALT'S own figures.
HON. MR. CURRIE—I find the report
makes my hon. friend say , that " The Hon.
Mr. TILLEY had quoted the figures of our
own Minister of Finance." He was wrong
in that statement, because Hon. Mr. TILLEY,
on the occasion I referred to, had quoted the
figures furnished by the Comptroller of New
Brunswick.
HON. MR. ROSS—The Comptroller of
New Brunswick could not furnish the figures
of the trade of Canada.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Surely my hon.
friend will remember, that, to give oflicial force
to the statement of Hon. Mr. TILLEY, he said
that, after the Comptroller of the province
had reviewed our tariff, he came to the con
clusion that it was but an 11 per cent.
tariff.
I quote from the report :—
Hon. Mr. TILLEY quoted the figures of our
own Minister of Finance, and the hon. member
represented him as not speaking the truth, but
as, in effect, attempting to deceive those whom
he addressed. Hon. Mr. CURRIE—I beg to know
when the Finance Minister of Canada stated that
the average duties collected in Canada were 11
per cent.Â
He (Honorable
Mr. Ross) desired to be
no longer interrupted ; I ceased to interrupt
him, and he did not give me an
answer
to the question. But, if the honorable
member from Toronto will turn to the celebrated speech of the Minister of Finance
made only the other day at Sherbrooke, he
will find that Hon. Mr. GALT
puts the Canada
tariff at 20 per cent.
HON. MR. ROSS—But he did not include the free goods ; that is all.
HON. MR. CURRIE— No, he did not
include the free goods. But I say that if
he had taken the value of dutiable goods, as
we find it given in the Trade Returns of
1863 — the last complete returns for a year
that we have—instead of arriving at the conclusion that we had a tariff of only 20
per
cent., he would have found that the actual
duty on the dutiable goods imported in 1863
was 22 1/2 per cent. (Hear, hear.)
Then my
hon. friend from Toronto came to the assistance of Mr. LYNCH of Halifax. And, not
stopping there, he undertook the defence of
the present President of the Council (Hon.
Mr. BROWN) and the Provincial Secretary
(Hon. Mr. MCDOUGALL.) I confess I was a
little amused, and somewhat surprised to
find my hon. friend from Toronto becoming
the apologist and champion of those hon.
gentlemen, who, I believe, are perfectly
competent on all occasions to take care of
themselves — even without the assistance of
my hon. friend. (Hear, hear.) He next
alluded to the propriety and necessity—
when the people of Canada were on the point
of forming a partnership with the other provinces — of our knowing what the assets
of
those provinces were—what stock they were
bringing into the common concern. I had
shewed that we had a great many valuable
public works —some of them of a profitable
character. My hon. friend told us that the
Lower Provinces too were engaging in profitable works. He told us that New Brunswick
had spent eight millions of dollars on railways, and Nova Scotia six
millions—and
that from those railways those provinces
271
were getting a net revenue of $140,000,
or
$70,000 a year each, which would
go into
the revenue of the General Governement.
Well, hon. gentlemen, when such statements
are made on the floor of this House, they of
course go abroad, and those who make them
ought to be well satisfied that they are based
on reliable facts.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Well, I was very
much struck by the hon. gentlemen's
statement. I was surprised to find it stated, in .
the first place, that those provinces had
already spent so much on railways ; and, in
the next place, that those railways in the
eastern provinces were so much more profitable and paid so much better than the
railways in Canada. Now, I find, on looking
at the Public Accounts of those provinces
—the very latest available— that the New
Brunswick railways cost $4,275,000, and
that the Nova Scotia railways cost $4,696,288——that the New Brunswick railways in
1862 paid $21,711 net, and the
Nova Scotia
railways, $40,739—making
together, instead
of $140,000 for the two
provinces, as stated
by my hon. friend from Toronto, the small
sum of $62,450. And this too,
hon. gentlemen will bear in mind, was from new railways, or railways comparatively
new — and
they will find, if they take the trouble to
examine the accounts, that the cost of the
repairs of those railroads, as of every other
railroad after it has become somewhat worn,
is increasing year by year.
HON. MR. ROSS—The House will recollect that I took the figures which were
prompted to me while speaking.
HON. MR. CURRIE — That is the
mistake which, I fear, has been committed
during the whole of this discussion. (Hear,
hear.) Our public men have been too
reckless in making statements—statements
in the east, as to the prosperity of Canada ;
and statements in the west, as to the wealth,
property and resources of those eastern
provinces. Now, hon. gentlemen, let us
look at our public works, which my hon. friend
in a measure tried to belittle and decry.
HON. MR. ROSS—I did not belittle
them ; I said that indirectly they were of
of great value to the country.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Yes ; and directly
too. I find, by the Public Accounts of the
province, that in 1863 the net revenue at
our public works—all of which are going
to the Confederate Government—yielded to
this province a net revenue of $308,187—
and that our public works cost this province, taking the amount set down in the
statements of affairs of the province, $25,931,168. So much for the stock—so far as
the public works at all events are concerned—that this province is prepared to
put into the partnership with the other
provinces. (Hear, hear.) I shall refer no
further to the remarks made by my hon.
friend from Toronto in answer to the few
words I addressed to the House the other
day, beyond expressing my regret that my
hon. friend should not merely have been
dissatisfied with the statements I made, but
that he should have thought fit to take
exception to the style and the manner in
which my remarks were submitted to the
Honorable House.
HON. MR. CURRIE—From the attention you were kind enough to give me, hon.
gentlemen, on that occasion, and from the
way in which my remarks were received
both by my political opponents and my
political friends, I had hoped that I had not
exceeded the bounds of propriety—that,
neither in my temper nor in my tone had I
violated the rules of this House. If I did
so I regret it, and I may be allowed to
express the hope that when my native land
has paid one-fourth as much for my political education as it has paid for that of
my
hon. friend from Toronto—if my manners
still fail to be those of a CHESTERFIELD, or
my eloquence that of a PITT—I shall at all
events be able to treat my fellow members
with courtesy and propriety. (Hear, hear.)
But, leaving these little matters to take care
of themselves, I shall now allude to the
strong pressure which seems, from some
source or other, to be urging the representatives of the people of Canada, and the
people themselves, to adopt this important
scheme without that time for deliberate
consideration which a matter of that kind
is entitled to. I am satisfied that that
pressure does not come from the people
themselves. I am satisfied it does not come
either from this or from the other branch
of the Legislature. I entertain the fear,
which has been expressed before, that it
has been a pressure from without, which
has been urging us to take this step too
rapidly, I fear, for our country's good. It
may be that the statesmen of
Great Britain,
272
and that a great portion of the people of
Great Britain are very anxious for
this
measure, and that the press of that country
generally approves of it. But, when they
rightly understand it—when parties holding
our provincial securities know that Confederation means more debt, more taxation,
and a worse public credit—we will have
another cry coming from across the Atlantic.
And when British manufacturers know that
Confederation means a higher tariff on
British goods, we shall have different views
from them also, crossing the Atlantic. (Hear,
hear.) Hon. gentlemen, when I left my
constituency, I had little idea that this
measure was going to be pressed upon the
country in the manner in which I see the
Government of the day are attempting to
press it. I think we should pause before
adopting these resolutions. I think we want
some more information before we adopt
them. Before we vote away our local constitutions—before we vote away in fact our
whole Constitution—we should know something of what we are going to get in place
of what we are giving away. Did any hon.
gentleman suppose, before he left his home,
that we would not have the whole scheme
of Confederation brought down to us, and be
asked to pass a judgment on it, or to consider it at all events as a whole scheme?
I
think we ought to be cautious in taking
half a measure until we know what is the
whole of it. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen will remember the caution with which
the Parliament of England proceeded, in
1839, when dealing with the rights of the
people of Canada. At that time there was
an urgent necessity for a new Constitution
for the people of Canada, and a great necessity for it, particularly in the eastern
province. When the Government of the day
brought down their resolutions—in something like the same shape as those now
before the House—resolutions embodying
the principle of a Legislative Union—the
leader of the opposition, Lord STANLEY,
claimed that the whole measure should be
brought down ; and the Government of the
day was actually compelled, by the force of
public opinion in and out of Parliament, to
withdraw the resolutions, and to bring down
their entire measure. (Hear,
hear.) And
are we to be less careful of our own constitutional rights —are we to guard more
loosely the interests of ourselves and those
who are to come after us—than the people
legislating for us three or four thousand
miles
away? Besides, we are asked by those resolutions to pledge our province—to what ?
To build the Intercolonial Railway,
without
knowing, as I stated the other day, where
it is to run, or what it is to cost. Why do
we not have the report of the able engineer
sent to survey and report upon that work ?
Why is it delayed ? Why is it attempted to
hurry this measure through the Legislature,
while
we are in the dark with reference to
that great undertaking? It may be that it
is kept back designedly, and for the purpose
of furthering this very measure, not here,
but in other arts of British America.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—My hon. friend
is going too far. The report has not yet been
made, and, that being the case, it is somewhat extraordinary to charge the Government
with keeping it back.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Certainly ; I think
the case is bad enough, when the Government are charged merely with what they
have done. And I have no desire to make
an incorrect statement. But I will put it in
this way : I think we have good reason to be
surprised, that the Government should come
down with their scheme, and submit it to
the House, before they even
themselves know
what the work is to cost—(hear, hear)——and
ask this House and the country to pledge
themselves to the construction of a work of
which they do not even know the cost themselves. (Hear, hear.) But, if the report
has
not been prepared, we have been told in the
public prints that the survey is either
finished, or very nearly finished. The report,
therefore, can soon be furnished ; and, why
should there be so much hurry and anxiety
to pass these resolutions before we get it ?
Then, again, why do the Government not
bring down those School Bills which have
been promised? Why are the people, or why
is Parliament, to have no
opportunity of passing judgment upon those measures—the
School Bill for Upper Canada, and the School
Bill for Lower Canada—before this Confederation scheme is adopted ? I cannot see the
propriety of keeping back these matters; and
I do not think the members of the Government can show any reason whatever why
they should not be settled at once. Then,
hon. gentlemen, we should know something
about the division of the public debt. If
hon. gentlemen will take up the Public
Accounts placed in their hands during the
present session, they will find a
statement of
273
the liabilities of this province,
certifying the
amount to be no less than $77,203,282.
Now
it is well known that Canada is only allowed
to take into the Confederation the debt of
$62,500,000. We have a right to
ask how
the other $15,000,000 are to be paid ? By
whom are they to be assumed ? What portion
is Upper Canada to assume? What portion
is Lower Canada to assume? (Hear, hear.)
Then, hon. gentlemen, if we adopt these
resolutions, and a bill based on them is
brought into the Imperial Parliament and
carried—look at the power which is given
to the Confederate Parliament. They have
the power to impose local taxation upon each
of the separate provinces I would like to
know how that power is to be exercised; I
would like to know whether it is to be a capitation tax, or an acreage tax upon the
lands
of the province, or whether it is to be a
tax upon the general property of the province. I am sure there is no hon. gentleman
present who would not like information
on these points, before voting for this
scheme. (Hear, hear.) Then, hon. gentlemen, there is another very important question—the
question of the defence of these
provinces—which within a few months has
taken a shape which it never took before in
the history of this country. I shall trespass
on the attention of the House for a few
moments, while I read an extract from a
very able report on that question, which
ranks, and in time. to come too will rank,
deservedly high as a State paper. It is a
memorandum of the Executive Council,
dated October, 1862, at the time the
MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration held
ofice. And, whatever the errors of that
Government might have been, however they
may have been found fault with in other
matters, I believe the people generally
were
of opinion that the stand which the Government took on that question, was one which
entitled them to the respect and confidence of
the community at large. The Government
say in this memorandum :—
That they are not unwilling to try to the
utmost to comply with the suggestions of the
Imperial Government is evidence by the manner
in which the projected Intercolonial Railway has
been entertained. Their conduct in this matter
should relieve them from every imputation. At
the same time, they insist that they are and must
be allowed to be the best judges of the pressure
which the provincial credit can
sustain. They
are prepared, subject to certain conditions, to
encumber this credit with liabilities arising out of
the Intercolonial Railway, but they are
not prepared to enter upon a lavish expenditure to build
up a military system distasteful to the Canadian
people, disproportionate to Canadian resources,
and not called for by any circumstance of which
they at present have cognizance.
That is, the arming and bringing into the
field a force of 50,000 men.
His Grace, while promising liberal
assistance contends that any available supply of
regular troops would be unequal to the defenœ
of the province—and that the main dependence
of such a country for defence must be upon its
own people. Your Excellency's advisers would
not be faithful to their own convictions or to the
trust reposed in them, if they withheld an expression of their belief that without
very large assistance any efforts or sacrifices of which the people
of the province are capable, would not enable
them successfully and for any lengthened period
to repel invasion from the neighboring republic.
They have relied for protection in some degree
upon the fact, that under no conceivable circumstances will they provoke war with
the United
States, and if therefore Canada should become
the theatre of war resulting from Imperial policy,
while it would cheerfully put forth its strength in
the defence of its soil, it would nevertheless be
obliged to rely for its protection mainly upon
Imperial resources ; and in such an event it is
their opinion that they would be justified in expecting to be assisted in the work
of defence with
the whole strength of the empire. It is not necessary at this stage of their history,
to put forward assurances of the readiness of the
Canadian
people to assume whatever responsibilities belong
to them as subjects of Her Majesty. Their devotion has been exhibited too often
to be open to
doubt or depreciation. They have made sacrifices that should relieve them from suspicion,
and
which Her Majesty's Government should remember as a pledge of their fidelity. No
portion of
the empire is exposed to sufferings and sacrifices
equal to those which would inevitably fall upon
this province in the event of war with the United
States. No probable combination of regular
troops and militia would preserve our soil from
invading armies ; and no fortune which the most
sanguine dare hope for would prevent our most
flourishing districts from being the battle field of
the war. Our trade would be brought to a standstill, our industry would be paralyzed,
our richest
farming lands devastated, our towns and villages
destroyed ; homes, happy in peace, would be
rendered miserable by war, and all as the result
of events for the production of which Canada
would be in no wise accountable.
And, honorable gentlemen, that is not
only
the language in times past of
leading politicians in Canada. Hon. gentlemen may call
to mind the writings and sayings to the same
effect of men in the eastern provinces—men
now holding high position under the Impe
274
rial Government. One hon. gentlemen, to
whom I have particular reference (Hon.
JOSEPH HOWE) declared it was unreasonable
to expect that we should defend ourselves
against a foreign power, when we had no
voice either in the declaring of war or the
making of peace— that while we were quite
ready, as in times past, to expose our persons
and property to meet the invader at the
threshold of our country, we were unwilling
to take upon ourselves, as colonists, a duty
which belonged to the parent state. But
does this correspond with the views that are
now adopted by the Ministry of the day ? I
hold in my hand an extract from a speech
delivered by one of the most prominent members of the Government at a recent banquet
in the city of Toronto. And what did that
hon. gentleman say ? Speaking of the Conference at Quebec, he stated that " the
delegates unanimously resolved that the
United Provinces of British North America
shall be placed at the earliest moment in a
thorough state of defence." Hon. gentlemen,
I was not aware that the Imperial Government had ever cast off the burden of the
defence of this province. But we are told
by an hon. gentleman, high in the Executive, that this Conference, self-appointed
as
it was, by a resolution that we do not see
laid upon the table, promised to place the
province in a thorough state of defence. Hon.
gentlemen, what does that mean ? It means
an expendeture here of four or five millions
of dollars annually, or else the statement
exceeded the truth. Again the hon. gentleman stated :—" The Conference at Quebec
did not separate before entering into a pledge
to put the military and naval defences of
the united provinces in the most complete and satisfactory position." Before
we discuss this scheme further—before
we are called on to give a vote upon
it——I say we ought to know something more
with reference to this important matter.
(Hear, hear). Hon. gentlemen may perhaps
argue that there is no necessity for this
question going to the people ——
no necessity
for further time being allowed to the people
of Upper Canada or of Canada generally to
consider this matter. Why, hon. gentlemen,
has it not been stated by every hon. member
who has taken the floor to address the House
on this question, that it is the most important question ever submitted to this or
any
other British Colonial Legislature? And yet
many of those hon. members are unwilling
that the people of this country should
have
any further time to consider this important
matter—although, by the laws of our land,
no municipality has a right to enact or pass
a by-law creating a little petty debt, not to be
paid off within a year, without submitting it
first to the vote of the people. (Hear)Â Hon.
gentlemen assign as a reason why the matter
should not be submitted to the people—that
we have had a number of elections to this
House since it was known that the scheme
of Confederation was under the consideration
of the Government, and that these elections
went favorably to the scheme. I would ask,
hon. gentlemen, how many elections have
we had in Upper Canada since the scheme
was printed and laid before the people ? I
would like to see the hon. gentleman stand
up, who has been elected to come here to
vote upon this scheme since it was submitted
to the people. It is true we have had one
election in Upper Canada since
that time—
my hon. friend near me (Hon. Mr.
SIMPSON)
alluded to it yesterday—the election in South
Ontario, a constituency until recently represented by one of the hon. gentlemen who
entered the Ministry which
brings this
scheme before us—our present esteemed
Vice-Chanceller of Upper Canada, Hon. Mr.
MOWAT. What did the candidates say at
that election ? Both of them, as stated by
my honorable friend, in asking the suffrages of the people, had to promise that, if
elected to Parliament, they would vote
for a submission of this scheme to the
people. (Hear, hear.) And that is the
last election we have had in Upper Canada.
It is true that many honorable gentlemen
now present, in their addresses to their
several constituencies, when seeking election
last fall, said they were in favor of a union
of the British North American Provinces.
But, hon. gentlemen, there is not a man in
this chamber, within the sound of my voice,
who would not say the same. I am myself
as much in favor of Confederation to-day as
ever I was in my life ; and I will challenge
any one to say that at any time, on any public
occasion, I ever said aught against the scheme
of the Confederation of the British North
American Provinces. (Hear,
hear.)Â But,
honorable gentlemen, when I look at this
scheme, imperfect as I conceive it to be,
it receives my opposition, not because it is a
scheme for the Confederation of British
North America, but because it is a scheme
containing within itself the germs of its
275
destruction. The resolution before the
House is not, as I said before, aimed at
the destruction of the scheme ; and I hope,
before the debate closes, the Government
will see the propriety and the advisability of
granting the reasonable delay therein asked
for. Suppose the Government concedes even
the short delay of one month, it can do no
possible harm to the measure. If
the measure be good—if it be so desirable as the
governments of the respective provinces tell
us it is—the simple permitting it to stand
over for a month will certainly not destroy
it. If, on the other hand, it be bad—if it
contain within itself the elements of decay—
it is better to know it now than hereafter,
when the resolutions will have been embodied
in a Statute over which we have no control.
To shew my own feeling in the matter, all
I have to say is this : give a reasonable
delay—allow the section of the country I
have the honor to represent to speak on the
subject, and if it be found to be the will of
my constituents that the measure in its
present shape be adopted, honorable gentlemen may be assured that I shall give them
no further opposition ; and that instead of
doing everything in my power to impede the
progress of these resolutions, I
will do nothing
to impede their progress through the House.
" But," say hon. gentlemen, " delay means
defeat." If it be a good measure—if it
commend itself to the approval of the people,
supported as it is by the most able and
brilliant men in Parliament—the scheme is
in no danger. And, hon. gentlemen, supposing a month's delay is granted, we will
even then be further advanced with the
measure than the people of the eastern provinces. The writs for the elections in New
Brunswick are returnable, if I mistake not,
on the 25th March.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Then it will be at
least the 21st or 22nd of March before the
Legislature of that colony can be called
together.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL — I misunderstood the statement made by my hon. friend.
What I meant to say was that the Legislature
of New Brunswick, is expected to
assemble
on the 8th or 9th of March.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Then they are going
to hurry up matters there, I am sorry to
hear, nearly as fast as in Canada, the people
of which have not had the same opportunity,
at all events, of considering the question
as
the people of New Brunswick. The
people
of New Brunswick seem to be fully alive to
the importance of this momentous question,
and I hope that when their verdict is given
it will be a well-considered verdict ; but this
we do know, that it will not be given until
after a free and fair opportunity has been
afforded them of discussing the question on
its merits in all its bearings. My hon. friend
from the Western Division (Hon. Mr.
MCCREA) really surprised me the other day
when he declared that an elective Legislative
Council was neither asked for nor desired by
the people. My recollection is that the
Council under the nominative system was a
standing grievance in Lower Canada
as well
as in Upper Canada.
HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend is,
I can assure him, mistaken in stating that
there were no petitions in favor of an elective
Legislative Council at the time of the change.
If my hon. friend will consult the Journals
of Parliament, he will find there petitions for
the change ; he will find also that from the
town of Cobourg a petition was received in
favor of representation by population in
this as well as in the other branch
of the
Legislature. But my hon. friend, in his ignorance of the facts of the case—although
he
certainly handled the subject with a good
deal of ability, though not with the ability
he usually puts forth when he has a good
cause to plead—(a laugh)—made a statement which he could scarcely
have considered
before bringing it under the notice of the
House. He said that a House appointed by
the Crown would be more responsible to the
people than the present House. That, hon.
gentlemen, is certainly a new
doctrine to
me. If such would be the case, why, I ask,
do you not apply the same system to the
other branch of the Legislature? In such
an event I feel assured that the Government
of the day would have a much more comfortable and pleasant life of it than even the
present Government, strong and talented as
they undoubtedly are. (Laughter.) But,
says my hon. friend. once more, the people
of Canada are in favor of the scheme, in
regard to which they have had ample time
276
for holding meetings and adopting
petitions.
But, I would ask what did most of the members even of this House know of the scheme
when they first came to Quebec? Did we
know as much about it then as we know
now?
