316
MONDAY, February 20, 1865.
HON. MR. AIKINS said â Hon. gentlemen, when I last had the honor of addressing the House, it will
be remembered by
those hon. gentlemen who were present that I
spoke very strongly in relation to the changes
contemplated by these resolutions in reference to this Chamber. Since then, although
I have listened very attentively to the
speeches of honorable gentlemen, I have
heard no good reason to convince me that the
elective principle as re ds this honorable
House should be abolished. It has been
asserted by those who are strong advocates
of Confederation, that if any amendment
is passed affecting the general principles of
the resolutions, it will be considered a defeat ;
that the scheme will have to be considered
again, and that negotiations with the
Maritime Provinces wil have to be resumed
in order to meet the altered view of the case.
Had the amendment of the hon. member for
Wellington (Hon. Mr. SANBOBN) been carried, this might have been the case ; but as
the motion which I amabout to move applies
only to the Canadas, that would not be so.
It will be remembered that that amendment
afirmed not only the elective principle for all
the provinces, but that the life members who
are now sitting in this House should continue
to hold their seats. It went further and
declared that a number to correspond with
the life members should be admitted to the
Chamber from the Maritime Provinces. In
referring to the vote which was taken on this
amendment, I find that in the 4l votes cast
against it, 11 of the life members of the
House voted against, while only three voted
for it ; thus they, by a large majority vote,
negatived the principles therein affirmed. I
refer to this particularly, for this reason, that
the ground may be taken by the lilc members in this Chamber that my amendment is
specially directed against, and if carried,
would be applicable to these hon. gentle
317men. The vote they have already given on the
resolution referred to is my vindication,
and
they, in affirming the general principles of
the Confederation resolutions, will vote for
that which may deprive them of their seats.
HON.
MB. AIKINSâThe hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands cries " Hear, hear !"
But, after the life members of the
House have affirmed by their votes that
they do not desire that the elective principle
should obtain, I do not think they can find
fault with me, an elective member, for affirming that it should prevail. And it does
appear to me, hon. gentlemen, that this
House, if constituted as foreshadowed by
these resolutions, would be one of the most
independent and irresponsible bodies that
could possibly be created, the Crown possessing no power whatever over it. There is
no
power of dissolution; the Crown has no
power to add to the number; and whatever
difficulties might possibly occur under the
elective system, when the opportunity is
afforded to the people of correcting those difficulties, it will be found that these
difficulties
will be largely increased under the proposed
system. It has been stated by some hon. members that a dead-lock might occur. That
was
the impression which prevailed when the elective principle was introduced ; but few
have
thought proper to use such an argument
during the present debate, because it has
not been proved by the result.
But if it
were possible for a dead-lock to
occur under
the elective system, it is far more probable
under the system proposed in the resolutions.
If a feeling had been manifested by this
Chamber since the elective principle was
introducedâif we had attempted in any one
respect to usurp the exclusive privileges of
the Legislative Assemblyâit might then with
truth be affirmed that the
introduction of
the elective principle in this Chamber was a
dangerous one. But such has not been the
case. I think that the elective principle
has worked well, and that so far as the danger
of a conflict is concerned, it is as far removed
under the present system as under the
nominative system. Holding these views, I
have thought it proper to place my amendment before the House, and I trust that the
question will be discussed fairly on its merits.
I beg now to move, seconded by Hon. Mr.
Bureau,-
To resolve, in amendment the resolutions
of
the Hon. Sir E. P. Tache,âThat
the Legislative
Councillors representing Upper and Lower
Canada
in the Legislative Council of the General Legislature, shall be elected as at present,
to represent
the forty-eight electoral divisions mentioned in
schedule A of chapter first of the Consolidated
Statutes of Canada and each such Councillor
shall reside or possess the qualification in the
division he is elected to represent.
The ground may be taken by many hon.
gentlemen who are strongly in favor of this
scheme, that there is much more symmetry
in the scheme presented by the resolutions,
and which this motion, if carried, would mar.