HON. MR. CURRIE—Another hon. member replies, " no." I may say for myself that I
have learned something even from the speech
of my hon. friend from Toronto that I did
not know before. The people of the country
have been waiting, expecting this matter
would be discussed in Parliament, and that
the whole scheme would be presented so as
to enable its being judged of as a whole.
Unfortunately, however, it is only a part of
the scheme which we have at this moment
before the Council. I did not have the pleasure of hearing the whole of the remarks
of
my hon. friend from Montreal (Hon. Mr.
FERRIER), but I was greatly interested in
listening to the portion I did hear. I refer
to what he said respecting the ministerial
crisis in June last. I thought that
the celebrated memorandum, which, by the bye,
has since been in great part repudiated by
the Government of the day, contained all
the Ministerial explanations. But that scene,
so forcibly described by the hon. gentleman,
where the President of the Council met the
Attorney General East—
HON. MR. CURRIE—When the Hon.
Mr. CARTIER embraced the Hon.
Mr.
BROWN. (Laughter.)
HON. MR. CURRIE—And the Hon. Mr.
BROWN promised eternal allegiance to the
Hon. Mr. CARTIER. (Laughter.)
HON. MR. FERRIER—I was simply
giving the
on-dit of the day. I said I
knew
nothing whatever of it further than what I
had heard on the streets.
HON. MR. CURRIE—I must have misunderstood my hon. friend. I thought he was.
a witness of the affecting scene. (Laughter.)
But my hon. friend did tell the House
somethiug which was new to me, and which
must have sounded as new to the country,
when he said that the Grand Trunk Railway
cost the people of Canada very little. The
hon. gentleman seemed to think that I was
very much opposed to the Grand Trunk.
But never in my life have I spoken a
single word against the Grand Trunk as a
railway. I believe there is no hon. gentleman who can possibly appreciate more
highly the commercial advantages to this
country of that work than I do. At the
same time, I have taken occasion, and may
do so again if the necessity requires it, to
speak of some of the transactions connected
with that undertaking. Let this work or
any other public work come under the attention of this Chamber, and it will receive
at
my hands in the future, as in the past, that
degree of consideration to which as a public
work it is entitled. I hope the day is not
far distant when the Grand Trunk will
become what it ought to be, a strictly and
entirely commercial work, and when the
people of all classes and parties will look
upon it with favor.
HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend
stated that it had cost the country a mere
trifle. But unluckily the Public Accounts
do not tell the same story, and they do not
exactly confirm the views of my hon. friend
in relation to this work. If he looks at the
assets of the province—the valuables of the
province—he will find there is a charge
against the Grand Trunk of $15,142,000
for debentures. And besides there is this
little $100,000 which has been used in redeeming the city of Montreal bonds. There
is something more besides about subsidiary
lines.
HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend
from the Erie Division (Hon. Mr. CHRISTIE)
admitted in opening his case that this scheme
was very much marred by its details. Admitting this—which is just the whole argument—that
the details so greatly
mar the
scheme, it is much to be feared
that the
measure will not work so peacefully, usefully, or harmoniously as its originators
expected, and I believe sincerely hoped it
would do ; because I do these hon. gentlemen
the credit of believing that in devising a
scheme which should be for the future as
well as the present welfare of the country ,
they were animated by a desire to do the very
best they could under the circumstances.
Their great error, in my opinion, lay in
277
their yielding too much on the part of
Canada to gratify the eastern provinces, so
as to enable them to bring about this scheme
at the present moment. If the scheme is
so marred in its details as to destroy the
whole measure, why not reject
it? Then
my hon. friend alluded to the state of the
country, just before the present
Government
was formed, in terms which I hardly think
he was justified in using. He claimed that
the country was in a state of anarchy and
confusion. Now, hon. gentlemen, I must
say that for my part I saw none of that
anarchy, and I must say very little of
that confusion. I assert that there may
be witnessed in other lands what was
witnessed in this. We saw weak governments striving month after month to keep
themselves in power, and we saw these
governments daily and hourly attacked
by a strong and wary opposition. But, hon.
gentlemen, I have yet to learn that the
giving of 17 additional members to Upper
Canada and 47 members to the eastern provinces will ensure us against the same state
of thin in the future. It was very well put
by the hon. member for Wellington (Hon.
Mr. SANBORN) when he said, if there was
more patriotism on the part of our public
men, and less desire to sacrifice the country
for the good of party, we would not have had
that state of confusion to which my hon.
friend from the Erie Division has alluded.
Then my hon. friend who represents the
Erie Division, in order to fortify the position
he took in supporting the scheme, took up
the resolutions adopted by the Toronto Reform Convention in 1859. He stated that I
was a delegate present at that convention ;
but I can only say that, although elected a
delegate, I took no part in the proceedings,
and know nothing more of them than I
learned from the public prints. The hon.
gentleman, however, conveniently read only
a part of the resolutions. But it must be admitted that these resolutions were the
identical basis upon which the present Government was organized. This Government
was organized for the express purpose of
carrying out the arrangements embodied in
the resolutions of that body. And, hon.
gentlemen, a committee was appointed by
the Toronto Convention, and that committee
prepared a draft address to the public. That
was submitted to the executive committee,
and considered on the 15th of February, 1860,
and was revised and sent to the country as
the address of the convention, of which
the
hon. member for Erie was a member, and
over which he also presided as one of
the vice-chairmen. And what did they
say ? That convention never intended that
Parliament should change the Constitution or
give us a new Constitution without consulting
the people and allowing the public an opportunity of passing its judgment
upon the proposed new Constitution. And how did this
convention propose to secure the people the
right of passing judgment upon so important a scheme as the adoption of a new
Constitution ? Here it is, in large type—and
I have no doubt my hon. friend has
often
read it in going through his large, wealthy,
and prosperous division.
HON. MR. CURRIE—I wish to put my
hon. friend right. The meeting was held
on the 23rd September, 1859, and was
presided over by the late Hon. ADAM FERGUSSON ; and my hon. friend, the
member
for Erie Division, and Mr. D. A. MACDONALD were vice-presidents. A special committee
was appointed at that meeting to
draft an address to the people of Upper
Canada on the political affairs of the province in support of the resolutions then
adopted. A draft of the address was submitted to the executive committee.
HON. MR. CURRIE—It was published
in this shape in February, 1860. Well, one
of the provisions contained in that address
was this :—" Secure these rights by a written Constitution, ratified by the people,
and
incapable of alteration except by their formal sanction."Â Hon. gentlemen, I fear
the
hon. member for Erie Division will hardly be
able to justify the course he feels called upon
to take on this occasion by anything contained
in the address or the resolutions of the Toronto
convention. The hon. gentleman would never
have thought of preparing such a scheme as
this to be submitted to the members of such
a convention. But think you that had such a
scheme been presented they would not have
demanded that it should be left to the
people? Think you, hon. gentlemen, that
that scheme we have met the approval
278
of that body in its present shape? I am
sure that my hon. friend, warm as he now is
in support of the scheme, could hardly have
accepted such an issue. I am sure that
even the present Government, backed as
they are by a large majority in both branches
of the Legislature, and possessing as they
do a large amount of the talent,—I may
say a majority of the talent—of Parliament,
dare not bring such resolutions down as
a Government measure and ask the Legislature to support them in carrying it through.
Then my hon. friend thought that the scheme
had gone through the length and breadth of
the land. Hon. gentlemen, it is quite true
that the resolutions have gone through the
length and breadth of the land ; but where
has there been that discussion in Canada
to which resolutions of so much importance
are entitled — except in Lower Canada,
where I am told that fifteen counties have
repudiated the resolutions when they were
submitted to public meetings? And
in Upper
Canada, where is the single instance of
discussion of the facts having taken place
except in the city of Toronto, where there
was little or no discussion, and where it was
promised that that city, like Quebec, should
be made the seat of one of the local governments? I understood my hon. friend from
Erie Division to take issue on the fact that
the delegates to the Conference were not
self-elected, and I heard my hon. friend
from Montreal deny it also. But if you take
up a copy of the resolutions and the despatches accompanying them. you will find
that they were in every sense of the word
self-elected. And if they were not self-
elected, who deputed them to come and do
what they have done ? Did the basis on
which the Government was formed authorize
them to enter into this compact ? The basis
on which the Government was formed speaks
for itself. The measure they promised
the people of Upper Canada was simply a
measure to settle the existing difficulties
between Upper and Lower Canada. They
were to form Upper and Lower Canada into
a Federation upon such a basis as would hereafter allow the other provinces, if agreeable,
and if they could agree as to terms, to also
enter the Federation. These are the bases
on which the present Government was formed, and these are the bases on which the
members of that Government went to the
country and asked for the support of their
constituents. And to bear me out in this
assertion, I have only to read the
language
of His Excellency the Governor General as
I find it embodied in His Excellency's Speech
at the close of the last session
of Parliament.
You will find it in the latter part of the
Speech. His Excellency says :—" The time
has arrived when the constitutional question,
which has for many years agitated this province, is ripe for settlement."Â What province
is alluded to in this paragraph ? Most
certainly the province of Canada. It is
my intention," proceeds His Excellency,
" during the approaching recess, to endeavor
to devise a plan for this
purpose, which will
be laid before Parliament at its next meeting." Hon. gentlemen, where is that plan
?
Where is the measure so promised in the
Speech from the Throne. " In releasing you
from further attendance," His Excellency goes on to say, "I would
impress upon you
the importance of using the influence which
the confidence of your fellow subjects confers upon you to secure for any scheme which
may be prepared with this object a calm and
impartial consideration both in Parliament
and throughout the country." Now, what
does this mean? If it means anything,
it means this, that the Government promised to bring down a measure to this
Legislature to enable us to Confederate Upper
and Lower Canada. "Well," hon. gentlemen
say, " they have brought down a larger
scheme." Yes, but who asked them to bring
down that scheme ? It is said that it makes
no difference which scheme was
laid before
the House ; but I contend that it makes all
the difference, for if these resolutions had
reference simply to Upper and Lower Canada, they would be susceptible of amendment
by this House. In such a case,
hon. gentlemen would not have come
down as we now see them shaking their
resolutions in the face of the members
of the Legislature, and saying, " Here is a
treaty which you must accept in its entirety
or not at all." They would not be warning
us at our peril to alter a word or erase a line
on pain of being branded as disunionists, or
perhaps something worse than that. Had
they brought down the resolutions they were
pledged to bring down, we would be sitting
here calmly and dispassionately, aided by
the Government of the day, framing a
measure which would be in very deed for
the benefit of the two provinces. But why
do the Government seek to shelter themselves so completely behind these resolu
279
tines—resolutions which, as they stand,
are incapable of justification — resolutions
which shew concession after concession to
have been made to the eastern provinces,
but not one of which (I challenge them to
the proof) was made by the Lower Provinces to the people of Canada ? Then look
at the representation at the Conference.
Both parties, I believe, from all the provinces
were represented, except as regards one section of Canada. There was no one representing
in the Conference the Liberal party
in Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) While
in the eastern provinces the Government
of the day were magnanimous enough to ask
the cooperation and consideration of the
leaders of the Opposition in those provinces,
the hon. gentlemen in Canada
ignored
entirely the existence of the Liberal party
in Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) My hon.
friend from the Erie Division
tells us that
he is strongly opposed to the details of the
scheme.
HON. MR. CHRISTIE—I did not say
so. I stated in reference to the elective
principle that I was opposed to its abrogation.
HON. MR. CURRIE—If the hon. gentleman feels towards the elective principle as
strongly as I do, he will oppose its abrogation to the last. I have reason to feel
strongly in regard to that principle, being, like
himself, indebted for it to a seat in the Legislature ; and I will resist the
measure very
long before I vote against a principle giving
the people power to send me here as their
representative. The hon. gentleman also
told
us that the whole country is in favor of
Federation. I have no doubt the whole country is in favor of Federation in
itself, but there
are many people throughout Canada who are
opposed to the present scheme on account of
its details. Then the hon. gentleman declared
that the country understood the scheme.
Now, what better illustration can we have of
the falsity of this position than what was
witnessed on the floor of this House last
night ? We then heard one of the most intelligent and one of the most able members
of the
mercantile community in Upper Canada, my
hon. friend from Ottawa Division (Hon. Mr.
SKEAD) tell us it was only within
the last
twenty-four hours that he had understood the
scheme as now submitted to the House. And
yet we are gravely told that the whole country
understands it ! Do the people of the province generally know anything in reference
to the cost of working the scheme ? Hon.
gentlemen, it has been stated in various parts
of the country, by leading public men of. the
country, that the local subsidies proposed
in the scheme will be more than
sufficient
to carry on the local governments
of the
several provinces. But, hon. gentlemen, we
must judge of the future by the experience
afforded by the past. If you will look at the
Public Accounts of Upper and Lower Canada
—take for instance Upper Canada
in 1838,—
you will find that the
expenditure on 450,000
of a population was $885,000 for
one year.
But hon. gentlemen may assert that at that
time Upper Canada had to bear the
burdens of the militia and pay the cost of
collecting the customs, and some other small
charges which it is now proposed to throw
on the Federal Government. But what were
the charges of the militia for that year ? The
insignificant sum of £649. 19s. 11 1/2d. Then
there was received from fees and commissions
ÂŁ317 15s., thus making the total cost of the
militia to Upper Canada no more than
ÂŁ332. 4s. 11 1/2d. Then as
to customs. Why,
honorable gentlemen, the whole cost of
collecting the customs revenue in Upper
Canada, during the year 1838, amounted
to £2,792. 14s. 2d.—just about one half
the cost, hardly one half the cost — of
collecting the present duties at the port
of Toronto. Then if you come down to
Lower Canada you will find that at the time
of the union you had a population of 650,000
souls, and that the expense of governing the
people was $573,348. And I venture
to
say that no people in the world were ever
more cheaply governed than were the people
of Lower Canada before the union. (Hear,
hear.) But if you can govern them after the
union just as cheaply per head as before, what
do you find ? You will require $980,000 to
carry on the government of the country,
independent of paying the interest upon the
large portion of debt saddled upon you. In
Upper Canada, we have been told that we
really shall not know what to do with the
large amount of money about to be lavished
on the Local Legislature. (Laughter.)
HON. MR. MCCREA—Who said that——
that we would have more money than we
know what to do with ?
HON. MR. CURRIE—You must have
read it in the speeches made in the other
House, and particularly in the speeches of
the Hon. Mr. Brown. Well, if we can
govern the people of Upper Canada as cheap
280
ly after the union as before, it will cost
$2,170,000 or $1,054,000 more
than the
amount of the local subsidy. I am sure no
hon. gentleman will believe that we are going
to be more saving of the public money in
the future than we were in those early days
of our history. Hon. gentlemen, it is said
that the people of the country have had those
resolutions before them, that they perfectly
understand them, and that they are prepared to a dispassionate judgment in
the matter. It ill becomes the members of
the Government to make such a statement.
Why, what has been witnessed on the floor
of this House ? A simple question was put
to the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands
as to the manner in which the members of
the Legislative Councils of the various provinces were to be appointed. The Hon.
Commissioner informed us that the appointments were to be made by the local governments,
and he was confirmed in that view by
the hon. and gallant Premier, who had the
dignity conferred upon him of presiding over
the Conference of delegates held in this
city.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I do not think
that my hon. colleague said anything on the
subject.
HON. MR. CURRIE—I understood him
to confirm the statement of the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands. But at all
events, he heard the statement and did not
object to it. But what did you find? After
the absurdity of that position was pointed
out, my hon. friend, the Commissioner of
Crown Lands, asks a day to give an answer
to the question, and he comes down next
day and gives a totally different
reply. A
few days later, the question of the export
duty on the minerals of Nova
Scotia came
under consideration, and I understood the
Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands as
saying that in his opinion only the coal and
minerals exported to foreign countries would
be liable to duty. But according to the
explanations given by the hon. gentleman
afterwards, I understand that the export
duty will apply to all coal and minerals
exported from Nova Scotia. My hon. friend
went on to explain the meaning of this
export duty. And what is his explanation ?
He tells us that it is nothing more than a
royalty. The export duty is imposed simply
upon the coal which leave the country. In
Nova Scotia they now impose a royalty, and
that royalty they intend to change for an
export duty, and the difference in their
favor will he this—that on the coal they
consume themselves there will be
no duty,
but on the coal they send to Canada there
will be this barrier of an export duty.
HON. MR. ROSS—My hon. friend will
see this, that had all the Crown lands in the
different colonies been placed in the hands
of the General Government, the General
Government would have received all the
proceeds therefrom. But those have been
given to the local governments, and as in
Upper Canada we will have timber dues, so
in Nova Scotia they are entitled to a revenue
from their coal.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Any one not acquanted with the subject would naturally fancy from the language of
my hon. friend
that under Federation we are to have something which we did not possess before. But
the Crown lands are the property of Upper
and Lower Canada now, and we are entitled
to the revenue from them.
HON. MR. ROSS—And so is Nova Scotia
entitled to a revenue from their coal.
HON. MR. CURRIE —But you give them
a privilege not accorded to the other provinces of imposing export duties. Hon.
gentlemen, I would now desire to allude to
another matter which I think the people do
not thoroughly understand, and that is the
apportionment of the public debt. I stated
before and I again assert that revenue is the
only true basis on which the people should
go into Confederation as regards
their debt ;
and I think my hon. friend from the
Saugeen Division (Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON)
saw the matter in the same light.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Why have we not
the revenue to base it upon ? Hon. gentlemen, the Trade Returns of Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island,
are in the Library below, and twenty-four
hours' work of a competent accountant would
shew what each province would contribute
to the general revenue from her trade under
our present tariff.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—But does not
the hon. gentleman see that when the tariffs
are assimilated, they will not bring in the
future what the have brought in the past?
HON. MR. CURRIE—This
I can see, that
you are giving to the Lower Provinces privileges which we do not enjoy Hon. gen
281
tlemen speak of the imports from the Maritime Provinces. But take the import of
coal from Nova Scotia, and we find that in
1863, its whole value amounted to $67,000.
Then they refer to the fish trade. But why
need we go there for fish, when in our own
waters we can have for the catching as fine
fish as the world produces ? But Confederation will give us no privileges over the
fisheries which we do not at present enjoy.
Canadian fishermen can as well go, and have
as much the right to go, and fish in the
waters below before as after Confederation.
We will continue to go there if we desire it,
not because we are members of the Confederacy, but because we are British subjects.
But I was going to speak of the trade of
these countries. We derive new little or no
duty from the trade of the Lower Provinces,
at the same time much of the revenues of
the Lower Provinces is derived from exports
from those provinces to each other, all of
which will be lost to the General Government,
as the Confederation will only be entitled to
collect duties on goods imported from foreign
countries. We are told, too, that our tariff is
to be greatly reduced under Confederation.
I am sorry to hear that statement, because
it is impossible that it can be correct, and
there is too much reason to fear that it was
done with a view of influencing legislation
elsewhere, by holding out the hope in Newfoundland and in the other provinces, that
if they joined us, the tariff would be less
burdensome than it is at present. But if
the tariff is reduced, the people of Canada
may rest assured that they will have
$4,000,000 or $5,000,000 to raise in some
other way ; so that if you take it off the
tariff, you must put it on the land. I wish
now, however, to speak of the unfair apportionment of the debt. I have always taken
the ground that revenue is the true gauge
by which you can measure a nation's ability to pay debt. Well, taking the tables of
the Finance Minister, we find that New
Brunswick, with a revenue of $1,000,000,
goes into the Confederation with a debt of
$7,000,000, while Canada, with arevenue of
$11,500,000, is only entitled to go into the
Confederation with a debt of $62,500,000.
Is this fair ?—is it right ?—is it honest ?
Take the revenue as the basis of ability
to pay—and it is the only true basis—and
instead of Canada going into the Confederation with a debt only $62,500,000,
she would be entitled to go in with a debt
of $80,000,000, or more than her present
indebtedness. Then it is said that the
people understand the whole scheme, and
that they are perfectly satisfied with it. If
that were so we should have petitions coming
down. But I have yet to learn that, when
the people, especially of Upper Canada,
understand the scheme and how it is going
to work, they will be at all satisfied with
it. Take the little Island of Prince Edward,
with its population of 80,857 souls, or a less
population than a single constituency represented in the other branch of the Legislature,
and we find it getting $153,728,
while it is relieved of a debt of $240,633.
HON. MR. CURRIE—It simply contributes custom and excise duties by the
operation of the same tariff and under the
same law as the people of Canada.
HON. Mr. CURRIE - I find the whole
revenue of the island set down at $200,000.
But, hon. gentlemen, pray do not run away
with the idea that all this comes to the Confederate Government. All that comes to
the
Confederate Government are simply the
duties from excise and customs on goods imported from foreign countries.
HON. MR. CURRIE—surely my hon.
friend does not wish to get up and argue
that the people of this little island—a frugal
and industrious peopIe — contribute more to
the revenue per head than the people of
Upper Canada ? Well, let us proceed now to.
Newfoundland, and what do we find ? That
with a population of 122,600 souls—less
than the population of Huron, Bruce and
Grey—less, in fact, than the constituency
represented by my hon. friend, the member
for Saugeen—they get $369,000 a year for all
time, and are relieved of a debt of $946,000.
HON. MR. CURRIE—Simply the revenue
from customs and excise, and nothing more.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—They will contribute, under the present tariff, $479,000 per
annum.
282
HON. Mr. CURRIE—My hon. friend
surely does not intend to say that Newfoundland has no other source of revenue than
customs and excise?
HON. MR. CURRIE—Newfoundland is
to have $106,000 a year, not for this year
only, but for all time to come. She gets as
well 80 cents per head for all time to come.
Then she gets also, what I am sure the
Commissioner of Crown Lands can hardly
justify, that is a bonus of $165,000 for
all time to come; and this, if capilatized,
amounts to 83,000,000—and all this that
she may come into the Confederation.
And why does she receive so large a sum?
My hon. friend tells us that she gets it in
consideration of the valuable Crown lands
and minerals which she surrenders to the
General Government. But we have yet to
learn as a matter of fact that a ton of coal
has ever been raised in the island. And
what other minerals have they? We know of
none. Their Crown lands, too, are of no value,
as is proved by their not having yielded
anything at all for many years past. Then
why should we give them $3,000,000, or
$165,000 per year for worthless lands? I
will not say, however, that they are altogether
worthless ; but I know this, that for years
past a statute has been in force, giving the
ands free of charge to anybody who will
go and settle on them for five years. And
these are the valuable lands for which we
are to pay an equivalent of 3,000,000. But
my hon. friend the Commissioner of Crown
Lands, perhaps, when he addresses the House,
will tell us these Crown lands and minerals,
whatever their value to Newfoundland, are
worth 83,000,000 to the Confederation, and
will argue as that they give up these lands and
minerals, and have no local source of revenue, it is necessary they should receive
this
subsidy in return. But why have they no
local source of revenue ? Why not adopt the
same means to raise revenue in New foundland that we adopt here ? Why should we
he called upon to contribute from the public
chest $165,000 for a purpose that we in
Canada tax ourselves for ? Hon. gentlemen,
I stated that the country was taken by surprise in regard to the manner in whic this
measure was brought down to the House;
and I think I have good reason for making
that statement. Before we came here we had
very little explanation of the financial part
of the scheme; and that is a most important
part. I am not one of those who, while favorable to Confederation as a principle,
would
put a few hundred thousand dollars in the
scale against it. But my grounds against the
scheme are these— that if it is commenced
upon a basis which is unjust to one portion
of the community, it will be based upon a
false foundation, and the tenement thus
preposed to be erected will not withstand
the breath of public opinion. We had
reason to suppose that when we came here
the measure promised at the close of the
last session would be submitted ; but instead
of that we have a very difi'erent measure
altogether. But supposing this Address
passes—supposing these resolutions are
carried, and the other colonies do not
concur in the same Address as ourselves,
what is to be the consequence? As I
understand it, the consent of all the provinces must be had, and if they do no't
concur, the scheme falls to the ground.
What we ought to have had in Canada was
the promised measure to put an end to the
sectional difficulties between Upper and
Lower Canada. But, instead of that, we are
placed in consequence of the Quebec Conference in this position—a scheme is brought
down which is declared to be in the nature
of a treaty, and we are told that we are to
have no voice in its alteration. No matter
what the details may be—our discussion of
them is to be a mere farce. Even the
reasonable delay I am now asking for will,
I fear, be opposed by the Government of
the day. Hon. gentlemen, in order to shew
the necessity which exists for the measure
being equitable and just to all classes of the
people and all sections of the country about
to be affected by it, I will read the remarks
'of a distinguished statesman—one of the
ablest men, perhaps, that Canada can claim.
This is his language :—
No measure could possibly meet the approval
of the people of Canada which contained within
it the germs of injustice to any, and if, in the
measure which was now before the people of
Canada, there was anything which bore on its
face injustice, it would operate greatly against the
success of the measure itself.
These were the views of the Minister of
Finance as expressed by him only a few
months ago, and it is because I feel that
there are parts of the scheme which will do
gross and wanton injustice to portions of
the proposed Confederation, that feel it to
283
be my duty to oppose it. It may be said
that it is not proper for this branch of the
Legislature to delay the measure, but I
quite concur, on this point, in the views of
the hon. gentleman who represents one of
the largest and most important constituencies
in Canada (Hon. Mr. Macpherson), when
he said :—
Although the legislative Council is precluded
by the Constitution from originating money votes
or making money appropriations of any kind,
they have it nevertheless in their power zealously
to guard our interests, protecting them against
hasty an ill-considered legislation, and preventing improper and extravagant appropriations
of
the public funds.
HON. Mr. CURRIE—I fully concur in
all the hon. member from Saugeen stated in
his address to his constituents, with reference
to this subject, and I hope the hon. gentleman will now, when the opportunity is offered
him, act up to the professions he made, and
I feel confident he will do so. Now, hon.
gentlemen, what have we here before us?
We have a scheme which is calculated to do
manifest and untold injustice to that section
of the province which the hon. gentleman
has the honor to represent. We have a
scheme pledging us to construct the Intercolonial Railway without our knowing whether
it is to cost fifteen, twenty or thirty
millions of dollars. The only estimate is that
alluded to by the hon. member from Toronto,
who stated that Mr. Brydges was prepared
to build it for seventeen and a half millions
of dollars.
HON. Mr. CURRIE—If my hon. friend
entertains that opinion, he will very soon
learn a very different and important lesson
respecting the privileges of this House. It
is our duty as honest legislators to protect
the country from the baneful effects of hasty
and ill-considered legislation. Well, is not
this hasty legislation that is now proposed
to be transacted by the Government of the
day ?
HON. Mr. MACPHERSON.—I do not
regard it so, and I tell you why. My constituents have considered the question and
are fully satisfied that the proposed legislation should take place.
HON. Mr. CURRIE—It has been said by
hon. gentlemen that the whole scheme con
sists of concessions. I would ask what concessions have been made to Canada? What
concession has been made to the views of the
people of Upper Canada ? The people will
understand why it is that everything was
conceded on the part of Canada, and comparatively nothing on the part of the Lower
Provinces, when they know that the little colony
of Prince Edward Island, with its eighty
thousand people, has as much to say in the
Conference as Upper Canada with its million
and a half, and as Lower Canada with its
million and a quarter of people. (Hear,
hear.) When we conceded to them that
point, the series of concessions on that part
of Canada began. Then we conceded to them
the right of depriving us of an elective
Legislative Council. (Hear, hear.) Who
challenges this statement? I defy any hon.
gentlemen to say that it was not at the dictation of the eastern provinces, that the
character of the Legislative Council was
changed. In order to settle this point, it is
only necessary to refer hon. gentlemen to
what the Hon. Minister of Finance stated in
his celebrated Sherbrooke speech with reference to it. That was concession number
two. Then look at the proposed Constitution.
The Lower Provinces had only a population
of 700,000 people. One would think
they would be satisfied with the same representation in the Legislative Council that
Upper Canada with double the number of
people should have, and that Lower Canada
with nearly double the pepulation should
be given. But instead of being satisfied
with 24, they must have 28 members. There
are three distinct and most important concessions on the part of Canada to the people
of the eastern provinces. And then we go
into the Federation with a debt of only
862,500,000, instead of with 882,500,000
as we were entitled to. Then we are to
saddle ourselves with a burden of 815,000,000, and give them a bonus for coming in,
in the shape of an annual payment for local
purposes, which we defray in Upper Canada
by direct taxation.
HON. Mr. CURRIE—My honorable friend
from the Western Division says, they have
to help to pay our debt; true they have to
help to pay the debts of the Confederation,
but that is no reason why they should receive
money from us to pay their local expenses.
Then look at the absurdity of giving each
284
province so much per head on its population
for the expenses of the local governments.
Every one knows that the pepulation of the
Lower Provinces will not increase nearly so
fast as that of this province. Â We will therfore
 have to pay a greater proportion of this
amount through the increase of our population than we can receive under the proposed
arrangement. This is concession number
four. The next concession is to New Brunswick. We are to ive New Brunswick a
bonus of 8630,000 in addition to building
the Intercolonial Railway through along section of the country—leading the people
to
believe that the road is to pass through
nearly every town in the province. Then
Nova Scotia gets the right to impose an
export duty on its coal and other minerals
coming into Upper Canada, or going elsewhere. Then Newfoundland, as I have said
before, is to have upward of three million
 dollars, if you capitalize the annual gift, as
an inducement to come in and join us. Then,
hon. gentlemen, my hon. friend from Port
Hope spoke of the common schools of Canada,
of about one million and a quarter of dollars
that is to be abolished by a stroke of the
pen—that is another concession, I suppose,
made to the people of the eastern provinces. What do we get for all these concessions
? Do we get anything that we are not
entitled to as a matter of right. We get 17
additional members of the Lower House
for Upper Canada—but that is nothing
more than we are entitled to—at the
same time that we get 47 added from the
east. We are told that the reason for
having so large anumber of members is to
avoid narrow majorities. If everything
works well, therefore, under the new constitution, we are told we will always have
a
strong Government, somewhat similar to
that with which we are now blessed. Hon.
gentlemen say, that this question is perfectly
understood by the people of Canada, and
that they are satisfied with the arrangement ;
then what danger, I would ask, can there
he in allowing the people a few months to
consider the matter still more fully? In my
opinion, it is far better to take the thing up
deliberately and proceed cautiously with it,
than to attempt to force a measure upon
the people, so hurriedly, that they will feel
hereafter, if they do not now, that you are
doing them a very great injustice. (Hear,
hear.) It is most extraordinary, the grounds
on which these resolutions are supported
by different classes of people. Some hon.
gentlemen support them on the ground that
the Confederation is to build up an independant
nationality in this part of the
world. Others, on the ground that it is
going to cement us more closely as colonies.
And a third party uphold the resolutions on
the ground that the injustice of the thing
will disgust the people and float our country Â
over to the American Republic. I feel myself that unless the people have due time
to
consider the matter, and are not driven into
it against their will, these resolutions will
amount to nothing more than so many
withes to tie the provinces together until we
all drift like a raft into the American Confederation. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Hon. Mr. DICKSON — Honorable gentlemen,—Every honorable member of this House
must be aware of the difficulties which an
individual member has to encounter in rising to
address the House at this late period of the
debate, when the subject, after a fortnight's
discuœion, is almost exhausted. I have, however, refrained from offering any observations
at an earlier stage, in consequence of a desire
to confine my remarks more particularly to the
principle embodied in the amendment of my
honerable and learned friend from the Niagara
Division. I shall now briefly refer to the Â
introductory remarks of the honorable and
galant Knight at the head of the present; Government, when he submitted the matter
for the
consideration of this honorable House. That
honorable gentleman told us that the unsatisfactory state of things which had existed
in
the politics of this country for the twenty-five
months prior to the TACHE- MACDONALD Administration, rendered it use that some
great political exertion should be made to
remedy those difieulties. Well, gentlemen,
what were those diflieulties ? Why, it was
that five different administrations had been
formed, and five different administrations had
been unable to ca on the administration of
public affairs, an had either resigned or
me so Week, in consequence of their small
majority in the popular branch, that they
could not conduct the Government in a satisfactory manner. The TACHE-MAODONALD
Government had arrived at the same state
as the five preceding administrations, and
finding themselves in this political dilemma,
were again about appealing to the country,
when a " still, small voice " was heard in the
distance; and what was' that " still, small
voice," and where did it come from? It was
the voice of a great man, and came from an
individual who solicited an opportunity of
285
pouring oil on the troubled political waters.
(Hear, hear.) Permission was granted, the
oil poured on ; the effect-was miraculous—
the commotion ceased, and, a calm succeeded—
a circumstance which caused no surprise when
it was discovered, as it speedily was, that the
magical oil came fresh from the wells of Bothwell. (Great laughter.) The Government,
as the honorable and gallant Knight told us,
received a communication from the "real chief"
of the Opposition. And there is no doubt but
that he was the real chief of the Opposition,
and by his apostasy—this individual from
whom the still, small voice came—is the real
chief of the Goverment party. (Laughter.)
Well, he was desirous of making overtures,
and he did, as amatterof fact, make overtures, with the view, as the honorable and
gallant. Knight has told us, of sinking all
previous differences. We are told he went
into the Government for the purpose of
settling this one question of a new political
existence, and we are therefore justified in
inferring that he is either going out of the
Government again at an early day , or else is
going up to a higher position. Well, gentlemen, what dificulties have been settled?
None as yet, but the scheme now before
the House was to be a panacea for alll difficulties and dissensions that have afflicted
the
country for the past five and twenty years.
From whom does this panacea emanate? Why,
from the very individual who has been more
instrumental than any other man in creating
these dificulties. (Hear, hear.) The honorable gentleman at one time stated that he
was
a governmental impossibility, but it does not
appear that he has beeu so in reality. After
the oil was thrown on the troubled waters,
then came the period for making some little
delicate arrangements between the Government and the gentleman possessing the still
small voice. Well, what were the little arrangements? Why, the honorable gentleman
insisted on being an outsider. He would not
go, into the Government under any circumstances whatever. (Hear, hear.) No, so, he
would not. (Laughter) Well, the members of the Government said : " But we must
have you among us; we are too well aware of
the power you can bring us, to consent to your
remaining on the outside." Well now, it is
astonishing the sacrifices public men will
sometimes consent to make. (Laughter) It
is really surprising , gentlemen, what sacrifices
they do feel called upon to make for the good
of their country. (Laughter) And here we
have a very notable example of it. We have
an instance of how much can be sacrificed at
the shrine of patriotism for the salvation of
one's country. (Laughter. Towards the last
of the delicate arrangements before alluded to,
he thought he would go in—this still, small
voice gentleman. (Laughter) Well, this
being determined upon, he thought it would
be necessary to go in upon some principle, but
that was a most difficult operation. What
principle could be found applicable to the
case ? (Laughter) Some inventive genius
suggested that he might go in on the homœopathic principle. Well, he finally went
in on
that principle, and took with him an infinitessimally small dose of Grits. (Renewed
laughter.) And the result of his going in
on that principle is that we have now a Government composed of three Clear Grits and
nine Conservatives. The honorable gentleman, to whom I have alluded, went to the
country and got returned to his seat in the
House and Government. My honorable friend
from Toronto says he got returned by acclamation. Well, when we look at the individual
and consider that he has been for years the
leading spirit and guiding genius of a large
political party, made up of a majority of the
representatives of Upper Canada, and look at
the acknowledged intellect of the man, and
take into account the influence of the pen
which he has the opportunity of wielding so
powerfully—when we take all these things
into consideration, it is not at all surprising
that he. should be returned by acclamation.
(Hear, hear.) He came back from the country and has since taken part in the Government;
and here I wish to make a few
observations with reference to the Government as it stands to-day. You must recollect,
honorable gentlemen, that we are enjoying, or at least have enjoyed, a system of
government in this country which has a great
many admirers, and which some honorable
gentlemen admire a great deal more than the
quality of the people. The system is known
by the name of Responsible Government. If
I understand the subject properly, that system
of government is defined in this way—that
the Government of the country must be carried on according to the well-understood
wishes
of the people, as expressed through their represontatives on the floor of the House
of Assembly. (Hear, hear.) Well now, I take
exception to the formation of the present
Government, on the ground that it was not
established on that principle, because they are
not a government emanating from the people.
I cannot hold them in the same respect that I
286
did before the three Conservative members
from Upper Canada, who retired in favor of
the three Grit members, left it. The Government then all belonged to one political
party, were all consistent members of that
party, and taken together, were equal in talent
to any Administration that has ever had charge
of the affairs of this or any other province.
All holding the same views on leading political uestions, even those who opposed them
coul not but feel a very large degree of respect for them as sincere, honest, consistent
Conservatives, and as I believe, entertaining
sound political principles. But the introduction of the three other members altered
the
whole face of the Government. And the first
thing this unholy alliance does is to go to work
at the suggestion of the chief with the still,
small voice to upset our Constitution. (Hear,
hear.) When a great constitutional question
comes before this House, designed as it is to
sweep an entire constitution from our Statute
Book, and replace it with another, I think you
will agree with me, honorable gentlemen, that
this is one of the most important measures
that could come from any government on the
face of the earth. (Hear, hear.) Well, I
would ask those people who are so anxious to
see responsible government carried out in
this country in its integrity, is this a government that you can recognize as representing
the well-understood wishes of the people ? A
government claiming to be a responsible
government ought to have for its basis returns made from the polls, and ought not
to
have its origin through the instrumentality
of ministerial convenience. (Hear, hear.) I
would like to ask if, at the last general election, this subject was mooted to the
people in
any section of the province ?—whether it was
a subject to which the slightest reference was
ever made by the votes of the people when they
returned their representatives? I do not
think that it could have been, because it is
a measure that has emanated from the particular individual to whom I have referred,
since
the TACHÉ -MACDONALD Government got into
that unfortunate political dilemma. The
people were not aware at the last general
election that any such measure as this was to
come before the Legislature. Honorable
gentlemen, I would not stand up here and
speak in this manner if the subject brought
under our consideration was any ordinary
measure which could be passed this session
and re ed at the next, if found unsatisfactory. But these resolutions, if adopted
by all
the legislatures, will become embodied in an
Imperial Act and the people of Canada will
find some difficulty in having any changes made
in respect to them. The power that creates
Confederation, by passing the act for that
purpose, will be the only power by which any
change can be effected in that act. Therefore, after passing these resolutions, it
will be
out of our power to alter them in the least
degree. This, honorable gentlcmen, is one of
the reasons why I have refrained from addressing the House until the resolution which
has just been proposed by my honorable friend
from the Niagara Division should be brought
forward. I would take this Opportunity
saying that I do not think the observation
made by an honorable gentleman, to the efiect
that it would be in bad taste for this House
to suggest a dissolution of the other branch of
the Legislature, should have any influence in
disposing of the amendment now before us.
Why, honorable gentlemen, there is nothing
of the kind in the amendment. We argue
for delay, and we are perfectly willing you
should delay the measure until after the next
general election. But, if the Government
think that delay will be so dangerous to the
measure, there is a constitution remedy open
to them, which, of course, it would not he
proper for me to refer to in a more pointed
manner. I do not argue for a week or a
month's delay. I think there ought to be a
much longer time allowed. I think the question ought to be submittted to the people
of
this country for their approval. I do not
want the thing to be gone about in a peddling
kind of style, one honorable gentleman running
here and another there, and endeavoring in
that way to learn the views of his constituents.
If we cannot have the usual constitutional
mode of arriving at the true views, opinions,
and impressions of the people in relation to
the scheme, I do not want any delay at all.
I do not want the opinion of the people taken,
unless it can be done in such a manner as will
give us something upon which we can depend.
If an honorable gentleman consults the electors
in one portion of his constituency and they are
opposed to the scheme, while those of another
section of the same constituenc are in favor
of it, he is no better off' than when he began.
Nor do I believe in taking a vote of the constituencies, " yea or nay, ' on the measure,
in the manner in which the people have to
vote with reference to stopping the supply of
intoxicating drink under the Temperance Act.
(Laughter) I go for the whole British constitutional mode, or nothing. I have no idea
of wishing to see honorable gentlemen going
287
round among 'their constituents, knocking at
every door, and asking: Do you go Confederation?" (Laughter.) I would as soon see
them going around peddling wooden clocks.
(Renewed laughter.) I say, honorable gentlemen, that the whole scheme has emanated
from the fertile and imaginative brain of one
individual. That individual suggested the
scheme to the Government; the government
took that individual in amongst them; he
proposed this arbitrary mode of carrying the
scheme through with the assistance of a
united following—and it is going to be done.
The whole thing, I say again, proceeds from
that individual, who has sown to the storm
and reaped the whirlwind long enough, and
does not intend to reap it any longer if he
can help it. But my Opinion is that he is,
perhaps, unwittingly sowing a greater storm
than ever, and that a whirlwmd will ensue of
a most fearful character. It is just possible,
however, that it will be found the most advantageous measure for the country that
has
ever been introduced to the Legislature, and
if so, the honorable member for South Oxford is entitled to the whole credit of suggesting
it and taking the initiatory steps, without which it could never have been brought
about; while on the other hand, if it should
prove the most disastrous to the country
that has ever been mooted, as I fear will be
the case, unless submitted to the people m
the constitutional way, that honorable gentleman will be entitled to, and wi11 receive,
the most bitter condemnation. (Hear, hear.)
Well, I now come to the position which the
measure now occupies before the House, and
the relation in which I stand to this House
in dealing with it. When the proposrtion
was made to change the character of the constitution of this House, I did everything
in
my power to prevent its becoming law; but
all my eflorts, with those of a number of honorable colleagues, were of no avail.
And those
gentlemen who, on that occasion, agreed with
me that it was a most unwise step to alter the
Constitution in that respect, when they and I
found we could do no more, we filed a protest
against it, because—
First-The Act of Union conferred upon the
people of Canada a Constitution as nearly similar
to that under which Great Britain has attained
her 'place among nations,' as their colonial positionÂ
would admit; and the Legislative Council, an
integral part of that Constitution, was early established on its present basis as
a check equally
upon the hasty action of the popular branch, as
upon the undue influence of the Crown. Second
ly—Because the introduction of the elective
principle into the Constitution of the Upper
Chamber gives an undue preponderance to the
popular element; diminishes the proper influence
of the Crown, and destroys the balance that has
acted as a proper check upon both since representative institutions were given to
the colony.
Thirdly,—Because the measure now proposed
tends to the destruction of executive responsibility; the adoption of a written Constitution;
the election of the highest officer of the Crown,
and the separation of Canada from the parent
state.-Signed, P. B. DeBLAQUIERE John HAMILTON, George J. GOODHUE, WM. WIDMER Jas.
GORDON, J. FERRIER, R. MATHIESON G.S. BOULTON, WALTER H. DICKSON
Well, honorable gentlemen, the change took
place in spite of all we could do. I condemned
the proposed change on that occasion from
my own personal views respecting it, for I
had no constituency, as some honorable
gentlemen now have, to consult, and I now
take exception in the same manner to the
scheme before the House. I do not take
such strong exception to the details of the
measure as some honorable gentlemen do, because when I reflect upon the number of
individuals that took part in the Conference, and
the ability possessed by those individuals, I
would not, as a matter of course, have the
temerity to rise in my place and proceed to
point out an error here and another error
there, even if they seemed to me to be errors,
as some of them do seem, unless I felt satisfied not only that I possessed sounder
judgment than they, but also that I was better
acquainted with all the circumstances having
a direct as well as indirect bearing upon the
question. But, honorable gentlemen, let me
ask who is going to be chiefly affected by
those changes? Why, the people of Canada.