But really there is very little harmony in
them. Under them the appointed councillors will, in Lower Canada, be required to
reside in certain divisions or to hold their
property there. In Upper Canada the same
property qualification applies,
but as to
residence there is no restriction ; whilst in
one of the Maritime Provinces (Prince Edward) qualification is based on personal
preperty only. Hence there is in reality
very little symmetry about the scheme.
(Hear hear.)
HON. Sir. N. F. BELLEAU raised the
point of order that the amendment had in
substance been already disposed of by the vote
on the amendment of Hon. Mr. SANBORN.
The
Hon. The SPEAKERâThe question of order raised by the hon. gentleman is
whether the amendment now proposed is not
substantially the same as the one voted on by
the House and brought forward by the Hon.
Mr. SANBORN, and if it is, whether it is in
order? Before giving my decision, I wish that
the mover of the amendment should himself
explain the difference between his motion
and that already decided by the House, if
he thinks proper to do so.
HON. MR. AIKINSâI contend that it is
not the same, in effect, as the motion brought
forward by the hon. member for Wellington. It is true that the elective principle
is
aflirmed in both; but then the motion of
the Hon. Mr. SANBORN went further and
applied the elective principle to the Maritime
Provinces, and was favorable to the retention
of the life members, and it also extended
the life principle to the Maritime Provinces,
and contemplated the addition of ten life
members to this Chamber from these provinces. My motion simply aflirms the elective
principle so far as Canada is concerned,
and between the two I think there is a
material difference.
HON. MR. ROSSâThere is no doubt that
the motion of the honorable member for
318
Wellington embraced all that this
contains,
and a great deal more. So that if in the
motion that was disposed of the other day,
there was embraced what this motion contains, the present motion is out of order,
containing as it does a principle which has
already been pronounced upon by this House.
THE HON.
THE SPEAKERâThere may
be some difficulty in deciding on a matter of
this kind, because the two motions, although
not exactly identical, are very nearly so in one
particular. The argument that the motion
of Hon. Mr. SANBORN contained more than
is embraced in this motion does not apply.
The question is, does this affirm what was
contained in the motion already voted upon ?
That in deciding on this particular matter,
we have decided on other things connected
with it, does not affect the
position. Rules
on questions of this kind have been made to
prevent Parliament deciding one day contrary to another, and to avoid
also surprises,
by questions being introduced a second time
in the absence of members who may have
previously voted on them. Were this motion
to carry, it would affirm a principle which
was negatived when the motion of the Hon.
Mr. SANBORN was before the House. It is
not necessary that the two motions should be
exactly the same; it is sufficient if they are
substantially alike. I will quote a few words
on this point from MAY :-
It is a rule in both Houses not to permit any
question or bill to be offered which is substantially the same as one on which their
judgment has
already been pronounced during the same session.
This is necessary to avoid different decisions being
given, and to prevent surprises
by a question
being resolved first in the afiirmatlve and next
in the negative.
Should we pass this motion now before the
House, we should be doing what MAY says
the rule of Parliament has been framed
to
avoid, for it would be affirming a principle
on one day, and in another day the contrary.
I am bound to say that in my opinion the
resolution is substantially contained in the
resolution already decided upon, and that
therefore it is out of order. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. AIKINSâI must confess that
1 would like to have had the opinion of the
House on the motion; but I am quite willing
to abide by the decision of the Speaker.
(Hear, hear.)
THE Hon.
THE SPEAKERâThat the decision I have given may be well understood-
to remove all apprehension on the score of a
motion once negatived not being supposed
to
be finally disposed of, I may say that we find
this in the rules of the Imperial Parliament:
" A question once carried or negatived cannot be brought forward again."