And therefore it is that I ask, and all I ask
is what appears to me to be only what is
reasonable, as applied to the every day transactions of life, and that is, that those
who are
going to be affected should have some voice,
at least, in these proceedings. (Hear, hear.)
This appears to me to be a sound mode of
viewing the question ; and claiming to myself
the right of exercising my own personal judgment, with the limited means of doing
so
which the Almighty has thought proper to
place me in possession of, I feel it my duty to
stand up in this House and record my views
and my vote in such a manner as that, while
I live, I may look back with some degree of
satisfaction upon the view that I took and
advocated upon the floor of this House.—
(Hear, hear.) I do not think some honorable
gentlemen who have stood up and argued
288
against continuing the elective principle in
this House, can have done so with as much
satisfaction to themselves as if they had not,
on a previous occasion, pursued a diflerent
course. I well recollect that when I found it
was the determination to introduce the elective principle in relation to the membership
of
this House, I said—Gentlemen, if the principle is good in one case, it is good in
another;
let us make the Speaker elective. No, no,
they said, that will not do ; that is republicanism. They would not have the Speaker
made elective. You know there was a little
patronage at disposal by keeping the appointment of the Speaker in the Government.
At
that time I could make no progress in getting
the House to go for making the Speaker elective. Since then, however, they made the
Speaker elective, and therefore the House
must admit that I was right on that occasion.
I opposed the House being made elective, but
honorable gentlemen made it elective, and
now they are going to reinvest the appointments in the Crown. So it is clear that
when
the first change was made I was also right on
that occasion. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
When the proposal was made to grant three
millions of money to the Grand Trunk, I saw
it was being done for political support, and I
therefore opposed it. I also opposed the
grants to the Arthabaska, and Port Hope and
Peterborough railways, because I considered
them only convenient methods of acquiring
parliamentary support on the pretence of getting money for the Grand Trunk proper.
Those roads were termed " feeders" for the
Grand Trunk, but I called them Grand Trunk
"suckers." (Laughter.) I take to myself
some little credit for having taken this view
of those questions. I am willing to admit
that the Grand Trunk is a very great benefit
to the province in a material point of view,
but I do believe that we paid very dearly for
the whistle. (Laughter.) Having paid so
dearly for that road, running, as it does,
through the very finest portion of the country, I am disposed to be very cautious
about
entering upon the construction of this Intercolonial Railway. (Hear, hear.) I have
often
availed myself of a leaf out of the book of my
honorable friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) and I like
to stick pretty close by him, because if I get
off the track he has the happy faculty of putting me on again. Now, I would like to
ask
him whether or not, in the remarks he made
this afternoon, he stated that there had been
no demand on the part of the people for an
elective Legislative Council since the union.
HON. Mr. ROSS-What I said was, that
there had been no general demand for the
change on the part of the people of Upper
Canada. I am well aware that there was
agitation on the subject in Lower Canada.
HON. Mr. DICKSON—Well, I find here
in the
Journals of the Legislative Assembly for
1855, that on the 21st of May, when the
second reading of the Bill to make this House
elective was defeated, the following was entered on the
Journals by eight honorable
members, in the shape of reasons for their
dissent from the vote, vis. :—
Dissentient—Because public opinion has long
and repeatedly been expressed on the necessity of
rendering this branch of the Legislature elective ;
because the almost unanimous vote of the Legislative Assembly, irrespective of party,
has, in the
most unequivocal manner, ratified the opinion of
the peope as hereinbefore expressed; because
the Opposition of this House to the universal
desire of the inhabitants of Canada, unsustained
either by a party in the other branch of the Legislature or out of it, is unprecedented,
and of a
nature to cause the most serious apprehensions.
The first name, honorable gentlemen, signed
to that protest is the Honorable JOHN ROSS,
and the second is my honorable and gallant
friend, Sir E. P. TACHÉ. Then there are the
Honorable Messrs. PANET, BELLEAU, ARMSTRONG, PERRY, LÉGARÉ and CARTIER.
Well, I can now exonerate all those gentlemen,
after observing, as I have done, how well the
elective principle has worked in its application
to this House. But I cannot understand how
honorable gentlemen could have entertained
the view that great disaster would be the
result of refusing to grant the elective principle, and then inside of ten years,
when their
ideas had been put into practical effect, and
had worked so admirably, they could again
rise in this House and advocate a return to
the system which then was so bad, and which
the people were so determined to have altered.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. Mr. ROSS—I was then a member
of the Government, and spoke their sentiments.
HON. Mr. DICKSON—Well then, honorable gentlemen, it seems I am to understand
that the honorable gentleman did not then express the sentiments of Hon. Mr. Ross
as an
individual, but of Hon. Mr. Ross as a member
of the Government. I have never been in the
Government, and therefore, perhaps, I am
pardonable for not having understood that the
gentleman carried about with him a double set
of sentiments, either of which could be used
as occasion seemed to demand. (Laughter.)
But, in furtherance of the argument for delay,
289
I desire to say that I am anxious to have the
further consideration of the scheme in this
House postponed for other reasons than those
which I have gim expression to. My honorable friend the gallant Knight, in his remarks
last evening, made allusion to the burning of
the Parliament buildings. I agree with him
that that was a thing sincerely to be regretted.
But he stated that, if the conservatives in the
Legislative Council had had the prudence and
good sense to exercise the amount of wisdom
that they might have exercised, they would
have put off the Rebellion Losses Bill another
year, which course of proceeding would, in all
probability, have prevented the deplorable
occurrence to which he referred. Now, honorable gentlemen, I stand here to ask you
to
take the advice the honorable and gallant
Knight has given, and apply it to the present
scheme. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) You
do not know what disastrous consequences
may ensue, if this huge scheme is carried out
without an appeal to the people in a constitutional manner. I do sincerely hope you
will
allow that powerful argument for delay adduced by the honorable and gallant Knight
to
bear upon this question. (Hear, hear.) This
is a revolution, gentlemen, not a mere payment
of a few thousand pounds, that is proposed.
A revolution may be carried out by the exercise of political power, as well as by
physical
force. If the Government of the country is
subverted, it makes no difference how it is
done. It is a revolution all the same, no matter how it is brought about. The effect
is the
same upon the country. The proposal is to
sweep our present Constitution away, and supply its place with another, which may
be better
or a great deal worse. As I see by the clock
I have only five minutes left before six, and
do not desire to speak at any greater length, I
will have to draw my remarks to a close.
(Cries of "go on," "go on.") Well, as honorable gentlemen seem to desire it, I will
make
a few further remarks after dinner.
A message was here received from the Assembly, after which the House took a recess
until 8 P.M. That hour having arrived, and
the House having re-assembled—
HON. MR. DICKSON said—The great
reason for delay I conceive to be that it is
proposed by the adaption of the resolutions of
the Government to wipe out the present Constitution of the country without consulting
the
people affected thereby. I have not yet heard
one single observation from the Government,
or from any honorable member of this House,
tending to show that there is any necessity for
the unseemly haste with which the matter is
being pressed. I think it ought to be laid
over until after the next general election; and
I beg honorable gentlemen to observe that I
make no suggestion respecting a dissolution of
the other branch of the Legislature. But if
there is really any necessity for haste, then
there is a constitutional mode of hastening an
appeal open to the Government. My honorable friend opposite argued that the prerogative
of the Crown was taken away, in reference to the appointment of members of this
House, without an appeal to the people, and
that therefore no harm could result from
taking away the boon then given them without
any demand on their part or any appeal to
them. Gentlemen, we were then experimentalists, and the experiment succeeded well.
Then why not stick to it ? We improved on
the Constitution on that occasion. And you
may give the people privileges they do not ask,
very safely. But what is now proposed to be
done? It is proposed to take that power from
them without consulting them, and I hold that
such a thing ought not to be done. Having
raised them to the highest state of political
exaltation, without their even asking for it,
it is now proposed to reduce them, almost
without notice, to the lowest possible position
of political degradation. It is the main principle of the Government under which we
live,
that the people, through their representatives,
shall be consulted as to the composition of
their Government. As for a mutual understanding between the electors and the elected,
in relation to this scheme, there is none whatever, and I have thus urged delay because
I
do not think there is any need of hurry.
There is a constitutional mode of ascertaining
the views of the people, and it ought to be
made use of. But honorable gentlemen say,
" Oh, don't throw out any hint about bringing
on a general election before the proper period;
we have had elections enough during the
past five years." Why, honorable gentlemen,
what is proposed to be done by the passing of
these resolutions? Will their adoption not
bring on a new election inside of eighteen
months? There is another observation I
desire to make with reference to honorable
gentlemen endeavoring to obtain the views of
their constituents by knocking at their doors,
and asking whether they favor the first. resolution and the second, and so on, through
the
entire list. I do not think that even by such
a proceeding you could arrive at a thorough
understanding of the views of your constituents. The common way of doing it is for
a
290
member to call his constituents together in a
large room in some hotel or other building,
and lay the whole subject before them, expressing his opinion on the various clauses
as he
proceeds. In so doing he is more than apt to
imbue their minds with the same view that he
himself holds. I have only heard one member
allude to having received the resolutions, and
he merely opened and sealed them up again in
consequence of their being marked " Private,"
without endeavouring to ascertain the views of
his constituents. I do hope that some course
of procedure can be devised by which the spirit
- of the amendment proposed by my honorable
friend from the Niagara Division may be
' carried into effect. The amendment simply
states—
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, without a further manifestation
of the public
will than has yet been declared.
Well, honorable gentlemen, is this House
willing to assume the responsibility of depriving the people of the opportunity of
expressing their wishes on so momentous a
question as an entire change of their Constitution. Those who are willing to take
the responsibility will vote against this amendment,
while those who are willing to have the matter
referred to the people, will vote for it. My
sentiments are well expressed in the amendment, and exercising my own individual judgment,
having no constituency to be governed
by, I shall vote for it, and if it is defeated it
will strengthen the hands of the Government
in carrying out their great principle of Confederation without an appeal to the people
—and, as a matter of course, according to our
present system of responsible government,
they must assume the responsibility.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL said—I would
like, honorable gentlemen, to continue the
debate in that excellent and happy spirit in
which my honorable friend who has just sat
down has addressed the House. I envy my
honorable friend very much for the possession
of that happy faculty of amusing and instructing the House in combination. I am somewhat
grieved to feel obliged to call the attention of honorable members to that which is,
perhaps, more of a business character and less
interesting than the remarks which fell from
my honorable friend. I must say that I very
much regret that my honorable friend should
have thought that on this particular amendment
being proposed, it was his duty to come to
its support, because it is evident to my own
mind, and must also be so to every honorable
member present, that my honorable friend,
while giving his support to the amendment,
entertains very different views from those
which were enunciated by the honorable member for Niagara, who moved it. My honorable
friend says, " If there is to be delay, let it
be a substantial delay; let it be such a delay
as will ensure a dissolution of parliament;
such a delay as will enable the people to speak
in that manner, and in that manner only, that
is known to the British Constitution." I can
respect that sentiment. There is something
real in an argument based on that foundation.
I do him the justice to believe that he takes
that view with a sincere desire that the delay
should not militate against the scheme, but
that it should be adopted by the people when
referred to them. But, honorable gentlemen,
contrast that view with the idea suggested by
the honorable gentleman who moved this resolution. What view does he take? Not
that there should be such a delay as would
enable the people to express themselves in the
manner in which Great Britain and all her
colonies speak, but in that sort of way which,
as my honorable friend (Hon. Mr. DICKSON)
has graphically described, is more nearly
allied to the peddling of clocks than to anything connected with British constitutional
procedure. What does the honorable gentleman say ? He says, give us twenty days or
a month.
HON. Mr. CAMPBELL—What could be
done with twenty days or a month's delay ?
Is it possible for the people to speak in any
constitutional way in twenty days or a month?
The honorable gentleman knows very well that
it is not possible, and that under no system of
government could such a plan, as his mind has
suggested, by any possibility be sanctioned by
the Legislature. Would the people of New
York state, or any of the States of the Union,
sanction a proceeding of that kind ? On the
contrary, they would adopt the course at once
of having the scheme submitted to a direct
vote of the people. If you adopt the British
constitutional way, then there will have to be
a dissolution of Parliament; but, if you adopt
the American system, the people will be called
upon to vote " yea or nay " on the scheme as
it stands. Let it be expressed in one way or
the other, fairly and constitutionally, in accordance with our system of government
291
My honorable friend does not contemplate
that. He contemplates a postponement of
the subject, in some way or other, for twenty
days or a month, and I am sorry that my
honorable friend, who spoke last, should have
felt himelf called upon to adopt a scheme so
entirely contrary to what I know are his views
as to what is correct and proper, according to
those constitutional and British views which
he entertains. I am sorry that he should
have been led to adopt a scheme which is evidently not advocated by him from the same
motives as those which actuate my honorable
friend from Niagara.
HON. Mr. DICKSON—I approve of the
resolution as it stands, and I entertain the
views that I have expressed. I have always
held that a general election was the proper constitutional mode of learning the people's
views,
and I distinctly stated that I did not care to
have a short delay.
Hon. Mr. CURRIE—All I suggested was
that the Government might at least give twenty
days or a month, if they would grant no more.
Of course, I desire to get what my honorable
friend Mr. DICKSON has asked.
HON. Mr. CAMPBELL—Then I do hope
my honorable friend will withdraw his support to the amendment, when he sees that
he
does not concur with the mover of it, who
evidently contemplates some other course
than is known to the British Constitution for
ascertaining the views of the people—for instance, by members going from door to door,
or by holding meetings in convenient places
and making themselves agreeable to their constituents by indulging in hospitalities,
&e. I
am quite confident that is not the idea which
my honorable friend opposite entertains; nor,
I am satisfied, is it the view which any honorable gentleman of this House can entertain
who is desirous of promoting Confederation
of the provinces—that these resolutions, important as they are, and necessary as it
is that
we should arrive at some conclusion in reference to them, should be laid aside until
my
honorable friend from Niagara goes about
from door to door throughout his large and
intelligent constituency, knocking at each and
asking the views of the electors on each separate, resolution. My honorable friend
is
charged with the duty of representing his constituency on the floor of this House,
and it is
to be supposed that he is well capable of representing them in point of intellect
and
good judgment, when he is called upon
to say whether or not he believes the scheme,
as a whole, to be a desirable one for the
country. (Hear, hear.) But hs seems
to ignore all that. He does not seem willing
to pronounce his judgment upon this scheme.
He will not say that it is so objectionable that
he will vote against it on the merits of the
case. If he is unable to come to a decision,
he ought to resign his position, and give place
to some one who can come to a decision. But
look at the position of a man who says in effect, " I have no opinion of my own; if
the
people whom I represent are favorable to
the scheme, I have not a word to say ; I will
vote for it to please them, though I disapprove
of it." Gentlemen, let him give his constituency the benefit of his best judgment,
and
consider whether, reflecting upon the fact that
there are five different provmces to be consulted, and constituencies upon constituencies
to be canvassed, that which he desires can be
ascertained in any better way than by this
House, considering itself a fair representation
of the sentiment of Canada, coming to an immediate decision. He says his constituents
have not charged him with the duty of altering the Constitution. Well, but he is charged
with the duty of exercising his best judgment
upon every subject brought before this
House. We are not here for the purpose of
altering the Constitution. We have not the
power to alter the Constitution if we desired
to do so, but we have the sacred duty incumbent upon us of expressing our views in
relation to such alterations as may be considered
advantageous to the country. (Hear, hear.)
Do these resolutions alter the Constitution of
the country? Not at all. They merely state
that such alterations are desirable. The Constitution itself can onl be changed by
the
Imperial authorities. We are not exceeding
what our French Canadian friends called the
mandat with which we are charged. We.
have no power to alter the Constitution, but
we have the power of expressing our views in
an address to Her Majesty, which it is proposed to adopt in all the legislatures,
stating
that such and such changes would, in our
opinion, prove advantageous to the country.
We are exercising exactly the duties which
are incumbent upon us. We are giving to
our constituents the benefit of our experience
and honest convictions upon the topics which
are committed to our charge, and which events
force upon our attention. Has not the House,
on previous occasions, adopted resolutions, the
effect of which has been to bring about
changes of the Constitution ? And has it
ever before been argued that this House had
no right to debate such resolutions? Nothing
292
of the kind. The first alteration asked for,
was for the purpose of allowing the use of the
French language in the House of Parliament.
Honorable gentlemen might have said then
that they had not the power to ask for such a
change, but such an idea was never mooted.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I had not the
honor of having a seat in this House at the
time, but I am happy to hear that it was
unanimously carried. Next, a change was
asked for in the composition of this House.
This House was at one time nominative, and
was, in 1856, made elective. Was that not a
change of the Constitution ? Nobody, however, urged at that time the idea that this
House had no power to pass such a resolution.
We stand exactly in the same position now,
and it seems to me a most futile and illogical
argumentto say that we have not the power
to do what it is proposed to do in passing
those resolutions, that is, to pray the Queen
so to change the Constitution of this province
that we may unite in one Government with
the other provinces of British North America.
I am quite satisfied that, when honorable gentlemen reflect upon it, they will see
that they
are not in any way exceeding the powers
committed to them by their constituencies.
My honorable friend from Niagara suggests
this amendment in a spirit that is comparatively poor to that in which it is supported
by my honorable friend opposite. He says
he is in favor of the union, but is opposed to
some of the details. It is painful to me that
any honorable gentleman who professes a desire
to advance the union, should yet shelter himself, in opposing it, under an objection
to some
of the details. Does my honorable friend seriously propose to submit to the country
all
those various details ? Can he imagine that
he could get an intelligent expression from
any part of the country on those details?
All he could get would be a general opinion
in favor of Confederation, and we are all satisfied that he would have that. I believe
there are but two or three honorable members in this House who are really opposed
to
Confederation. Take ten thousand people
from the country, and you will find nine
thousand of every ten in favor of Confederation.
HON. Mr. CAMPBELL—Well, I will submit to the opinion of honorable gentlemen from
Lower Canada, for I do not pretend to be
so well acquainted with the feelings of their
people, but I am in as good a position to speak
for Upper Canada as any other honorable
gentleman, and I have no hesitation in saying
that the people of Upper Canada are almost
unanimously in favor of Confederation. I am
satisfied that, if the question wergaput before
the people by means of a general election,
there would be an unanimous vote in Upper
Canada in its favor.
HON. Mr. CAMPBELL—My honorable
friend from Niagara says " Hear, hear." My
honorable friend cavils at every statement
which is made, attempts to throw doubt and
distrust upon the figures which have been
produced in advocacy of the measure, and has
not restrained himself from using every method
of opposition which his imagination could invent cr his ability turn to account. I
must
say that I can hardly believe an honorable
gentleman to be in favor of the scheme, who
takes every opportunity to attack it, and, when
accused of hostility , shelters himself under objections to the details. (Hear, hear.)
It
shows to me that his feelings are not sincere,
but that he desires to upset the very foundations on which Confederation rests, not
perhaps
because he is opposed to Confederation in the
abstract, or a Confederation such as he would
like to see established, but because he desires
to thwart and defeat the efforts of those who
have been honestly and industriously engaged
in bringing about the scheme which is now
before this House. I say, honorable gentlemen,
if the people could express their opinions as
we may express ours to-night, they would all
concur in the first resolution. (Hear, hear.)
Well, ge ntlemen, it being granted that we are
all in favor of union, how are the details to be
settled? Is it possible that the nearly four
millions of people who compose the provinces
to be affected by the union, should meet
together
en masse and settle those details? It
is not possible, and those who argue that the
scheme should originate with the people,
know very well that it is not possible. Well,
then, could the parliaments of all these provinces assemble together and agree upon
a
scheme of Confederation? Look at the difficulties that we have to encounter on every
point of the details in carrying the scheme
through this House, and judge for yourselves
whether the parliaments of all the provinces
could meet ther, and originate and decide
upon the details of Confederation. There is
no other practicable way than that delegates
should meet together as they have done, and
frame resolutions on the subject, upon which
293
the act constituting the union could be founded. Honorable gentlemen have asked who
authorised those delegates to meet together for
the purpose of framing those resolutions.
Honorable gentlemen know very well that the
presœt Government of Canada was formed for
the very purpose of considering and submitting
a scheme of this kind. My honorable friend
from Niagara again takes shelter under the
statement that what the Government proposed
to do was to bring down a scheme for the Confederation of Canada alone, and that the
bringing of all the provinces into the Confederation
was only a secondary idea. The honorable
gentleman knows very well that that statement
of the case is a mere pretence. Everybody
knew that the Government would endeavor to
overcome the dificulties which presented themselves in working the government of Canada,
either by one project or by the other. The
honorable gentleman has quoted from the
Speech from the Throne delivered at the close
of last session, in which an allusion was made
to the formation of a Federal union between
the two sections of this province, and not to
a Federal union of all the provinces. Why
does he not refer to and quote from the Speech
from the Throne at the opening of this session ?
My honorable friend will find there, and I
suppose he will place the expression on even
terms with the other, the following :—
At the close of the last session of Parliament
I informed you that it was my intention, in conjunction with my ministers, to prepare
and submit
to you a measure for the solution of the constitutional problem, the discussion of
which has for
some years agitated this province. A careful
consideration of the general position of British
North America induced the conviction that the
cicumstances of the times afforded the opportunity, not merely for the settlement
of a question
of provincial politics, but also for the simultaneous
creation of a new nationality.
Now, my honorable friend says in effect
that we were not right, when the opportunity
presented itself of endeavcring to carry out
the idea, in seizing upon it, and endeavoring
to combine these provinces in one nationality,
under the common flag of Great Britain, and
under the rule of a Viceroy of the British
Crown. Every honorable gentleman feels in
his heart that we were not only right and
patriotic in thus assembling, but that we were
doing that which was promised to the Legislature of this province at the close of
last
session of Parliament. Honorable gentlemen,
I am surprised' and grieved that my honorable
friend from Niagara, whom I know to be a
patriotic and loyal subject of Her Majesty,
does not feel it his duty to unite with us in
bringin about that which is so dear to all of
us—a closer connection with the Mother Country, and a better means of perpetuating
British
institutions on this continent. (Hear, hear.)
My honorable friend says the whole scheme is
characterized by concessions to the Lower
Provinces. Why, honorable gentlemen, place
him in any portion of the Lower Provinces
and let him listen to the opposition that is
made there to the scheme, and he will find
that the whole cry of those who, like him, do
not reflect on the necessity of yielding something for the common good, is, that everything
has been conceded to Canada. It is said, " We
are going to be united with a province which
is infinitely beyond us in point of population
and wealth, and whose public men are able to
command, by their ability, a much larger
influence than our public men." They profess
to believe that they are coming under the
shadow of Canada, and that everything which
the desire for themselves wil be trampled
under foot. My honorable friend, forgetting
those duties which he owes to the Government,
and forgetting the duty which he owes as a
patriotic citizen to his country, contents himself with finding fault with the details
of a
scheme which he believes will be for the benefit
of the country, and picks holes in every part
of these details which he does not happen fully
to understand. He not only complains that
the people of Canada have not been consulted,
but that in every respect the interests of Canada have been bartered away. Does he
forget
that the members of the Government all love
their country, and have interests as great and
as dear to them as the rest of the people of
Canada? Is it likely that my honorable friend
at the head of the Government, the honorable
and gallant Knight, would give up everything
that is dear to his race and to the people of
this province? Is it likely that any of us
would ruthlessly throw away any advantage
which we could reasonably retain ? On the
contrary, if my honorable friend could be
brought to look upon the measure with that
liberality which ought to characterize a public
man, he would concede that, although we had
to give away some things, we did that which
was best for the interests of our country. Let
him find himself surrounded, as we were by
diverse interests—peculiarities here, prejudices
there, and strong interests in the other direction, and let him produce, if he can,
a scheme
which, on the whole, is more advantageous to
the people of this province, or which promises
better for the country at large than that which
294
is now on the table of this House. Let him
do this, and then I will forgive him for the
illiberality which he exhibits towards those who
have honestly endeavored, to the best of their
united ability, to arrange the scheme which is
now under your consideration. (Hear, hear.)
I could forgive my honorable friend altogether,
if, like my honorable friend opposite, he took
the ground that the scheme ought to be delayed
until after a general election. But, instead of
that, he leaves no stone untumed to prejudice
this House against the measure. It seems to
me-that if he could prejudice the House sufficiently against it to insure its defeat,
as a
whole, he would leave no stone unturned to
accomplish it. So far from showing that he
is in favor of the scheme, I cannot for one
moment imagine how any one can believe him
to be a sincere friend of Confederation under
any circumstances. It is all very well to say,
" I am in favor of the scheme, but opposed to
some of the details." Was not every one of
those details tested and tried in all its bearings,
so far as such a thing was possible, by gentlemen as intelligent and well informed
upon the
subjects embraced as any honorable gentleman
in this House ? Every honorable gentleman
now listening to me knows very well that it
was not possible to adopt a scheme that could
not be found fault with. No matter what
scheme was put upon the table of this House,
even if my honorable friend had been able to
submit a scheme infinitely superior to this,
does anybody believe that certain honorable
gentlemen in this House would have supported
it? The resolutions may be objectionable
here and objectionable there, but it is for
honorable gentlemen to consider all the
circumstances out of which they have grown,
and consider whether, under those circumstances, they ought not to be adopted as a
whole
by the House. Honorable gentlemen say,
where is the advantage to be gained by Canada
from Confederation ? Well now, can any
honorable gentlemen in his senses believe
that the removal of the obstacles to intercourse between the provinces, the doing
away
with the customs duties, and the developing
the trade of the St. Lawrence, is no advantage
to Canada ? Can it be said that to open up
commerce with three millions of people along
the St. Lawrence and the lakes will be of no
advantage to the people of the Lower Provinces ? Can any Briton, advocating as he
does
the continuation of our connection with the
Mother Country, say—" I would rather be
alone, be an Upper Canadian and be left to
myself, and that my fellow colonists be left to
take care of themselves." Then honorable friend asks: " Where is the additional
military strength ?" Does my honorable friend
pretend to deny that there is no additional
strength in union over isolation ? Does any
man pretend to say that eight hundred or a
thousand men belonging to a regiment are
just as strong in units as when they are combined in a regiment and directed by the
intellect of one man ? And just so the forces
of all these provinces are comparatively weak
in their present isolated state. If we could
say to the United States that we had the control of four millions of people to guard
our
frontier and repel attack, would not that form
a strong barrier of defence ? Would that he
no weapon in the hands of a government desirous to avert an appeal to force of arms
?
It is the strength of a large number of people
wielded by one mind, affording a power vastly
superior to that which Canada alone. could
bring into the field, and giving the Government, when negotiating, an opportunity
to
point to what might possibly result from that
power being called into active service. How
can men be so lost to all that is true and useful and patriotic as to oppose a union
of the
powers of defence, and to oppose a scheme
which is alone likely to afford the means of
maintaining, for any long period of years, that
connection with Great Britain which we all
regard as so valuable ? My honorable friend
from Niagara took occasion, in the course of
his remarks, to throw doubt upon one or two
of my statements, and particularly in regard
to the value of the mineral deposits of Newfoundland. I stated that I could satisfy
the
House that there were mineral deposits in
Newfoundland of a valuable character. I
will not detain the House by reading it at
length, but I hold in my hand a copy of a
report that was made on that colony in 1840,
stating that these deposits consisted of galena,
gypsum, marble, gold, iron, copper, etc.
There are most important lead mines in operation, and Professor Shephard states that
he saw 3,500 pounds of pure galena thrown
from a vein at a single blast. He goes on in
this report to describe the very convenient
position of the mines, showing that they
be approached very closely by vessels drawing
twelve or fifteen feet of water. This report
plainly shows that my honorable friend was
mistaken in supposing that there were no
valuable minerals in Newfoundland. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that there
were
no minerals there; suppose we were simply giving the Province of Newfoundland $150,000
a
295
year for the purpose of getting that island into
the Confederation, would it not be better to
have the Confederation complete than to refuse
agree to that condition ? One would suppose,
from the manner in which some honorable
gentlemen treat the question, that the various
sums to be annually paid to the Lower Provinces were to be paid by Canada alone; but
it is nothing of the kind,-they are to be paid
by the whole Confederation, the population
receiving the benefit contributing as much per
head to the amount as that of the Province
of Canada. What does my honorable friend
suppose the Province of Newfoundland gives
up to the Confederation in return for the
$150,000 ? It transfers to us the whole right
of property in its unsold lands, and the whole
of its general revenue. In 1862, it had a
gross revenue of $480,000, only $5,000 of
which was from local sources, and it is calculated that the colony will bring a revenue
of
$430,000 per annum to the Confederate
purse, while the total amount it will receive
will be $369,200 per annum out of which to
defray its local expenses . Is there an thing
so marvellously outrageous in that? In addition to the fact that Newfoundland will
pay
the Confederation $430,000, and receive
$369,000, we have a complete yielding to the
Federal Government of all her territorial
sources of revenue. And it is with all the
provinces. Each of them will contribute to the
general revenue, or to the Confederate purse,
more than they will receive from it, so that
the revenue of the whole country will show a
surplus. The honorable gentleman from Niagara evidently contemplates much more by
his amendment than my honorable friend opposite, who has so ably supported it, contemplates.
My honorable friend who supported
the amendment contemplates a delay until
there shall be an expression of the people
taken through a dissolution of Parliament.
Well now, how can a dissolution of Parliament be brought about in a constitutional
manner? Suppose this scheme to receive the
so of an immense majority of the Lower
House, as it plainly does, and also of a la
majority in this House, how, I would ask,
under our system of government, can a dissolution be brought about? A dissolution
is
unknown to the British Constitution, as carried out in this province, except when
a
measure, originated by the Government, does
not receive the support of Parliament. Receiving the support of more than two-thirds
of the representatives of the people, as the
present Government does, how is it possible
that Parliament could be dissolved to suit the
views of a small minority ? That is asking quite too much, even if it were possible
to grant it. (Hear, hear.) What, therefore, do honorable gentlemen ask, when they
ask that the scheme be submitted to the people ? They ask us as a Government to leave
that which we consider the safe, sound, British
constitutional mode of procedure, and resort
to the American system of obtaining assent
to constitutional alterations, by taking the
votes, yea and nay, of the individual members
of the whole community. What sort of a
conclusion could he arrived at by that mode
of procedure? Is it possible that any hon.
member of this House desires that the people
should have the opportunity of saying yea or
nay to each clause of these resolutions ? I
am satisfied that that is not what my honorable friend from Niagara desires, because
he
only asks for a delay of a month; and my
honorable friend opposite does not desire it,
because he knows the British Constitution and
loves it too well to contemplate such a course
for a moment. What conclusion, then, can we
arrive at, but that those who oppose the
passage of the scheme through this case, by
moving and supporting amendments to it, are
desirous of defeating it, and make those
amendments for that purpose ? (Hear, hear.)
I am satisfied, from the best information I can
obtain, that the passage of the amendment
would have a very great tendency towards defeating the measure. It has to be agreed
to
in both branches of all the other legislatures,
and then in the Imperial Parliament. All the
other legislatures are now waiting upon the
action of this House. They are waiting to
know whether honorable gentlemen of the
Legislative Council of Canada concur in the
scheme—whether you are satisfied to put on
one side small objections to minor matters of
detail—to put to one side your individual
opinions on this point and on that point, and
give it your support as a whole. Every person
who reflects upon the subject must be satisfied
that that would have to be done under any
circumstances. Do you desire to have a union
of all the British American Provinces, or do
you desire to remain as you are ? That is the
issue. For myself, I feel that our connection
with the Mother Country cannot be maintained
for any great length of time without such a
union. What have we found in the utterances
of the public men of England from year to
year ? Have we not found them asserting,
with more and more vehemence every year,
that we were not doing our duty on this side
296
of the water in relation to our defences? If
Great Britain should get into a war with the
United States from circumstances over which
we had no control, still our destinies were
linked in with those of the great empire of
which we form a part, and it is our duty,
under all circumstances, to do something more
than we have yet done, to prepare for events
that may happen from one cause or another.
But suppose that during the past summer
armed forces from the United States had entered Canada in pursuit of raiders escaping
into this province from the other side of the
border, as they might have done had not Gen.
DIX'S order been withdrawn; and had we
found that our integrity as a member of the
great Empire was not respected, and Great
Britain had coincided with the views of our
Government and declared war against the
United States, because that country had exercised liberties in one of her provinces
to which
no foreign power was entitled, where then
would have been the cause of the war ? It
would have lain in the assertion of the right
of the people of this province to maintain the
position of an integral portion of the British
Empire. Well, supposing the cause of a war
with that nation to have been elsewhere, still
we must partake with the Empire in upholding
its integrity , and must stand or fall with that
Empire. Shall we say that we will contribute
nothing towards our defence except to keep
up the volunteers, and depend entirely upon
what the Mother Country, for prudential
reasons, may do for us? Is that a feeling
that any honorable member of this House
ought to be actuated by in relation to
this or any other question ? I am sure no
honorable gentleman would be willing to sit
down and fold his arms under the protection
which the money and arms of Great Britain
give us; and I am sure my honorable friend
from Niagara himself would not unite in such
a view plainly expressed. Still, my honorable
friend thinks these resolutions ought not to
pass this House, but ought to be postponed
indefinitely, leaving the colonies in the divided
condition in which they now are. I believe,
on the contrary, that the interests and destiny
of this country are bound up in the union now
contemplated taking place. Suppose, as
many believe, the end of that unfortunate
fraticidal strife in the United States is at
hand, and a reconciliation takes place at any
reasonable time between the Northern and
Southern States, I am quite sure the maintenance of the integrity of these provinces
will depend upon this union having con
summated. If the scheme is postponed now,
it is postponed indefinitely. For years past
the effort has been making to get the
Lower Provinces to assent to a union with
Canada, and, if the question is now postponed,
there is no knowing whether we shall ever
be able to get their assent to it again or not.
Action in the parliaments of Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island, is
now hanging upon the proceedings in this
House. If you pass an amendment, it will
indicate to them that the people of Canada
are not warmly in favor of the scheme. Honorable gentlemen, are you ready to take
the
responsibility of declaring that the people of
Canada are opposed to Confederation ? There
is no knowing when circumstances will allow
of its being brought to this forward stage
again. Those of you who know what dificulties and objections were met with—the selfish
interests of the various sections of this and of
the other provinces, which we had to overcome—must feel that a very great advance
was made when the measure was brought to
the present forward stage. When again will
it be likely to happen that the representatives
of the various provinces will be brought
together to consider the question ? When
will it again happen that the governments of
the several provinces concerned will be able
to lay upon the table of their respective legislatures a scheme so complete in all
its details
as this is ? It is impossible to say when that
happy coincidence of circumstances will again
occur. Then my honorable friend from Niagara says, " You have not given us the scheme
in detail. You have not given the whole of it.
The House has not before it the proposed
Constitution under which Upper and Lower
Canada are hereafter to meet. You have not
told us what are to be the rights and the
powers of the local legislatures." Well, honorable gentlemen, all I can say is, that
it would
be impossible, and not only impossible, it would
be useless for the Government to have brought
down this scheme at the same time that they
submitted the scheme now before the House.
Until this scheme passes, until it shall be
adopted in the other provinces, until we know
whether or not we are to form portions of a
Confederate Government, there is no occasion
for introducing the scheme relating to the
local 1egislatures. But, honorable gentlemen,
is it likely or can it be possible or such a
scheme to be adopted without the sanction of
both branches of the Legislature? The plan,
whatever it may be, for the constitution of
Upper and Lower Canada, is it a matter
297
which the ministers of the Crown can carry
in their pockets and put in force without the
sanction of Parliament ? No, it is a measure
which must hereafter be laid on the table of
this House, which must bc debated, and upon
which we shall all have an opportunity of
pronouncing an opinion before it comes in
force. At the proper time, a full opportunity
will be afforded to those who dissent from the
views of the Government, in regard to the
constitutions of these provinces, of expressing
their opinions, and of seeking to give effect to
them. The same may be said in regard to
the objections taken to the Intercolonial Railway. It is asserted that the Intercolonial
Railway is something that we ought never to
have agreed to. But honorable gentlemen
will acknowledge, as a general proposition,
that union is impossible without the railway,
and such as believe that union is important
and necessary, must be content to take the
railway as a condition which is indispensable.
But, honorable gentlemen, the Government
cannot of itself build the Intercolonial Railway. There is no power either in this
Government or the Governments of the other
provinces to build it. We must come down
to Parliament for the sanction—not to this
Parliament, but to the Confederate Parliament, and the Confederate Parliament will
have an opportunity of saying upon what
terms we shall build the Intercolonial Railway. The fullest opportunity will be afforded
for discussion before either the Intercolofiial
Railway is built, or the constitutions are
adopted for Upper and Lower Canada. The
former will be submitted to the Confederate
Parliament; the latter, should the resolutions now before the House pass, to the present
Parliament of Canada; for that must
necessarily be a matter for the disposal of the
Legislature of Canada. I am not one of those
who would, as suggested, desire to take shelter
behind the resolutions before the House for
any unworthy purpose; but this I will say,
that the amendment now before the House
ought not to receive its sanction. I am quite
satisfied that no honorable member of this
House, who is really and truly an advocate of
this scheme, and who believes that Confederation of all the provinces is important
and
desirable, will be found voting for this amendment, which would place a barrier in
the way
of Confederation, such as, perhaps , we could
not overcome. Fancy the number of years
during which this matter has been contemplated. As my honorable friend who sits near
me pointed out, it is a measure which has
long been agitated. He shewed you that for
years and years it has engaged the attention of
almost every person who took any kind of interest in the public affairs of this country.
I
have only one thing to add to my honorable
friend's elaborate statement on this point, and
that is, to quote an extract from the resolutions proposed in this House many years
ago
by an honorable friend of mine, whom I am
glad, and whom every one of his fellow members is glad to find still occupying his
accustomed place in this House—I refer to my
honorable friend Hon. Mr. MATHESON. In
1855, my honorable friend proposed a series
of resolutions in this House against the elective principle, the last of which is
in language
prophetic of the result which now we are testing by actual experience. The resolution
is
in these words :—
8. Resolved,—That as the subject of s union
of the whole of the British North American Provinces has for years occupied the public
attention, it would manifestly be unwise to complicate
future arrangements by a change in the Constitution of one of those provinces, which
has not
been sought for, and which this House believes,
would not be acceptable to the others. It is,
therefore, the Opinion of this Council, that any
proceedings on the subject at the present junctnre
would be premature, unwise, and inexpedient.
My honorable friend at that time looked forward to that which we now see about to
take
place—a union of these provinces—and he
anticipated also that the elective, system, if
introduced into this branch of the Legislature,
would be fraught with difficulty. It has been
fraught with difficulty, and it is a difficulty
which we must surmount—a barrier which
we must strive to overcome. The personal
objections which my honorable friend from
Niagara division has started, are the poorest
kind of objections. It is not what my honorable friend near me, or my honorable friend
opposite, possibly thought or said at some remote period, that we have now to consider.
We are all more or less exposed to this sort
of attack; but fortunately the time during
which I have had the honor of being in public life has been so short, and the position
I
have since occupied has been so obscure, that
I am not so much exposed as many others to
these accusations; but I am well aware that
this is owing to my comparative insignificance.
I must say that for my part I am disposed to
put aside all these things. I am disposed to
put aside all reference to what an honorable
member may have done under other circumstances and in other times, and I would mere
298
ly ask myself this: " Is this Confederation
desirable? Do I wish for it as a lover of
monarchical institutions? Do I desire it as
a subject of the British Empire ? Do I wish
for the perpetuation of the connection between
this country and Great Britain ?" If I do
I shall waive my objections on this point and
the other, in my desire for the success of the
principle. This Confederation has been sought
after for years, but never until now has it approached so near a consummation—never
was
it a possibility as it is now a possibility.
After years of anxiety, after years of difficulty, after troubles here and divisions
there,
the scheme is found possible, and I will not
put it away from me because I object to this
point or to that. If this harness of the Confederation of the country is to be put
on, we
cannot but expect that it will chafe here and
chafe there ; but time will give relief and
provide the remedy, as it has done in other
circumstances before. It was so in regard to
the union of 1840. The Lower Canadians had
a grievance in the French language being excluded from the Provincial Parliament.
That
chafed, as was to be expected, and provoked
remonstrance. And what was the result ?
The injustice complained of was done away
with, and both languages were thereafter permitted to be used. Then it was the desire
of the people that the elective system should
be introduced into this House. I believe myself that it was a mistake, but a change
was
desired, and a change was brought about.
And so it will be in this case. If change is
seriously desired, it will be had. It would be
unwise and unstatesmanlike, in my opinion,
to declare that because we cannot have our
way on this point or on that point—that because the scheme in all its features is
not exactly what we would like it to be—we will
not have it at all. Where, honorable gentlemen, is the union efi'ected between any
two
countries, or any two individuals even, which
has lasted for any length of time without
mutual forbearance and mutual concessions ?
Let those honorable gentlemen who have had
the good fortune of forming unions, and who
can therefore speak from experience, say
whether any union can be formed either
happy or lasting without forbearance on both
sides. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) You must
give up all thoughts of union unless you are
willing to give and take, and cease persisting for
everything you think best. Nobody ever did
effect a union upon such terms, and nobody ever
will. You must forbear here and give way
there. I trust and believe that in the present
instance this will be the opinion of the Legislature of this country. I trust and
believe
we are satisfied that Federation is desirable
in itself, and that, without insisting on this
point or on that point, we will be looking confidently forward to the future, when
we shall
witness, in this country, a population of four
millions, with a valuable commerce, and, in
point of naval power and supremacy, ranking
fourth in the world. (Applause.) Particularly am I surprised that any honorable gentleman
from Lower Canada should oppose
himself to this union, for by union the people of Lower Canada will regain possession
of
those countries which were once belonging to
their race, and in which their language continues to be spoken. I believe that for
them,
as well as for us, there is a future in store of
great promise, to which we can all look forward with the most confident expectations.
And shall we set aside all these promising
prospects because we cannot obtain this little
point or that little point ? I hope honorable
gentlemen who favor the scheme see as I see
that there is imminent danger in postponing
the measure, and I ask them not to pass this
amendment, which is brought forward in the
poorest of all spirits, which is based on the
assumption that honorable gentlemen are not
ready to give the country the benefit of their
minds and their judgments, but which asks
us to wait and go knocking about from door
to door, asking what is thought about the
scheme upon which we are now called to legislate. Federation is the future safety
and
salvation of the country. Let us then waive
our small objections and vote for Federation.
(Applause.)
HON. Mr. SEYMOUR-The Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands is right in supposing that I am opposed to Federation
I
am opposed to it, and particularly on the
basis agreed upon at the Quebec Convention.
I do not say that I would be opposed to a
legislative union on fair and equal terms;
but I am decidedly opposed to Federation
on the terms now before the House. My
hon. friend has said that in all unions there
must be forbearance; but in this Federation
scheme it appears to me the forbearance has
been all on one side. The forbearance has
not been mutual. When parties enter into
a partnership, there ought to be forbearance
on the part of each, and mutual concessions.