HON. MR. FLINT saidâHonorable gentlemen, I deeply regret that the amendment
of my honorable friend could not have been
placed before the House, in order to a more
direct vote being elicited on the principle
therein contained, that of the application of
the elective principle to this House. It is
true that the honorable member for Wellington embodied the same principle in the
resolution which he brought before the
House, and which was negatived. I confess
I hardly expected, when I saw this amendment on the notice paper, that it would be
allowed to be proceeded with. Still I was
in hopes that the House would have borne
with the honorable gentleman, and would
have allowed his motion to be placed on the
Journals of the House. Having
been sent
here by a constituency which embraces about
75,000 souls, upon the elective principle, I
feel that I should but ill discharge my duty
to that constituency, without having received
from them their direct and positive instructions to the contrary, were I to
stand up on
the floor of this House and advocate the
taking away from them of the privilege of
the elective franchise which has been conceded to them by Parliament. If
this principle had not been granted, the position
would be altogether changed; but having
once granted to a people the
right of saying
whom they will have to represent them in
this Chamber, they ought also to be asked,
before we are called upon to vote, whether
they desire to give back the privilege into
the hands of the Government. I would not
for a moment think of placing them in so
false a position. I cannot, therefore, look
with favor upon that portion of the resolutions which goes to take away from the people
the right to nominate and select members to
this Honorable House. So much has been
said on this subject that it would be hardly
worth while for me to consume the time of
the House in going over the ground which
so many others have gone over already. I
have not heard, however, in all the speeches
which have been made in advocacy of this
measure, anything to cause me to swerve for
a moment from the views I have always entertained after reading this portion of the
resolutions. I may say that when I was
319
elected, it is true that Federation was
before the country, but it was before the
country in a very different shape from what
it is at the present time. After the Government of the day was defeated last session,
and after arrangements had been entered
into, it was understood by these arrangements that we were to have Federation of
the two Canadas. That was all that was
placed before us. In issuing my short
address, I stated I was in favor of Federation. I am so stillâ(hear)âbut
while in
favor of Confederation of all the provinces, I desire it should be carried out in
such a way that it will conduce to the best
interests of all concerned. I wish that no
advantage may be taken by any one of the
provinces over the others. When I
came
before my constituents for election, as
hon.
gentlemen may be aware, I had no opposition
â-âI was elected by acclamation. All I could
say to the people on the measure was simply
this, that I approved of the scheme marked
out by the Government when the new administration was formed, but I knew nothing
as to what had subsequently taken place.
I told them that I was in favor of changethat I was in favor of a Federation of the
two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada,
in order that we might live together in peace,
as I was satisfied, from what we had witnessed
as transpiring for many years,
that it was
impossible to live longer togetherâthat it
was better to separate, and in separating we
would probably be better friends. I also
stated that the time must come when the
Confederation of all the provinces would
take place, and that if Confederation was
formed upon a just basis, it
would no
doubt be the means of a vast amount of good
to our common country. (Hear, hear.) The
first knowledge I had of
Confederation was,
as a matter of course, when the delegates
met and passed the resolutions which
are now before us with a slight alteration or two of no moment. When
these
resolutions were printed by the Government
I received one from the Honorable the Provincial Secretary, marked "Private,"
and I
also at the same time received a note from
that honorable gentleman, stating that these
resolutions were not then intended for the
eye of the public. The consequence was,
I felt that I could not read these resolutions,
and meet my constituents and tell them that
I knew nothing in reference to Confederation, Thus feeling my hands tied, I placed
the resolutions in my desk, and left them
there; and never did examine them to ascertain what honorable gentlemen had done
until I took my seat on the floor of the
House. I could not feel free to place myself
in a position before my constituents, and on
being asked from time to time what were
the prospects of Confederation and what
were its details, give a truthful reply with
the restrictions placed upon me, were I to
have read the resolutions; and therefore I
did not read the resolutions, so that I might
honestly say I knew nothing about them. I
feel, honorable gentlemen, that it would be
impossible for me, under existing circumstances, to vote away that right which has
been granted by the Constitution,
of our
country to those who now have the privilege
conferred upon them of exercising the
elective franchise so far as regards this
Chamber. I feel that I should do a great
wrong and perpetrate a great injury to the
electors who sent me here, were I
to vote for
that portion of the scheme which contemplates the taking away of their franchise
altogether. I have no objection, as a matter of course, to the life members, if they
so desire it, voting away their rights, or of
placing their seats in the hands of the Government to be dealt with as they please;
and so far as I am individually concerned,
I would have no objection to sacrifice my
seat in the House for the good of the country
and of my constituents. They have sent me
here, not because I was anxious to be placed
in this position, however honorable it may
be, but because I was their choice. And I
must say that it was one of the proudest
and happiest days of my life when found,
after having battled politically for so many
years on the side of reform, that I could go
into a constituency embracing 75,000 souls,
of all descriptions and shades of politics, and
that I had so far given satisfaction that not
a man was to be found who raised his voice
against my re-election. (Hear, hear.) I
have gained, I may say, all that I desire in
the way of earthly honor; but I feel, like
many other honorable gentlemen, that in
being placed in this high and honorable
position, it is my duty to act faithfully towards those who sent me here; and I feel
I
should do wrong if, on an occasion like this,
I should give my vote for placing that portion
of Upper Canada which I am sent to represent in a worse position than they occupied
before. Having made these few remarks
320
with reference to the elective principle,
I
desire now to speak about one or two other
things in connection with these resolutions.
And one thing in particular, I find, has not
been spoken of by any member on the floor
of this House. I refer now to the sixth
clause, with reference to education. Now,
hon. gentlemen, it strikes me it was decidedly
wrong on the part of the delegates to place
anything in reference to the education of
the people of Upper and Lower Canada in
this scheme. I will give my reasons for
it, and I think those reasons are good. I
think it should be left fully and entirely to
the people of Upper and Lower Canada to
decide what is best with reference to this
matter. We see already that both in Upper
and Lower Canada both parties are actively
engaged endeavoring to press upon the attention of both Houses of Parliament the necessity
of granting them greater privileges than
they already enjoy. They seem to be determined to have nothing less for their Catholic
education than a full staff of ofiicers, together
with model and normal schools, and all the
paraphernalia which attach to the present
common school system. That which in
Upper Canada was regarded as a finality in
school matters is now scouted at, and the advocates of separate schools go so far
as to insist
upon having a college; and the object is no
doubt to place themselves in a position to
be wholly independent of the proposed local
government of Upper Canada. So far as I
am individually concerned in reference to
schools, I would far rather that the school
system was worked out in both
provinces on
the principle of the common schools. I see
no reason why in any neighborhood a portion
of the children should be sent to one description of school, and a portion of the
children sent to another description of
school. I believe it is wrong in principle,
and that the children of our common country
should grow up together and be educated
together. In our public schools there should
be nothing taught which would have the
effect of preventing any person from sending
their children to them. These are my views
in reference to schools. I believe that the
effect of giving exclusive rights
and privileges to certain parties has had a tendency
to weaken the good feeling which should
subsist between all classes of the community,
and which is now seen in the demand from
both sections for different systems of education. (Hear, hear.) The next thing to
which I desire to call the attention of the
House is that of the Intercolonial
Railway.
I am opposed in toto to that
great road. I
am opposed to it for the best of all reasons.
In the first place, I am not satisfied with it,
because I do not know what it is going to
cost. There is nothing in these resolutions
to indicate what is to be the expense; nor
have I been able to discover from what has
taken place on the floor of the House, any
data on the subject.
Consequently, I do
not feel that it would be my duty to vote
for a measure which is going to entail upon
Upper Canada a large amount of debt, without first knowing what that debt is to be.