But in this case the concessions as well as
the forbearance have been all on the side of
Canada. My hon. friend, with all his eloquence and ability, has not answered a single
299
objection raised by my hon. friend from
Niagara (Hon. Mr. Currie). He has found
it convenient to pass them all over for the
simple reason that he found them unanswerable. My hon. friend says :—" Was not the
French language restored to Lower Canada,
and was not this echange in the Constitution?"
Hon. gentlemen, it was certainly restored,
and by the Conservative administration of that
day, and, as my hon. friend opposite (Hon.
Mr. BOULTON) has said, unanimously. There
was no opposition, for it was considered a
right to which our French Canadian fellow-
subjects were fully entitled. But is the
restoration of the French language to be
compared with the resolutions now proposed
— with the great constitutional change
which is intended to affect, not only ourselves, but our children and our children's
children for all time to come? Is a change
like this to be compared with the restoration
of the French language? Â Certainly not. It
seems to me to be the most extraordinary
comparison I ever heard of. Then my
hon. friend has referred to the change in
the constitution of the Legislative Council.
But was not that question over and over
again before the people ? Did not the people
at the hustings frequently pronounce an
opinion upon that change ? Undoubtedly
they did, and it being understood that the
people were in favor of it, the change was
brought about. My hon. friend says that in
the Conference they were surrounded with
difficulties. No doubt they were. And why?
Because they allowed for Prince Edward
Island and Newfoundland as many delegates
as they did for Canada. No doubt they were
surrounded with difficulties. No doubt they
were overwhelmed by the demands of these
gentlemen. The hon. gentleman says that
Confederation is necessary to strengthen the
defences of the country. In what way? Can
any hon. gentleman tell me in what way?
I have not heard one word to prove, to my
satisfaction, how the defences of the country
are to be strengthened by Federation, unless
indeed it be by placing the whole of the
provinces under one head. Why, hon. gentlemen, did I not shew here the other day
what was the feeling of the Lower Provinces
in regard to the defences of the country?
At a time when our Parliament were proposing to pass an act which would entail the
expenditure of millions on the defences of
the country, what was being done in the
Lower Provinces? Why the Financial Secre
tary of one of the provinces came down with
a proposed grant of $20,000, and he was
obliged to apologize to the House that the
sum was so large ! And the present Premier
of Nova Scotia—the province second in importance in British North America — proposed
to strike off $12,000, and leave the appropriation at $8,000. This was proposed by
a
province next in importance to our own, and
at the time of the
Trent affair, when there was
an appearance of danger much greater than at
present. And what did New Brunswick do ?
Appropriate $15,000. The people that did
all this are the people to whom we are to
ally ourselves that we may be strengthened
in our efforts for the defence of the country!
Do hon. gentlemen believe that an alliance
with provinces whose leading men hold such
views as these would add to our strength ?
Certainly not. My hon. friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands has also said that
95 out of every 100 of the people of Upper
Canada are in favor of Federation. My hon.
friend is mistaken. I once had the honor of
representing a portion of his constituents,
and I would inform my hon. friend that I
know as much of the feeling, not simply of
the people of Upper Canada, speaking of
them generally, but of his constituents, as
he does; and this I would say that were my
hon. friend to go before his constituents and
tell them that, in order to get Federation,
Upper Canada is to pay two-thirds of the
cost of the Intercolonial Railway, and two-
thirds of the cost of maintenance of the road
for all time to come, and that the roads of
the Lower Provinces are to be made Government roads, and to be kept up in future at
the expense of the Federal Government, and
that Upper Canada will have two-thirds of the
burden to hear, I will venture to say that
my hon. friend would fi d himself wrong in
his estimate of being able to satisfy 95 out of
every 100 of his constituents.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Tell them of
all the circumstances, and I would be able
to satisfy them.
HON. MR. SEYMOUR—My hon. friend
is greatly mistaken. If my hon. friend is to
be one of the life members under the Federation, he would not require so much to satisfy
them.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—My hon. friend
is altogether too fast. I do not look forward
to any such thing.
Hon. MR. SEYMOUR—My hon. friend
has the power in his hands; but if he does
300
not desire the honor, of course he can avoid
its being thrust upon him. But my hon. friend
could not for a moment go before his constituents—and he represents a constituency
which for intelligence is second to none in
Upper Canada—and tell them that they are
to contribute to the revenue of the Confederation in proportion to their import duties—
that they are to contribute according to
their wealth—and that they are only to
receive back in proportion to their population—that largely as they contribute, the
return will only be the same as to the fishermen and lumberers who form the floating
population of the Lower Provinces, and carry
so large a majority as he has named with
him. A doctrine such as this is any thing but
conservative. I would submit to any thing
rather than vote for such a scheme. Were
I to support it in its present shape I should
consider myself as betraying the interests of
my country. Hon. gentleman 'are of course
entitled to their own opinions in this matter;
but these are mine, and I shall continue to
maintain and uphold them. I assert that the
amendment of my hon. friend for delay is a
just and reasonable one, and I cannot see
how it can possibly be objected to in a
matter of this importance, where the dearest
interests of the whole country are at stake,
and where we are legislating not for ourselves
alone but for future generations. Such
being the importance of the measure, I
cannot conceive how hon. gentlemen can
vote against so reasonable a proposition.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. FERGUSSON BLAIR—I
seek for information from the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands, as to the scheme
respecting the local legislatures. Did I
understand to hon. friend to say that it
would be submitted to the present Parliament ?
HON. Mr. FERGUSSON BLAIR—I
also understood my hon. friend to say that
before the House pronounced upon the
general scheme of Federation, it would not
be proper to submit the scheme for the local
legislatures. I cannot see the force of
that. But still I will not raise that as an
objection to proceeding with the present
scheme.
HON. Mr CAMPBELL—Perhaps my
hon. friend from Brock is right in the view
he takes. But it was throught by the
Government that it would be premature to
bring in the scheme for the local governments until it was seen 'hether Parliament
was in favor of these resolutions.
HON. Mr. FERGUSSON BLAIR—But
many members of this House, before making
up their minds as to how they ought to vote
on the resolutions, would like to be informed
as to the nature of the local scheme, which
is to have such an important bearing on the
question at issue.
HON. Mr. CAMPBELL—The Parliament
of the country will have the fullest opportunity of pronouncing upon it.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—After these
resolutions have been passed. We thought
it was unnecessary for us to give our attention to the local constitutions for Upper
and
Lower Canada until we had ascertained
whether Parliament was in favor of Federation. That ascertained, we shall feel it
our
duty to give our minds to the preparation of
the scheme for the constitutions of the two
provinces; and these constitutions will he
laid before Parliament.
HON. Mr. ROSS—I do not know what
the views of the Government may be upon
this point, but it seems to me that it would
have been an extraordinary proceeding had
they brought down at this juncture the
proposed constitutions for Upper and Lower
Canada. There may a great difference
of opinion arise as to the constitutions
proper to be proposed for these provinces;
and it is quite possible that these differences
may occasion the withdrawal of some
members of the Government. (Cries of
" hear, hear.") Hon. gentlemen cry " hear,
bear." But I say that such may possibly be
the case. And it would be absurd and
impolitic for the Government to throw the
country in a state of confusion as regards
the scheme for the local legislatures if they
failed in carrying the resolutions here submitted Hon. gentlemen will see that they
would be. unworthy of the position they hold
were they to do so. I am not sure whether
I understood my hon. friend to say that the
scheme for the local legislatures would be
brought down on the paving of these resolutions. I hope that misunderstood him.
because I think we should wait the result of
the action of the Lower Provinces. We
should see if Federation succeeds there,
inasmuch as in case of its failure in the
Lower Provinces, even if we adopt the reso
301
lutions here, the arrangement would not go
into effect, and we would be placing the
country in a state of turmoil and confusion
in discussing measures which would be
altogether unnecessary. We ought, it seems
to me, first to carry out this arrangement as
far as it is possible to carry it, and if we
can secure the assent to it of the two larger
provinces below. there will be a reasonable
certainty of the scheme being effected. And
then, and not till then will the proper time
arrive for the discussion of the proposed
constitutions of Upper and Lower Canada.
I am perfectly amazed at the proposition
of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr FERGUSSON
BLAIR), because he is friendly to these
resolutions, and gave us the expression
of his views thereon in an admirable
manner at the opening of the debate. And
how the hon. gentleman should desire to
have the scheme for the local legislatures
quoad this project is beyond my comprehension.
Hon. Mr. FERGUSSON BLAIR— I
think it is only reasonable that, as hon. gentlemen argue, they should see before
voting
for or against Federation what are the proposed constitutions for the local legislatures.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. Mr. CAMPBELL—My hon. friend
should add this to the reflection—that at all
events hon. members will have a full opportunity of pronouncing upon it.
HON. Mr. VIDAL said — Honorable
gentlemen, you may probably regard it as
presumptuous in one so inexperienced as I
am in parliamentary debate, to enter the lists
against the Hon. Commissioner of Crown
Lands, and to venture to dispute the validity
of the arguments adduced by him in his
eloquent speech against the amendment now
under consideration; yet, great as is the
existing disparity in point of ability and influence, I do not shrink from the contest,
for
I believe that I have truth and justice on my
side, and have confidence that in its own
inherent power, the truth will ultimately
prevail. I have listened with delight to the
hon. gentleman's address, and cordially concur with his views on many points, but
there
are some in which I differ, in none more so
than that which regards all who support the
amendment of the hon. member from the
Niagara Division (Hon. Mr. CURRIE as
insincere, nay, even as wanting in loyalty to
the Crown and to the country.
HON. Mr. CAMPBELL—What I said
was this, that I was slow to believe in the
sincerity of those who advocated a measure
and sheltered themselves behind details.
Hon. Mr. VIDAL—It was more pointedly put than that. It was said that the
terms of the motion were such as clearly
showed that it was made simply for the
object of defeating the measure.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—And I repeat
that it is so. But that is very different from
what you charged me with saying.
Hon. Mr. VIDAL—The hon. gentleman
made the remark that we were not altering
the Constitution, but that the question before
us was one simply for an address to the
Crown. Now, strictly speaking, and taking
the words of the motion in their mere literal
sense, this statement is correct; but I ask
hon. gentlemen if it is fair or candid to endeavor to lead the House to believe that
this
motion, which is undoubtedly for an address,
is not in effect for a change in the Constitution ? Are we not plainly told that no
Imperial legislation will take place on this
subject, unless such an Address as this receives
the assent of the Canadian Legislature? I
hold. therefore, that the motion before us,
though it be for an Address to Her Majesty,
is in effect a measure, which has for its object
a change of the Constitution. Such being the
case, the subject is one which demands our
most careful consideration, and for which we
ought to be allowed all the time requisite to
the fullest and freest discussion. The changes
which have been referred to, and with which
it has been sought to compare this change,
cannot with propriety be regarded as similar.
I contend, in the language of the honorable
gentleman (Hon. Mr. SEYMOUR) who has
just preceded me, that this is in fact a revolution : the word is not too strong.
So far from
its being as has been stated, a simple change,
like the mere introducing or reintroducing
the use of the French Ianguage into the
Legislature, or even the more important ste
of altering the constitution of this House, it
is an entire alteration of our political condition and relations, and affects most
deeply
the whole country in all its varied interests.
Whatever may be the correctness or incorrectness of the opinion of my hon. friend
as to hon. members covering their hostility
to the scheme of Confederation by objecting
only to its details, it will not apply to me; I
shall take no shelter under details. My
course in voting for the amendment of the
hon. member for Niagara is based on broad
and constitutional grounds. I differ from
that hon. gentleman in regard to some of
302
these details, and on the whole, I am not
sure if my views do not more nearly coincide
with those of my hon. friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands.
HON. Mr. CAMPBELL—I am very glad
to hear my hon. friend say so. I would
'like him also to state if he goes with the
hon. member for Niagara in desiring the
delay of a month or delay for a longer period.
HON. MR. VIDAL—That question will
be fully answered when I come to touch
upon that point. But I may state, that
instead of offering a factious opposition by
the course I intend taking, it is my loyalty
to our Sovereign and country which induces
me to support the amendment now before
the House, not with the object of defeating
this measure, but for securing its adoption
on a broader and more permanent basis.
How singular are the different views which
are taken of our position and powers according to the manner in which we may vote
upon this question ! In one breath we are
told that we are the representatives of the
people, and we have a perfect right to vote
upon it as we may see fit; and in a few minutes
afterwards, we are informed that if we do not
vote upon it in a certain manner, we do not
represent the people. I cannot possibly
reconcile the two statements. It is also said
—and it is the only argument I have heard
on the point—if indeed it can be called an
argument at all—that if the present opportunity of securing the union of the provinces
is allowed to pass unimproved, it will be a
long time before we may look for another.
I admit that the opportunity is one which
has been long desired, and one which it will
be wise policy to improve ; and it will be my
humble endeavor to seek to do so to the best
advantage. But if the measure is in reality
fraught with the benefits which have been
claimed for it, I cannot see how it will be
jeopardized by a little delay; because the
more its benefits are looked into, the better,
it is reasonable to suppose, the people will
be satisfied with them. I cannot see how
the measure will be endangered by giving
both the people and their representatives a
little longer time to become acquainted with
its principles and its details. Since the
commencement of the debate in this House,
much light has been thrown on the scheme,
and we have had the advantage of the
explanations in the other Chamber, and I
am sure that the minds of hon. gentlemen
must now be much better informed on parti
cular points of the scheme than they were
before we came here. For my own part,
after having had my mind frequently directed to it, and after having listened attentively
to the arguments of all the speakers, I am
more and more impressed with the magnitude and importance of the various interests
on which our action is invited in thi matter, and I think we should proceed cautiously
and slowly in taking the step before us—a
change so great as that contemplated by the
framers of these resolutions—a change
amounting to nothing less than, as I before
observed, a revolution in the whole system of
governing the country. This is a step which,
in order to be permanently successful, must
rest on the principles of truth and justice,
and these principles must be intelligently
apprehended by the people to be governed.
Notwithstanding all that has been advanced
in this chamber—all the assertions which
have been made—in reference to the information said to be possessed by the people
of
this country relative to this measure, I must
say that I do not coincide in that opinion.
I believe that the people of the country, as
a whole, are not acquainted with the details.
What new light has there been thrown
on the resolutions since we assembled here ?
Have we not had our attention directed to
the fact that even some who assisted in
framing the resolutions, did not themselves
know precisely what some of them meant?
Moreover, is it not the fact that the attention of the country has not to any great
extent been called to any arguments against the
scheme? Now, in order to a right appreciation of the value aud importance of the
proposed Confederation, it is right that the
people should know and understand both
sides of the question. They should not be
carried away with the pleasing prospect held
out to them of the advantages to be derived
from forming part of a great Confederation,
without being told at the same time of the
cost at which these advantages are to he
purchased. And this is all the more necessary
because the movement did not originate with
the people. All great constitutional changes
ought to and usually do originate with
the people. But this is an anomaly. Here
we have a proposed Constitution framed by
a self-elected body—I do not use the term
reproachfully, because I hold that these hon.
gentlemen did perfectly right in so meeting
together—this, I say, is a Constitution which
was not framed by a body appointed for the
303
purpose; and it is sent down to us as a perfect document, which must be regarded as
resembling a treaty which we have no power
to alter even in the smallest detail.
HON. MR CAMPBELL—My hon. friend
cavils at the question of authority. But he
must know that the Parliament of this country
had sanctioned the formation of a Government with the avowed intention of bringing
about Federation; and therefore there was
authority for what was done from the people
of this country. But my hon. friend is a monarchist, and recognizes other sources
of authority than those vested in the people.
There is the authority of the Crown ; and on
this point I would beg to refer him to the
despatch which was received on this subject
from the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
It says : " With the sanction of the Crown,
and upon the invitation of the Governor-
General, men of every province, chosen by
the respective Lieutenant-Governors, without
distinction of party, assembled to consider
questions of the utmost interest to every subject of the Queen, of whatever race or
faith,
resident in those provinces, and have arrived
at a conclusion destined to exercise a most
important influence upon the future welfare
of the whole community." So here was the
sanction of the Crown so far as the action of
the other provinces was concerned; whilst
our own Parliament directly sanctioned the
formation of a Government having this object
in view.
Hon. MR. VIDAL—I have stated clearly
and emphatically that I was satisfied with
the formation of the Conference and what it
did, so why my hon. friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands should have thought
it necessary to make the explanations he has
just now done, I really do not know. I
admitted—I never in the least disputed—
that the Conference was properly, legally,
and formally constituted. I gave the members composing it all praise for the intelligence
and fidelity to the interests of the
country with which they carried on their
laborious negotiations. But I must still reiterate my former statement, that on account
of this movement not having emanated from
the people—and the fact of there being no
petitions before either branch of the Legislature asking for it establishes this—we
ought before i.s adoption to have some expression of the views of the people, and
consequently that the motion in amendment
made by my hon. friend the member from
Niagara is one which I ought to support. I
believe, after this debate has been concluded
in both Chambers, and the full report of it
which is being prepared has gone forth to
the country, the people will be in a position
to form a correct judgment on the merits of
the case. They will then have before them
perhaps all that could be said on one side or
the other, and if they cannot then form a
reliable judgment, it will be their own fault.
There is no reason why this House should
be at the very great expense—some $2,000)
I believe—of printing so large a number of
the debates as is being done, if the people
are not to be consulted ; for unless they are
to be asked for a decision—if the scheme is
to be carried into effect without consulting
them—where is the necessity for placing before them speeches and arguments which
which will only have the effect of disturbing
their minds? In addition to saying that
the plan has not emanated from the people, I
contend that it has not even emanated from
the representatives of the people. Had these
resolutions been framed by our own Government, brought down like other Government
measures into our Legislature, and there discussed, voted upon, and adopted by the
majority, I should not think it necessary that
there should be any reference to the people,
though perhaps I might still think such reference desirable. But the fact is that
the representatives of the people have not been consulted in the matter ; there has
been no way
left open whereby they can effect the
amendment of any objectionable feature in
the resolutions, or influence the Imperial
Legislature on the proposed union. I presume honorable gentlemen will concur with
me that if, after all that has been stated,
the country should not desire the change—
if the people at large should think they are
really paying too much and making too considerable a sacrifice to secure the anticipated
benefits of this measure—it ought not to be
passed. (Hear.) Where, I would ask, is the
danger to be apprehended in submitting the
measure to the country? Danger is to be
apprehended from forcing upon the people a
measure of which they may not approve.
(Hear.) But nothing can be endangered by
submitted this project to the people, if, as has
been so strongly asserted and as I believe,
the majority are in favor of it. If I thought
an immediate reference to the people would
jeopardise the scheme, perhaps I might
hesitate in urging it, as I now do—(hear,
and laughter)—but I believe its object is
really one desired by the country generally,
304
and there would be no risk in submitting it.
Where is then the danger of delay ?—and
delay is all we ask for. What struck me
very much in the eloquent and able address
of the Honorable Commissioner of Crown
Lands was, that he never touched upon the
real question of the amendment. It is true
he said delays were dangerous, delay would
lose the measure, but not a shadow of argument did he advance in proof of this view.
I think delay is safety, in that it will enable
the country and the Legislature to look into
the scheme, to weigh all its advantages and
disadvantages, if it has any, and so more
certainly secure the passing of it if good, and
the rejection of it if the reverse. Of course,
honorable gentlemen, divers views may exist as
to the way in which the opinion of the people
on this question is to be obtained. I am
not to be deterred from expressing my views
by the taunt of republicanism ; a sneer
never disturbs me when I have good ground
for what I do or say. I have had to bear
with many a sneer on account of my adhesion
to the temperance cause, but they never
moved me from my course. My belief is
that the views of the people may be ascertained without any such delay as will endanger
the scheme. It is to be presumed that
the debate will not extend beyond a week or
two, in both Houses. A very short time
after it is concluded, and the pamphlets
containing the speeches printed, a direct
vote of the people might be taken with propriety and safety. The proposition to submit
the plan to the vote of the people seems
at the first glance not to be British—our
prejudices rise against it. We are, however,
not to be guided by prejudices, but by
reason and reflection; and if we can find
the best means of clearly and satisfactorily
ascertaining what the people wish, that
means ought to be adopted, call it by what
name you may. I think that to put the
matter to a direct vote in this way is the
best plan. The people should be told :
" Here is the measure; will you take it or
will you not ?" We should not ask them
to discuss amendments; we could not bring
the people of all the provinces together for
such a purpose, and if we allowed amendments to be discussed, we should have
inextricable confusion. The plain question
should be proposed: Do you wish for this
Confederation or not—yes or no ?
HON. Mr. VIDAL—No. That is the
way the question is proposed to this House,
and if it be wrong to submit it thus to the
people, it is also wrong to submit it in such
a manner to the Legislature. (Hear, hear.)
An additional motive tor suggesting this
mode of proceeding is, that I should be
extremely unwilling to subject myself to
the censorious remarks of hon. gentlemen
in the other Chamber who might reasonably
say, if we propose to have a dissolution and
a new election on the subject, 'It is all
very well, but you keep your seats, while
you send us home." I do not indeed see
why we might not with great propriety wait
until the next general election, when, after
two years of reflection and discussion, the
peeple would be still better able to give an
intelligent vote. I can see no objection to
the wish of the people being thus ascertained
in this
par excellence constitutional way;
but as ministers tell us we cannot wait, then
I say, let us rather have a direct vote of the
people on the scheme than precipitate
a general election. I should prefer a
direct vote to a general election, because
during an election other influences are
at work besides purely political ones. In
many places the personal popularity of a
candidate outweighs the political leaning of
the electors; in others, a well-filled purse
carries the day, or some local question prejudices a constituency and influences the
minds of the voters. But upon a scheme
such as this, if submitted directly to the
country, none of these considerations would
have any effect, and the electors would be
guided by patriotism alone. So that while
constitutionally the House represents the
will of the people, and no fault could be
found if the House, after a new election,
were to pass upon the matter, still the object
desired, vis., to know the desire of the
people, would be more expeditiously and less
expensively attained by a direct vote. It is
of no use to call this method " Yankee "
or " Republican." It is well known that
it prevailed as far back as the days of ancient
Rome.