So far from this being regarded as a commercial undertaking, I cannot for the life
of
me see how it is possible that it can be
worked commercially. The hon. member
from Montreal (Hon. Mr. FERRIER), who
spoke in his place the other evening, never
touched upon this subject. All he told us
in reference to this great scheme was simply
this: that there were 100 odd cars lying at
Montreal laden with produce, and that they
could not go forward because on the other
side of the lines they had so much to do that
they could not send the cars through. But
this was no argument at all in favor of the
Intereolonial Railway. But
supposing the
road were built, do hon. gentlemen believe
for a moment that it would pay running
expenses? There is no doubt in my mind
that to keep it open a subsidy would be
required, like that which is paid to the ocean
steamers. It was stated the other day by
the hon. member from Montreal that two
cents per ton per mile was a very small rate
for railway carriage. But taking it at that
figure, what do we find? From Toronto to
the seaboard, over the Intercolonial Railway,
the distance may be estimated at 939 miles,
and to send a barrel of flour that distance by
railway, at a cost of two cents per mile per
ton, the charges on the flour
would be not
less than $2.08. But supposing one-half
this tariff were chargedâone
cent per ton
per mileâand we are told that at such a
rate the road would be run at a loss, the
cost would be $1.04 ; and by the
time the
barrel of flour was laid down in Liverpool,
there would be charges on it for carriage of
eight or ten cents per each bushel of wheat
over what was formerly paid. These figures
are based on the authority of hon. gentlemen
opposite. "Oh! but," say they, "the farmer
gets the benefit of his money during the
winter." I do not see that this is any
argument at all in a commercial point of
321
view. We
have the advantage of getting
the money in the winter, it is true, but how
do we get it? By losing a large amount.
For my part, I do not believe in getting
only 33. 9d. for a dollar's worth of produce.
(Hear, hear.) And I am satisfied
that
when our farmers get to understand the
question, they never will consent to be taxed
for the construction of any such road.
Taking the cost of transportation at two
cents per ton per mile, and the
distance from
Halifax to Belleville at 831 miles, we find it
would cost $16.62 to transport a ton of goods
between the two places. And at such figures,
does any honorable gentleman who
has the
slightest knowledge of commercial transactions believe for a moment that merchandise
could be sent over the road at any such rates?
Supposing you reduce the rate one cent,
it would still cost $8.31, which
would preclude the possibility of carrying freight over
the road; so that, in a commercial point of
view, the road would be perfectly useless.
It is true that under our present system of
banking, our bankers endeavor to enforce on
the purchasers of produce the necessity of
immediate shipments and immediate sales,
and with that view cause them to draw for
their accommodation at short dates; but it
is also true that by such a practice the farmer is in every instance the loser. The
reason of this custom is that the banks want
quicker returns. But I contend that the
banks should be prepared to advance money
at such dates as will enable the producer to
so sell his produce as to get from it a remunerative return for his labor.
But this it
not done. It seems that the tendency of
everything is to force freight down the railways during the winter season, and to
this
end money is advanced at short dates, the
farmer being the chief loser by the transaction. Then the Intercolonial Railway is
advocated as a military necessity. It is said
that it is essential for the
defence of the
country, to enable the transportation
of troops
and military stores. I think, hon. gentlemen,
we have only to look across the
lines and see
what has taken place during the war in the
State of Virginia and in other states, to
convince us at once that for the purpose of
moving troops and heavy supplies, such as
artillery and ammunition, these roads are of
very little use. You will find that they
have been cut in almost every direction,
and the facilities they were supposed to
possess for transportation have
been proved
to be well nigh worthless for any practical
42
purpose,âand that, too, in a country
where
they are able in a short time to rebuild any
portions of the roads which may be destroyed.
But how would it he on the Intercolonial
Railway? That road is intended
to run
through a country near the boundary of the
State of Maine, over which troops could be
distributed at given points so as, in case of
necessity, to break up the Intercolonial Railway in every direction and to prevent
the
transportation of troops and munitions of
war during the winter.
HON. MR. FLINTâThat
is a very curious
idea: " They cannot reach it." I look
upon
the Americans as a class of persons who can
cut their way wherever they wish to go.
Nothing would be easier than for them to
cut the Intercolonial Railway. But if it
were really the case that the country to be
traversed by the Intercolonial Railway is of
such a nature that no one could get through
to it, the sooner we cease saying anything
further about it the better. (Hear.) For
if the country is in such a state that it is
impossible for men to travel through it, I see
no benefit in having such a railway. (Hear.
hear.) These are my views in reference to
the railway. In the first place I do not feel
inclined to pay the large sum of money it is
going to cost, without knowing
how much
will be required. There is no knowing how
much it will cost Upper Canada for her proportionâwhether it is to be $12,000,000,
$15,000,000, or $20,000,000. But taking
into consideration the amount of debt we
will have to assume, together with our apportionment of the $62,500,000 assigned to
Upper and Lower Canada. as also that portion yet unprovided for by the resolutions;
I think that by the time the Intercolonial Railway is built, Upper
Canada will be
saddled with at least $50,000,000 as her
share of debt. I do not see how it is possible for the people to bear up under such
a
weight; nor do I believe that, if the understood this matter as they ought to understand
it, they would give their consent to us to
vote for it. It may be thought, perhaps, that
I am not in favor of Confederation. But such
is not the case. I would much desire the
Federation of all the provinces; but while
I would desire the Federation of
all the provinces, I do desire that that Federation
should be based on true and proper principles--that every portion of these
provinces
of Her Majesty's dominion should
share and
322
share alike. I do not believe in one
portion
of the provinces being placed in a position of
inferiority to the others. I believe Upper
Canada should have its just rightsâI
believe Lower Canada should have its just
rights-and I believe that the other provinces should have their just rights. We should
come together not with a feeling of distrust,
but with a feeling of mutual good will, ready
to take each other by the hand and to press
forward to what I would hope might prove
an honorable destiny. (Hear, hear.) I am
well satisfied that the more this question is
discussedânotwithstanding the remarks of
some hon. gentlemen to the contraryâthe
more the question is discussed and ventilated, the greater will be the dissatisfaction
of
the people with it. I have received but one
letter from my constituents on the point, and
the simple reference of that writer is this:
"Do not you vote for the Intercolonial Railway" He says, " I should like
Federation;
but do not vote for the
Intercolonial Railway." But, hon. gentlemen, whether I had
received such an admonition or not, I could
not see my way clear to vote for the resolutions as they now stand. I have paid all
possible attention to the speeches which have
been delivered in this chamber. I have listened with every degree of respectful
attention
to the hon. and gallant Knight who leads the
Government, and also to his hon.
colleague
the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and I
should be happy if it were in my power to
go with them in the vote which is about to
be cast; but I do not see how that is possible,
if I am at the same time to discharge my duty
to my constituents, to myself, and to my country. I can never consent to vote away
the
rights which belong to the people, without first
asking the people for their consent. If the
time is given them necessary to make up
their minds on this subject, and they then
say to this House: "We are willing to try
this schemeâwe are willing to take it with
all its defects, in the hope that it will be
found to work well," I will give my vote for
it as it now stands. But, in the absence of
this opportunity being afl'orded, I must say
that if I am in the House when the vote is
called on this measure, I shall have to record
my name against it, and in so doing I shall
be acting conscientiously. I shall do so because I think it a duty incumbent
on me,
however painful it may be for me to vote
contrary to the views of the Government in
this respect, and contrary to a large majority
of this House. And while I would concede
to every hon. gentleman who may differ
from
me the same freedom of judgment that I
claim for myselfâwhile I would look with
all charity on the course thought proper to
be taken by my fellow members, I feel persuaded that they will not begrudge me the
right of discharging my duty in accordance
with the dictates of my conscience, and what
I believe to be for the good of my constituents. And if my constituents do not agree
with me in what I am about to do, they have
only to say, " Mr. FLINT, your conduct does
not accord with our views; we desire that
you should retire from public life,"
and I
shall be most happy to conform to their
wishes. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. DE BEAUJEU saidâHonorable gentlemen, I think it an act of patriotism
to support the resolutions submitted to us,
having for their object the Confederation of
several provinces, so as to bring them into a
group, with the view of forming a nationality.
This project will not surprise any one, when
he recollects that this immense territory is
occupied by the descendants of the two first.
powers of the world, and that the greatest
portion of them are of Norman and Breton
blood. They will also remember that the
Normans were the most adventurous pioneers,
fit for all hazardous colonizations, and daring
navigators. After having established their
dominion over the British Islands, and over
a part of France, Naples, Sicily, even in
Jerusalem, Antioch, and near Constantinople,
they crossed the ocean and established themselves on the Canary Islands, and afterwards
came close on the borders of the Saint Lawrence and the Mississippiâa voyage that
their ancestors had commenced in the environs
of Novgorod, and where a nucleus of their
race is yet to be found. The French Canadian countrymen of this Honorable House
ought more than others to be proud of the
scheme, and it oughtto brin to their memory
that France had once this object
in view, but
even on a larger scale (having then a territory
of 1,800 leagues), and of making on this continent a second to herself by calling
it
La
Nouvelle France. She was then seconded in
this great undertaking by her best
military
and civil administrators. Among the fore-
most was the Count DE FRONTENAC, and the
Marquis of DENONVILLE, and LA GALISSONNIĂRE, and also the celebrated Intendant
TALON. The French Government was then '
laboring under the same dificulty of seeking '
for an open sea-port in winter, so as to
avoid
being shut up by the ice during
five months
323
of the year, having their powerful
neighbors,
as we have now, to contend with. The Chevalier D'IBERVILLE, one of the brave sons
of
Montreal, the equal, as it is admitted by the
best navy historians, of the celebrated JEAN
BART, after having made, in
1695, two glorious expeditions to the Hudson Bay, Newfoundland, and to some of the
other present Maritime Provinces, wrote a MĂ©moire, in 1701, on
the situation of Boston and New York and
other coasts of the then British colonies,
pointing out the necessity of possessing a seaport during winter. Well, honorable
gentlemen, this now may be effected without shedding of blood or money, only by securing
the
Confederation as agreed at the Convention by
the most distinguished parties contractantes
of these British Provinces, in extending the
present railroad from RiviĂšre du
Loup to the
Maritime Provinces, so as to connect in
winter
the most remote parts of Western Canada to
the sea. The advantages to be derived from
the annexation of these Maritime Provinces
have been most ably developed at the beginning of this debate by the brilliant speech
and
sound logic of the gallant Premier, and also
by other able speeches in support of those
resolutions. I will,
nevertheless, add that the
Province of Canada will also derive the immense advantage of beginning the nucleus
of
our future military being, particularly if you
get the great assistance of the Imperial Government that we are entitled to. Let us
all
recollect that France commenced her Canadian
being by sending divers companies of troops
by rotation to the present Maritime Provinces,
and also to Louisiana. Those companies were
commanded by officers who held
the rank of
capitaines des détachements de la marine,
equal
in rank to a lieutenant-colonel in the army.
Those companies were in the habit of being
trained for navy purposes. I entertain no
doubt that the frequent intercourse with those
Maritime Provinces, coupled with the navy
ship school that the Imperial
Government, as
I understand, has the intention of establishing
at Quebec, similar to those in England and
France, will promote this object; and especially
if England open the door of her academies of
Woolwich and Sandhurst to our youths, as
France was in the habit of doing when possessed of these coloniesâin admitting, as
cadets de marine, at Brest
and Rochefort, the
sons of those colonists who, as military and
civilian administrators, had deserved such a
rewardâand, by so doing, they formed a good
colonial navy, and it was from it sprang
up those able and brave oficersâthe glory of
the past history of the French Canadians;
and the honor that the had so acquired reflected also over Old France. Amongst the
great number whose memory ought not to be forgotten, not only by the people of this
Province, but also by the Maritime Provinces, at
the birth and development of a new nation,
and to the defence of which those men have
contributed by their intelligence and courage,
I will name, amongst others, BONAVENTURE,
SĂVIGNY, CHATEAUGUAY, D'ALLIGNY,
TILLY, GRANVILLE, SOULANGES, VAUDREUIL,
BEAUHARNOIS, LONGEUIL, REPENTIGNY, BOISHĂRBERT, ST. OURS, &c.,
&c.; and many