HON. MR. VIDAL—Yes, or, if you please,
you may call it imperial; it has been resorted
to in France and in Mexico. It would certainly
in this case be fair—no one could have any object for tampering with the votes of
the people, or obtaining a decision which was not a
305
truthful expression of their wish. We could
obtain the views of the whole country in a
short time—perhaps not within one month,
but still in time enough to enable the measure to be adopted within the current year.
The Legislature of New Brunswick is not to
meet for some time yet; the question therefore
cannot be soon settled there; and if it were,
it has still to go home to England, there to
be embodied in an Imperial enactment before
being acted upon. The Imperial Parliament
has assembled and will probably continue in
session, as it generally does, some five or six
months. Surely then there will be time to
take the vote here. I should like to have
some reason adduced to convince me that
there is danger in delay. I have heard an
indistinct allusion to such dan er as being
great in case war should suddenly come upon
us. New, hon. gentlemen, I hold this to be
an objection which has no weight whatever.
How long will it be, if we adept the resolutions, be are this scheme can be got into
operation ? I presume it will be twelve months,
and if we can wait a twelve month, can we
not wait two years without risk ? For, what
immediate strength is the measure to bring
to us ? The mere uniting together of these
provinces will not give us one additional
soldier; it will give us no more money ;
neither will it lessen the extent of frontier to be
defended, nor give us any increase of military
power. As for its placing all the provinces
under the direction of one mind—the only
argument which I have heard applying to
this part of the question—if we were in a
state of war to-day, the forces of the whole
would be under the direction of one mind.
Do we think for one moment, that if a hostile
force set foot on the shores of Canada, New
Brunswick or Nova Scotia, the heart of the
Empire would not thrill with indignation, and
the whole force of the Empire not be brought
to bear against the foe who thus insulted and
defied the British Crown, just as readily in
our isolated as it would be in our united condition? I think the danger from war is
one
on which no argument against submitting
this measure to the people can possibly be
based. (Hear, hear.) An hon. gentleman
has stated that the defences of the country
must remain at a stand-still until Confederation is accomplished. I do not know the
source from which that opinion came, or
whether it was spoken by authority. If it
was, it is certainly a startling announcement.
HON. MR. ROSS—We have certainly
been given to understand so, in this House.
HON. MR. VIDAL—I do not, and cannot
think the British Government is going to
leave us unprotected and undefended, even
if Confederation should not take place.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—We may assume that the preparations the Imperial
Government may make for the defence of
these colonies may be materially affected by
the result of our deliberations on this Confederation scheme—they may be influenced
by our capacity for defence, and the willingness shown to exert ourselves.
HON. MR. VIDAL—They may be eventually, but I am speaking of today, and I
am sure Her Majesty's Government will
readily send us to-day every assistance we
might need.
HON. MR. MACPHERSON—No progress is being made with our defences—the
whole question of defence seems waiting for
Confederation—nothing is being done.
That fact must be patent to every honorable
member of the House.
HON. MR. VIDAL—They may seem to
be waiting, but why I cannot conceive, for
every argument that can be brought to bear
to show that our defences will progress under
Confederation, can be equally available for
that purpose now. (Hear.) It has been
said by the Hon. the Commissioner of Crown
Lands, in reply to the member from Niagara,
that the country has not been taken by surprise by these resolutions. In this I differ
from him. lt is quite true that as far as the
question of union is concerned, it is not new-
the thought of union has long occupied
many minds—but I do contend, that with
reference to many points comprised in the
scheme, the country has been taken by surprise. No thought, no knowled whatever
of the character of many of the changes
proposed to be introduced ever entered the
minds of the people at large.
HON. MR. VIDAL—It may be a satisfactory surprise ; I have no doubt it is to
many. It was a satisfactory surprise to find
that gentlemen from all the provinces, of
different political parties, cou d meet together in such an amicable way, and make
such mutual concessions as to enable this
scheme to be presented at all. (Hear, hear.)
This is just what ought to have been done.
To represent me as opposed to Confederation
806
is a great mistake. It is just because I
appreciate its advantages, and wish to see
them secured without any chance of danger
resulting from the scheme having been too
hastily adopted, that I speak as I do. (Hear,
hear.) It is said the people were not appealed to when the unions between England
and
Scotland, and Great Britain and Ireland, were
brought about. That is quite true, but it is
equally true that these unions were brought
about by the Parliaments of those countries
—the representatives of the people. The
measures were arranged with them, and the
people were represented as to those unions
by their Parliaments.
HON. MR. VIDAL—l beg the honorable
gentleman's pardon. If he can find anything
in this scheme which has emanated from the
Parliament, it is new to me. Are we not
told that, if even one amendment is passed
by Parliament, it will destroy the scheme?
HON. MR. ROSS—The course taken here
is exactly that which was adopted in England. Negotiations first, then the submission
to Parliament of their result.
HON. MR. FERGUSSON BLAIR—The
unions between England and Ireland, and
England and Scotland, were not negotiations
merely; they were treaties; they were called
treaties—
HON. MR. ROSS—They were negotiated
first, and submitted to Parliament afterwards.
HON. MR. VIDAL—As it is not my intention to occupy the time of hon. gentlemen
On any other occasion during the debate, I
shall venture to touch on another point, not
directly connected with the amendment before us, on which I said a few words when
I
last addressed the House on this subject.
We have heard much about the proposed
new constitution of the Legislative Council.
We have been told it was political necessity
that first forced the elective system on minds
that were by no means enamoured of it, and
this, I think, has been fully established.
Now, it would ill become me, as an elected
member, to dwell on any merits or excellencies the elective system may have possessed
as applied to this branch of the Legislature—it is a subject we can none of us touch
upon with the same freedom which we might
if we were not ourselves elected--but I may
call the attention of the House to this, that
none of the evils that were dreaded, as likely
to flow from the elective system, have yet
shown themselves, and I do not think it at
all reasonable, much less necessary, that they
should be anticipated in time to come. My
own views were in perfect accord with those
of hon. gentlemen who protested against the
system when it was first introduced. I did
not then consider it an improvement, and
my views have not changed since; I have,
consequently, no personal predilections for
an Elective Council, but far prefer a Chamber
nominated by the Crown. But I am not here
to carry out only my personal views or predilections, but to guard the rights and
privileges of my constituents; and I would remind
hon. members that it is one thing to concede a
privilege, but a very different thing to take it
away. (Hear.) A privilege may be conceded unasked, but it is a dangerous thing
to take it away unasked or unassented to.
(Hear. hear ) I cannot find either that the
Canadian Government made any endeavor to
maintain the elective principle ; I cannot see
that the nomination system was forced on
them by the wishes of the Lower Provinces.
It may have been the desire of some of the
Maritime Provinces to maintain their nomination system, but the change in ours was
one which obviously met the wishes of the
members of this Government, and no effort
appears to have been made by them to preserve to the people of this country the privilege
they now enjoy of electing members of
this House. (Hear.) I think, also, that
there are objectionable features in certain
provisions of the scheme for which the
Canadian Government are responsible. I
speak not as an opponent, but as one of their
truest and best friends—one who is desirous
to keep them from doing a wrong. It is not
as an opponent to them or to Confederation
that I support the amendment of the hon.
member from Niagara.
HON. MR. ROSS—I think that amendment is a vote of want of confidence.
HON. MR. VIDAL—So it has been said;
but the assertion is not warranted by the
facts of the case; it is merely an arbitrary
declaration. I cannot consent to be put in
such a position as I should occupy if I
thought it were not. It is true, my hon.
friends in the Government may say, " You
will not do for us if you vote that way ;"
but I cannot sacrifice my views and vote
contrary to my convictions, in order to be
counted as a friend.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—My hon. friend
307
must see that if all our friends entertained the same views, we could never get our
measure through.
HON. MR. VIDAL—In compelling the
first selection of legislative councillors from
the members of the Chamber, the Conference
have put a restraint on the prerogative of the
Crown which they had no right to impose.
I am unwilling for a moment to suppose that
any law or unworthy motive actuated the
Canadian delegates, who alone are responsible for this detail, or that they did this
in hopes of securing the votes of any members
of this House in favor of their scheme, which
they could not otherwise have been sure of;
still that part of the scheme has an awkward
appearance, and some honorable members may
feel with the member from Wellington (Hon.
Mr. SANBOBN), that if it be not a bribe, it
looks something very like it. I, however,
do not see it in that light. I do not think
there has been anything worse than a desire
to make the system of appointment palatable
to the peeple, by taking a certain number of
their representatives, whom they then sent
to this House, to be members of the new
one. (Hear, hear.) As to the boasted impartiality apparent in the 14th resolution,
I
do not attach any importance to its provisions. If it were not the understanding that
the selection would be made in the manner
there laid down, there would be a strong
party opposition to the measure, which was
a thing to be avoided. (Hear, hear.) One
more subject connected with this part of the
scheme remains for me to speak on, and I
think it is an important one. Twenty-one
members of this Honorable House are to be
dismissed. It is quite true we do not know
who they may be.
HON. MR. VIDAL —I am not speaking of
the mode of selection. (Hear, hear.)—
Twenty-one members of this Legislative
Council are to be told that they are no
longer wanted. Are they to be those called
by Her Majesty in former times to sit here,
or those representing the peeple? It seems
to me only fair that those who hold appointments from the Crown for life are entitled
to
retain their seats, to go first into the new
House, and the rejection will then be of the
elected members. It will involve nearly half
of these, and it is quite obvious that it places
all honorable members ot this Chamber in a
sery anomalous position to be called upon to
sets on such a question as this. I may
remark that it would have been much the
wiser plan, and certainly much more congenial to the feelings of the members of this
House, had the Government thought fit to
have passed these resolutions in the Legislative Assembly first, and then, if those
who
are more especially representatives of the
people had chosen to pass this clause, we
should have felt less hesitation. As it is, I
feel it to be my duty to the constituency I
represent to lift my voice against it. I have
no right, without their consent, to vote away
from them a right they may cherish, a franchise they may value, even though I should
thereby vote myself in for life. which would
be a betrayal of my trust. Even my hon.
friend from Saugcen—so recently sent here
as the representative of that division—must
admit that a great many of his constituents
would vote " nay," if they thought the
scheme of Confederation was to be purchased
at the sacrifice of their representative.
(Hear, and a laugh.)
HON. MR. VIDAL—There is a difference
of opinion between my honorable friend and
myself on this point. (Hear, hear.) Honorable gentlemen, I have said I am favorable
to the scheme of union—I say it sincerely
and honestly—and notwithstanding the
Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands
may say "It cannot be so ; by supporting the
amendment you are destroying the scheme,"
I cannot see it so. My course, I think, is
that which is most conducive to the success
of the scheme. I consider myself one of its
best and most faithful friends in seeking to
have it more firmly based upon the approval
of the people, at the cost of a trifling delay.
A great deal has been said, as an introduction
to this measure, that was unworthy of it.
We have had long accounts of political and
party difficulties, which have been spoken of
as appertaining to it. These were too small
matters to have led to this great constitutional change. It was clearly seen by the
peeple, as well as by Her Majesty's representative, that these difiiculties were not
based
upon what they were said to be by some of
our politicians. What does His Excellency
say in a memorandum to the Executive
Council, communicated to this House on the
30th of June last?—" During this period,
(of the late successive governments since the
election of 1861,) no question involving any
308
great principle or calculated to prevent politicians, on public grounds, from acting
in
concert, has been raised in Parliament. The
time had arrived when an appeal might, with
propriety, be made to the patriotism of gentlemen on both sides of the House to throw
aside" —what? Their party measures? their
political interests? No—" their personal differences! and to unite in one endeavor
to
advance the great interests of the country."
A little further on he again mentions "the
absence of public grounds 'for antagonism
between them," and intimates plainly that
" such a state of things was very prejudicial
to the best interests of the province." As
I have already stated, the people were
rapidly coming to the same conclusion, and
this evil would soon have been removed by
their action at the elections, without resorting to any change in the Constitution.—
Such were His Excellency's views, communicated to his Council in a memorandum,
and I rejoiced to hear them enunciated by
him. They are views which, it held also
by the people, would have led to a thorough
cure for the evils under which we labored,
even without resorting to Confederation, for
the people themselves were beginning to
see that their political leaders were too much
under the influence of bitter personal feelings; prominence was no longer given to
the
constitutional dificulty of unequal representation; it was dropped both by its friends
and its opponents. Yet representation by
population was a question of such political
importance, that its satisfactory solution
would justify the bringing about such a
change as this. That was a sufficient motive
to induce statesmen to join together and seek
some way of escape from it. I think the
scheme now submitted is perhaps the best
that could have been found attainable, and I
give its framers all credit for it. I am satisfied with nine-tenths or perhaps more
than
nine-tenths of the whole, and I am willing
to take the other tenth, if really necessary,
for the sake of the rest. I think the very
name, and the prestige of our larger union
will have a desirable influence upon our future
prosperity. It will infuse into us that feeling
of national pride—those patriotic sentiments
connected with our country, which it is worth
much to possess. (Hear.) I think, also, that
our credit in money matters will be improved
by the union, and it is worth some sacrifice to
accomplish such results. I believe, further,
that when this scheme is completed it will
have the effect of attracting emigration, and
thus adding largely to our population. As
we are, in our presented isolated condition,
we either fail to attract emigrants or do
not manage to retain them ; but if we were
known as one great country, we should find
homes for many of those able-bodied, enterprising and industrious men who constitute
the
great strength and wealth of a State. It would
also, undoubtedly, promote our commerce and
develope our trade and resources. It is well
to weigh all these considerations; they may
not promise advantages so great as some of
the sanguine advocates of the measure predict, but they are well entitled to fair
and
honest consideration. (Hear.) As to Confederation cheapening our government, that
idea, I think, is a fallacy; and here is one of
the causes which may lead to future dissatisfaction, if the eyes of the people are
not
opened to it until too late. The proper and
the true way to act is to let the fact be
known, that so far from Confederation being
likely to lessen the expenses of government,
it will be directly the reverse, and that to
these must be added the cost of those
defences which are to be constructed—of
this Intercolouial road which is to be a
necessary part of the scheme—of these
other works on the canals, &c., we hear so
much about. Confederation will, doubtless,
be expensive; then why not say so—why not
say to the peeple, " Here are "great advantages, but they will inevitably cost a large
sum." I for one am willing to take these
advantages at that cost. I have not analyzed
the numerous figures set before us by my
hon. friend from Niagara, for profusion and
confusion in matters of figures in a speech
are very much the same to me. I will not
pretend to follow him. But I have such
confidence in the financial ability of those
who watched over our interests, that I am
unwilling to receive, except with great caution, those objections brought in figures
against the measure. One honorable gentleman remarked that the hand of an overruling
Providence might be observed as
bringing about this scheme and reconciling
so many conflicting influences. That is
very true. I delight to recognize an overruling Providence influencing the lives of
individuals and nations. I rejoice that
the blessing of an over-ruling Providence
on the deliberations of this House is daily
asked, and I have faith to believe it will
be granted to us. But I should have
309
the same comfortable feeling if the question
were referred to the people; so that as an
t in favor of our making an immediate decision does not amount to much, and
it certainly does not impose on us the duty
of hastily taking the whole scheme as it is.
(Hear, hear.) I have endeavoured, hon.
gentlemen, to show that I am guided by an
honest, earnest desire to advance the interests
of the count by the course I now propose
to take in reference to this amendment, and
I have endeavored to disabuse the minds of
those who think that in supporting it I am
acting in hostility to a scheme which I
believe will be advantageous to the country,
but the advantages of which I think cannot
be secured without referring it to the people.
I presume it is altogether likely—perhaps I
may consider it a certainty—that this is to
be the last time I shall appear as a representative in the Council of my country.
I am
anxious, short as my parliamentary career
has been and is probably destined to be, that
it should he unsullied by anything that can
even have the appearance of selfishness. I
am, therefore, unwilling to record a vote
which might either have the effect of making
me a member for life, or of helping to take
away the privilege which my constituents at
present enjoy, of having a representative in
the Legislative Council. (Hear, hear.)
HON. Mr. BUREAU—It is not my intention to take art in the debate on the
amendment which is now engaging the attention of this Honorable House; but I really
do not feel justified in passing over in silence
the declaration which has just been made by
the hon. member for Toronto Hon. Mr.
Ross) That gentleman said, with perfect
naiveté, that if the Ministry submitted a bill
respecting the organization of the local
governments, the course would be a bad one ;
for, said he, diflicnlties would probably arise
in relation to the matter, whic might result
in the resignation of several members of the
present Cabinet. In those few words the
hon. member for Toronto has furnished the
best argument in favor of the delay for which
we ask ; but such was not his intention. In
a similar sense, some other hon. members
have, in my opinion, exhibited a degree of
force and logic which is truly remarkable.
But can it be possible to make a request
more essentially legitimate in its character
than that of the hon. member for Niagara?
For my part, I do not think so. And indeed,
what can be more reasonable than the wish
to know, and to be in a position to form a
sound, complete and satisfactory opinion, both
for ourselves and for our constituents, respecting the scheme which is proposed to
us?
as not this House a right to require the
present Government, within a reasonable
period, to lay before it, not only in a general
way, but also and more especially in detail,
the various aspects of the Constitution which
it is wished to have voted with such strange
and imprudent precipitation ? Let us remember that sometimes no diflicnlty whatever
is raised to devoting an entire session
to the consideration of a measure of secondary importance. Last year no attempt was
made to pass a new Militia Bill at railroad
speed, as it is now proposed to do with the
measure for Confederation ; on the contrary,
all the time necessary to complete it and to
examine it in all its aspects was devoted to
its consideration. And yet, how immense
the difference between these two measures,
in regard to their importance and the solemn
consequences which might result from them !
And further, it cannot be denied, the plan
which it is sought to make us adopt is as yet
but imperfectly known to the Canadian Legislature, and the people hardly know its
outlines, not having yet had time to examine
into it, so closely have our ministers invested
it with mystery and secrecy. I consider that
the hon. member for Tomato showed rather
too much zeal in the cause of his friends
when he proceeded to make that declaration,
which was heard by the House with well-
marked surprise. I am prepared to acknowledge that in so doing he has done us a very
great service. I have no doubt whatever,
in fact. that as we have been told by the
hon. gentleman, the disclosing of the organization of the local governments during
this
phase of the discussion would, for the Administration of the day, be an act of imprudencc,
and one which, it is highly probable, would
subject it to serious difficulties. I am also
of opinion that one of the difficulties, of by
no means the least importance, which is feared
is that respecting the distribution or division
of the part of the public debt which will have
to be borne by the different provinces. Indeed
it may, with very great reason, he asked
whether it will be possible to come to an understanding on this point. With a degree
of courage worthy of a better cause, the
Ministry now comes to us and says : " First
vote the Address, and afterwards we will lay
before you the scheme for the organisation
310
of the local governments." But let us note
the contradiction in this on the part of the
Government, and how illogical its conduct is.
Let us for a moment suppose that this measure gives rise to dificulties in the Cabinet,
during the discussion on the details of the
scheme, of suficient importance to entail the
resignation of the Administration. What
happens? The Address having been voted
by our Legislature, is sent to England, and
whilst the Imperial Government is engaged
in ratifying it and incorporating it in a bill,
which is to become our Constitution, the
present Ministry succumbs under the details
of the scheme respecting the local governments. A new ministry succeeds them, an
appeal to the people probably takes place in
the interval, and when the new Constitution
comes to us from Great Britain, we have a
Government and a Legislature ready to reject
it before its promulgation. In view of such a
prospect as this, ought we to be in a hurry to
accede to the request of the Government and
refuse the legitimate delay asked for by the
motion now before this Honorable House? I
have, then, considered that I ought not to
pass over in silence the declaration of the
hon. member for Toronto, for I am of opinion
that it is of a nature to convince us that precipitation in so highly solemn a matter
is
most dangerous. The Constitution of a
country should not be changed from base to
summit until those who are appointed to
watch over the public interests, and the very
Constitution in question, have had time to see
and to ascertain, in a positive manner, that
such a change is necessary and called for by
the people. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. OLIVIER—Honorable gentlemen, in again rising to address the
House, I beg to assure you that I do not
propose to repeat the observations I have
already made on a previous occasion; but
being pressed for time, I was obliged to omit
to refer to certain aspects of the scheme on
which I proposed to offer a few remarks
when the present motion should be before
the House. I was aware that this motion
would come up for discussion, as it appeared
upon our
Minutes of Proceedings. With
these few preliminary observations I shall
proceed, honorable gentlemen, to offer a few
remarks on some few points in the scheme
which I was compelled to pass over in
silence on the occasion of my first address
ou the plan of Confederation now submitted
for our consideration. I must refer here,
honorable gentlemen, to a wonderful incident
of this afternoon's sitting. A declaration,
novel in every respect to each one of us, fell
from the lips of the Honorable the Minister
of Crown Lands, who has only had this one
sole reason to offer us in explanation of, and
excuse for, the precipitate haste with which
his Government is endeavoring to obtain the
adoption of the new Constitution :—" We are
anxious to obtain the vote of this House, to
transmit it to New Brunswick and to the other
Maritime Provinces which are to enter into
the Confederation." This, then, is the real
reason of this incomprehensible and indecent
haste, for I cannot believe that the reason
given by the hon. member who sits immediately opposite to me (Sir N. F. BELLEAU),
in
explanation of this haste, can be a serious one.
It is diflicult, indeed, not to consideras somewhat absurd the reason alleged by the
Hon.