of those distinguished navy oflicers became
governors not only in the French colonies of
America and lndia, but commanded also seaports in France. BENOIT, CHAUSSEGROS DE
LĂRY, the two VAUDREUILS, and PIERRE
BEDOUT rose to the rank of Rear Admiral,
and one of them, ROUER DE LA
CORDONNIĂRE, was even complimented by Fox in the
English Parliament, for his generous and gallant conduct towards his enemies. Now,
honorable gentlemen, besides the establishment of
the colonial navy, we should also promote the
military organization and martial spirit, the
natural accompaniment and the best safeguard of freedom, by assuming part of the
military defences of this colony, proportioned
to our population and revenues, of course
with the effective assistance of the Imperial
Government. And I hope that England will
call out, to exercise the highest functions of
statesmanship, such of her subjects in those
colonies as will render themselves fit to fill
such situations in future. Why should she
not even employ them in the diplomatic service, or as governors of her other colonies,
as
France did formerly, in granting those favors
for eminent services? And in spite of the
intrigues of those near the soleil levant at Versailles, the daring exploits of those brave colonists, in that glorious struggle from 1698
to
1759, forced the French monarch to do them
ample justice, and by so doing the most of
the military commands and governorships
of the French colonies fell into the hands of
Canadian born subjects. 1 have said so much
to show that the policy of England ought to
have been directed to promote, in these colonies,
the appointments in the civil as well as in the
military career to her colonial subjects, as
well as those living in the British Isles.(Hear, hear.) Referring again to
the Maritime Provinces, I will say to my French Canadian countrymen that they have
too many
glorious pages in the past history of America,
324
and particularly in relation to these
provinces,
not to feel a sympathy towards them, as there
still exist a large number of the old Acadians
who will feel proud to renew old acquaintance, and to live with them as brothers,
happy under the protection of the English
Government. Let me call to their memory
some of the places which were the theatre of
the exploits of the brave officers I have al-
read mentioned, such as Port Royal, or
Louisbourg, now Annapolis; Chebucto, now
Halifax; Port Lajoie, now Charlottetown;
L'Isle Royale, now Cape Breton; Isle St.
Jean, now Prince Edward Island, &c., &c. I
hope, also, that the construction of a good
route to RiviĂšre Rouge, the Rocky Mountains and British Columbia, will bring those
places to an easy access for
commerce, trading
and agriculture, to our growing population, and
will prevent them emigrating to the United
States, as they will find glorious souvenirs
in the former places, where their Canadian
brothers have already formed flourishing agricultural settlements, and opened up valuable
mines. I trust that my French Canadian
countrymen in this House will see the advantage of adopting the resolutions now laid
before them, trusting as they should do to the
good disposition of the Home Government, as
this new Constitution is well calculated to
develope the resources of this fine and immense
country. And the best proof that we are
taking the right steps to secure our happiness,
is found amongst other articles hostile to British interests, in an article of the
Courrier
des
Etats Unis, when the question
of Confederation was agitated in 1853, and which runs as
follows:-
Notwithstanding
all that may be said, written
or spouted about English tyranny and rapacity,
we must acknowledge that Great Britain has
always known how to keep up with the spirit of
the age, and to deal out privileges to her colonies by judicious instalments.
Should this great project be adopted, our importance would rise on the continent
of
Europe, and we would be on the same footing
at least as our American neighbors, belonging
to a large and important Confederation, and
our credit will rise in consequence. The
Lower Canadians will recollect that in 1840,
after the temporary suspension of the Act of
1791, England granted us a new Constitution.
They will recollect also the anguish, the pangs
felt by them at that period; but notwithstanding that we had no voice then in the
measure
as we have now, still the rights and advantages granted us by the capitulation of
Quebec and Montreal and the treaty of Paris
in
1763, have not been abrogated, and I am of
opinion that by adopting those resolutions,
our future rights are as safe as they were formerly. (Hear, hear.) Before I close
I will
answer the remarks made by the honorable