Sir N. F. BELLEAU:—"The Ministry are
anxious that this scheme should be adopted
forthwith, because Lord PALMERSTON is
already an old man, and might die at any
moment." I would rather accept the reason
given by the Hon. Minister of Crown Lands
than that of my honorable friend, because
I cannot believe hc was authorized to give
it. Thus this House and the country now
know the secret of this precipitate haste on
the part of the Government, and I have no
doubt they will bear it in mind. But I will
venture to enquire of the Honorable the
Minister of Crown Lands, who has given us
this very absurd reason, whether he hopes
to deceive the people of the Lower Provinces
by the vote which he desires to precipitate.
I will ask him whether it is to be desired
that this House should forthwith give a vote
on this question, a vote which will undoubtedly have the effect of leading them into
error as regards the feelings and opinions of
the people of this country in relation to the
project of Confederation. Well, honorable
gentlemen, I do not for one moment hesitate
to declare to this House, that the fact alone
of the anxiety of the Government to obtain
forthwith a vote of this House on this important measure, is that which ought most
of all to put us on our guard, and ought to
cause us to determine not to give it lightly,
and in a manner unworthy of prudent and
wise legislators. Indeed, honerable gentlemen, our vote will have a significance
which it will be vain to seek to diminish.
811
We constitute the highest branch of the
Parliament of this country, and when the
Lower Provinces hear that we have voted for
this measure in the shape in which it has been
laid before us, they will naturally and with
reason believe that our vote has been given
with a thorough knowledge of the matter, and
that we fully indicate the popular feeling on
this important question. They will never
for a moment imagine that we have set at
naught and ignored the opinions of those
whom we represent in this House ; they will
never believe that the country has been so little
consulted in the matters as it in fact has been.
I assert, therefore, honorable gentlemen, that
the vote which it is sought to make us give
to-day is calculated to deceive the people of
the Lower Provinces, both as to the views
of this Honorable House and as to the
opinions of the vast majority of the people of
this province, and that we cannot give it with
satisfaction either to ourselves or to those
whom we represent. I have already taken
occasion to state before today, that the
scheme of Confederation had not been submitted to us complete. I am prepared to
prove this statement; I maintain that only
one part of the scheme has been laid before
us, and under these circumstances, I would
ask this Honorable House, if it is prudent to
accept and sanction that with which we are but
imperfectly acquainted? When I accepted
my constituents their nomination to
the Legislative Council, I did so with the
firm determination never to accept blindly
the various measures which might be submitted for my approval in this House. This
resolution I have adhered to hitherto, and I
hope thatI shall never forget it in the course
of my public career. A few minutes ago I
remarked, honorable gentlemen, that the
plan of Confederation had not been submitted to us complete; I now propose to
prove this assertion. By art. 6 of the 43rd resolution, we perceive that the local
legislatures
will have the power of making laws in relation
to education, saving, however, the rights and
privileges enjoyed by the Catholic and Protestant minorities in relation to their
separate schools at the time of the union; so
that by this resolution we are to affirm that
the minorities shall be bound by the school
laws which will be in force at the moment
when Confederation will take effect. On
the other hand, we are told that a measure
will be brought down for the better protection of the rights of the Protestant minority
in Lower Canada, whilst at the same time
we are not informed whether the same advantages will be accorded to the Catholic
minority in Upper Canada. Thus these
school laws form a portion of the scheme
upon which we are called to vote, and if
unfortunately, after we have adopted these
resolutions we are unable to obtain justice for the Upper Canadian minority,
shall we not be guilty of having voted for the
scheme without having known all about it?
We ought then to be on our guard. If, as
it is pretended, the measure will not endanger
the rights of the Catholic minority in Upper
Canada, why are we refused the details and
the information which we ask to have
afforded to us before pronouncing on the
merits of the plan? I maintain that any one
who desires that justice should be extended
to the minorities in question, would not
know how to vote as we are called upon to
do. In the absence of the information which
we are entitled to demand from the Government as to the nature of the guarantees to
be
offered by the new Constitution to the
minorities of the two provinces of Canada,
I do not for one instant hesitate to declare
that this Honorable House is justified, and
indeed fulfils a sacred duty in demanding the
delay sought for by the motion of the hon.
member for Niagara. If it should so happen
that the people are called upon to pronounce
on the merits of the measure, it becomes of
the utmost necessity that we, their representatives, should be able to explain and
point
out to them the details of the scheme. We
have then every reason to insist that this
information should be supplied to us. The
Premier will now permit me to put to him a
question. May it not happen, after the adoption of these resolutions, that the Protestant
majority of Upper Canada may ally itself
with the Protestant minority of Lower
Canada in the present Parliament, and deprive the Catholic majority of Upper Canada
of the rights which they are entitled to
enjoy in relation to the education of their
children ? Should such an event occur, I
would ask the hon. Premier what means
the aggrieved minority might be able to
adopt in order to obtain justice?
HON. MR. OLIVIER—The hon. the
Premier ought to give us the details of the
measure on this subject. I do not mean to
assert that I am opposed to every possible
312
form of Confederation; but what I can never
consent to is to vote for a Confederation of
which I know neither the exact nature nor
the details. The article which I have already
quoted is one of those to which I desired
more particularly to draw attention. I will
now quote the 67th resolution. I find by
this resolution " that the General Government
will fulfil all engagements entered into, previous to the union, with the Imperial
Government, for the defence of the country."
Now, strange to say, the authors of this document do not even take the trouble to
state by
whom such engagements must be made. No,
they simply assert the obligation in the terms
of the resolution I have just quoted. Suppose our Government had entered into an
engagement to the extent of fifty millions
of dollars, shall we—can we—affirm that the
engagement was a necessary one, by voting
for the measure without knowing the nature
of the engagement? Coming now to the
68th resolution, I find: " The General Government will cause to be completed, without
delay, the Intercolonial Railway, from
Rivière du Loup, through New Brunswick,
to Truro, in Nova Scotia." Now, hon.
gentlemen, I maintain that this is another
portion of the plan with which we are not
acquainted. We do not know what is to be
the cost of this railway thus described in
the resolution I have just read. Here,
again, we are kept in the most complete
ignorance by the present Government. An
honorable member of this House has declared,
that though the Intercolonial Railway were
to cost fifty millions of dollars, we should not
hesitate to support a measure for carrying it
out ; for, even at that price—that exorbitant price—it would be for the interests
of the country. Well, I ask you, would this
House be acting in accordance with that
spirit of wisdom and prudence which ought
to characterize it, by voting blindly for such
an enormous expenditure as that? I do not
believe it, and for my part, I do not hesitate
an instant to say that I would refuse. I am
well aware, it is true, that the construction
of this gigantic railway cannot cost so large
a sum ; but it is generally admitted, both in
this House and out of it, that the work
cannot be done for less than twenty millions.
Moreover, does it not often happen that
public works estimated to cost, say one
million of dollars, are found to have cost,
when finished, double and more than double
that amount? This may happen with the
Intercolonial Railway, which, it is perfectly
clear, will cost more than is supposed;
and I repeat it, this House ought to hesitate
before sanctioning such an enormous expenditure out of a public treasury already
heavily charged, and which will scarcely be
in a more flourishing position when the
various British provinces of this continent
are united under the Confederation. I am
justified, then, in demanding that the details
of the plan should be made known to us
before we are called upon to sanction it. I
have already stated that I do not pretend to
be opposed to Federation of the provinces in
every possible shape—that I might support
a Confederation not of too onerous a character for this country—but it is obviously
quite impossible for me to support a project
of this kind, with which I am unacquainted,
in its details and as a whole. It appears to
me that the Ministry cannot complain if,
under these circumstances, we vote against a
project which we desired to know fully in
order to form our opinions concerning it,
and to ascertain that of the peeple we represent. I do not think it can be pretended
that this House is not entitled to make so just
and reasonable a request. As I have shown,
hon. gentlemen, if we accept the resolutions
presented to us, we endanger the rights of
the minorities in both sections of the province; we expose ourselves to the payment
of enormous sums for the construction of
a railway which may prove to be utterly
useless for the defence of the country.
It seems to me that, before undertaking
such onerous charges, we ought to reflect deeply and to weigh well all possible chances
of such serious eventualities.
I am quite aware that certain hon. members
of this House will never yield to the reasons
I have advanced, nor shall I undertake to
bring them round to my views, for I feel
that all my efforts must be useless. The
fact that we refuse to accept the measure
proposed to us before we are acquainted with
it, certainly does not imply, as it is stated
and supposed, that we are opposed to every
idea of Confederation. Another provision
of the project which we cannot approve is
that by which the constitution of the Legislative Council is based on the nominative
principle, instead of the elective principle
which now prevails, as regards that branch
of the Legislature, under our own Government. I have already had occasion to express
my opinion as to the constitutional
313
changes undergone by our own Legislative
Council, so that I need not recur to that subject. The Hon. Commissioner of Crown
Lands has asserted that we are justified in
voting on the proposed reversal of the Constitution without an appeal to the people.
I beg to differ from that opinion. I know
the nature of a trust, whether civil or
political; they both entail very much the
same duties. Well, what is the charge entrusted to us by our constituents? That of
working out the present Constitution to the
best of our understanding and of our judgment. Such is the power entrusted to us;
but never have our electors authorized us,
as it is now proposed to do, to destroy the
Constitution itself and to enter into a political
alliance with the other British provinces of
this continent. An instance of a similar
constitutional subversion, without the
authorization of the people, is not to be
found in the pages of history. It has been
stated in this House that the project of Confederation was known to a portion of the
people, and that there was nothing to prevent its adoption being pressed. Here again,
I beg to differ with the hon. members who
express that opinion. I think that even
though the project were, as stated, known
by a portion of the people, that would not
be a reason for precipitating its adoption,
for the plan interests the whole country
generally, and it is not sufficient that it
should be acceptable to a certain portion of
the inhabitants, but to the great mass of the
people. Moreover, if the public meetings
already held in Lower Canada serve to indicate the popular opinion relative to this
question, in this section of the country
at all events, it may fearlessly be said
that the project has been condemned
in fifteen counties. Will any one venture to pretend that Lower Canada is to
be of no account in the Confederation,
and that Upper Canada alone has a
right to make its voice heard ; that only its
approval or disapproval of the scheme can
entail the adoption or rejection of that
scheme? Most assuredly, I do not believe
that any one would ever venture to enunciate
such a pretension. I know of but one single
county in Lower Canada which authorized
its representative to vote on the scheme in
question as he should think fit. I therefore
consider that I am justified in saying, that
the reason which induces the Government to
cause this measure to be adopted without
submitting all its details, is that it fears to
have those details known by the people, who
no doubt would have no course left save to
reject them. After having displayed Confederation clothed in the most brilliant colors,
the Administration fears to allow the people
to examine it in its true light, and as it is
intended to thrust it upon them. I have
already stated that throughout the whole of
Lower Canada, but one county has been
found which granted to its representative the
privilege of voting on this question according
to his own judgment. In all the remaining
counties in which the people have been called
together to pronounce upon it, the scheme of
Confederation has been formally condemned.
HON. MR. GUEVREMONT—Several
counties pronounced themselves in favor of
the scheme; among others, the county of
Vaudreuil.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—I am not aware
that the county of Vaudreuil voted in favor
of Confederation. The honorable member
for Richelieu had also mentioned the county
of Richelieu as one of those which had not
rejected the scheme of Confederation.
HON. MR. GUEVREMONT—The meeting in question did not condemn Confederation. It merely declared itself
in favor of
certain resolutions which were submitted to
it, which demanded that the people should
be consulted as to the proposed constitutional
changes.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—It is perfectly
true that the county of Richelieu never
condemned the details of the measure, and
for a very simple reason: the Government
had never, allowed them to be known, and
still persists at this present time in keeping
the country in ignorance of them. But the
honorable gentleman admits that the county
of Richelieu directed its representative to
demand an appeal to the people. To say
that Lower Canada is favorable to the scheme
of Confederation, is to make an assertion to
which the public meetings which have been
held within the last month or two give the
lie in the most formal manner. I know what
to think of the expression of public opinion
in the district of Montreal; as to the district
of Quebec, perhaps the honorable gentlemen
who represent the several divisions comprised in it will be good enough to tell
me whether or not there have been any
meetings in favor of Confederation ? Until
I am shewn that the project has been approved there, I shall venture to believe that
in the district of Quebec, as in the district
of Montreal, public opinion has not approved
314
of the proposed Confederation. I do not
wish to assert that the country at large is
averse to any idea of Confederation, but I
maintain that it cannot be in favor of a
scheme with the details of which it is unacquainted, and of the entirety of which
it
is ignorant. The most effectual means of
providing for the defence of a country is to
make the people attached to the Constitution
of the country ; to attempt to force a constitution upon them is, in plain language,
to impel them towards anarchy. Ah! we
are already surrounded by dangers enough
to abstain from aggravating our position.
Let us conduct ourselves so that the people
may be attached to their constitution, and
then we may rest assured that they will be
ready to defend it when it is threatened.
Undoubtedly, it is not by acting as we are
now doing that we shall attain that result.
The reason assigned by the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands for urging on this
measure does not appear to me to he sufficient. We are not here to please the Maritime
Provinces or to legislate in their interests, but we are here to preserve the rights
of our fellow-citizens. We did not come
here with a predetermined resolution to
throw impediments in the way of any plan
of union. We are all interested in the prosperity and greatness of our country. The
last time I had the honor to address this
Honorable House, I stated that with respect
to the questions which possessed the highest
interest for Lower Canada, the proposed
Confederation would be a legislative union,
that is to say, that we should be at the
mercy of Upper Canada and the Maritime
Provinces. I expressed that opinion in good
faith, and if I was incorrect in my conjectures, I hope that the members of the
Government will be good enough to enlighten
me on the subject, and point out my error.
Such was not done at the time, for I cannot
accept as a satisfactory reply the few explanations given on the subject by the honorable
member who sits opposite to me. I say that
the Federal Government will have power to
declare that religious corporations, for instance, shall not be allowed to hold real
estate of more than a certain value—more
than is required for the immediate necessities
of their establishments. It will also have
power to enact that there shall be no connection between Church and State. I say
that the powers of the Federal Government
will be so great that Lower Canada will he a
cypher in the affairs which most concern her.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—I am glad that the
honorable and gallant Knight confesses so
much.
HON. MR. E. P. TACHÉ—The hon. member must surely understand my meaning in
saying "yes." He must be aware that I mean
it in irony.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—If the honorable
and gallant Knight says it in irony, I for my
part can only tell him that I regret to see,
when I ask questions in sober earnest concerning the affairs of the country, when
I
ask for information on so important a matter,
I can get no answer but an ironical one. I
ask for information, because I confess, for
my part, that I may be mistaken in my
opinions on this matter. My opinions are
not infallible any more than those of the
members of the Quebec Conference—any
more than those of the Lower Canadian
members of the Ministr ; audit is for that
very reason that I see information which
may serve to enlighten me and enable me to
form a correct judgment on the question.
Have those who devised this scheme the
presumption to think that they are not liable
to mistake? When I ask for the details of
the scheme in the name of my constituents,
I am answered ironically. But I know what
such answers are worth. I know that some
persons have recourse to irony when they
have no serious answer to make, when they
have no solid reasons to give. I know what
discussion is; and, if I have not often mixed
in the debates of this Honorable House, I
have argued at the bar, and I am perfectly
aware that those who have no vali reasons
to oppose to the pleas of their adversaries,
endeavor to shift their ground and blink the
issue, by calling attention to some minor
point and calling in the aid of irony. If I
am denied the explanations which I claim in
this lace, how can I answer the questions
which my constituents have a right to ask
me ? But I must now address myself to the
consideration of the appointment of members
by
mandamus which is to be introduced into
the new Constitution of the Federal Legislative Council. When I heard the honorable
and gallant Knight tell the history of the
last moments of the Legislative Council
sitting under that authority, I took it as the
strongest sentence of condemnation of the
present scheme. He told us, in effect, that
those members who had been appointed for life
were honorable men, who by their position
315
and their integrity were rightly entitled to
carry their heads erect; whereas, when they
passed along the streets, it was with heads
drooping. Why is this?
HON SIR E. P. TACHÉ- I did not say
that they hung their heads as they walked the
streets. I said they were honorable men
who had a right to carry their heads high
wherever they went, but that they were
averse to coming here to sit in the Council
on account of the prejudices of public opinion
which had been misguided.
HON. MR. OLIVIER—The unanimous
opinion of a country is not so misguided,
and the opinion of the country was unanimous in condemning the system of nomination
to the Council by the Crown. In order
to produce as great unanimity of public
opinion as prevailed in regard to that system,
cause which leads to it must be slow and
deep-seated—the grounds of dissatisfaction
must be real. Both Lower and Upper Canada must, have suffered long under that
system, to condemn it as they both did ; and
I regret deeply to hear from the honorable
and gallant Knight that he is willing to
return to it. It may be that as men advance
in years they may change their views and
opinions; but it seems to me that they ought
not to change them in so short a space of
time as the honorable and gallant Knight
has changed his in regard to the Constitution
of the Legislative Council. It is not so
very long since the document which has
been read this evening was signed. I say,
then, that the history told us by the honorable and gallant Knight is the condemnation
of the system now sought to he introduced.
After what the honorable and gallant Knight
has said about the councillors appointed by
the Crown, with what grace can the new
councillors come here to take their seats?
Will not the prejudice against them be
at than ever? inasmuch as it will be
said that those who have voted for the
scheme now before us have done it to keep
their seats as long as they live; What
respect can the people feel for such a House?
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—We know that
you will not barter the rights of the people
for a mess of pottage .
HON. MR. OLIVIER—Nor for a dish of
gold. either. I ask whether the Government
of the honorable and gallant Knight have ever
found are among those who ask their favors?
HON. MR. OLIVIER—I see the meaning
of the honorable and gallant Knight, and
when I am told ironically that I would not
barter the rights of the people for a mess of
pottage, I have a right to say that I would
not sell them even for a dish of gold ; for so
far, thank God! no government have ever
reckoned me among those who ask their
favors. I live by my labor, and want nothing
from the Government. I took notice of an
expression made use of by the honorable
and gallant Knight in speaking of the last
moments of the legislative Council appointed
by the Crown. He told us that to restore
the credit of the Legislative Council it had
been found necessary to make it elective ;
but this was not the sole inducement for the
change; there was another motive quite as
reasonable for making the Council elective,
and this motive was that in causing the
Councillors to be elected, they would be
taken from among all parties in the country,
and would, therefore, represent the public
opinion of the different parties in it. There
was a time, under the old order of things,
when the opinions of two or three men
residing in the cities ot Quebec and Montreal formed the public opinion of all Lower
Canada. This had a bad effect, for the
public opinions of the different parties in
the country ought to be represented in this
House as well as in the other. It was for
the purpose of attaining this end that the
country was broken up into divisions, that
it was required that the councillors elected
should be residents in the divisions, or
should be the owners of real estate within
their limits of the value of ÂŁ2,000; but
under the system of Crown nominations to
seats in this House, the choice might fall,
as it formerly did, on persons residing in the
large cities; it would not be difficult for
them to acquire ÂŁ1,000 worth of real estate
in the divisions, and the country would not
be equally represented in this House. Another reason why the elective system is
preferable to that of nominations by the
Crown is that on every fresh election the
newly elected member represents the opinions
of the people then prevailing, whereas councillors appointed for life may sometimes
represent public opinion as it existed twenty
316
years before. The progress of the country
requires that from time to time men should
enter this House as representatives of the
opinions of the day.
HON. MR. ARMSTRONG moved that
the House do now adjourn.—Contents, 21 ;
Non—Contents, 29.
HON. Mr. OLIVIER—I shall now endeavor to answer an objection made by the
Hon. the Commissioner of Crown Lands
(Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL) to the motion of the
honorable member for Niagara (Hon. Mr.
CURRIE). He would make it appear that
the motion is inconsistent with the position
taken by the honorable member who seconded
the motion, because he declared himself as
favorable to Confederation. For my part, I
can see no inconsistency in the proceeding
of the honorable member, who merely asks
that time be allowed that the people may
give their opinions on the question. He
does not care in what manner it is allowed.
If the Government do allow time for the
purpose, it will rest with them to say whether
the question shall be submitted to the peeple
by means of a general election, or some
other way. The amendment of the honorable member for Niagara does not suggest
any particular way of submitting the question to the country. He only asks that
it be so submitted, leaving to the Government to choose the most convenient method
of doing it. And this is exactly the position
which I have myself taken. I have told
honorable members who seemed to believe
me altogether opposed to Confederation, that
it is not the case, that I only want time to
ascertain whether the eople are in favor of
the scheme or not. Only if the project is
submitted to the people, it is desirable that
it be presented to them in all its details,
and not in the skeleton shape in which it
is now laid before us. I have no intention
to weary the attention of the House, but I
thought it right to express my views and
say why I intend to vote in favor of the
motion of the honorable member for Niagara. (Hear, hear.)
The amendment moved by the Hon. Mr.
Cnam was then put to the vote, and lost
on the following division :—
CONTENTS.—The Honorable Messieurs Aikins,
Archambault, Armstrong , Chaffers, Currie, Dickson, A. J. Duchesnay, E H. J. Duchesnay,
Flint,
Leonard, Malhiot, Olivier, Perry, Proulx, Read,
Reesor, Seymour, Simpson, and Vidal.—19.
NON-Contents—The Honorable Messieurs
Alexander, Armand, Sir N. F. Belleau, Bennett,
Blake, Boulton, Bull, Burnham, Campbell, Christie, Crawford, De Beaujeu, Dumouchel,
Foster,
Gingras, Guévremont, Hamilton (Inkerman),
Hamilton (Kingston), Lacoste, McCrea, McDonald, McMaster, Macpherson, Matheson, Mills,
Panet, Ross, Shaw, Skead, Sir E. P. Taché,
and Wilson.—31.
On motion of the Hon. Mr. Aikins, the
debate was then adjourned.
This individual participated in:
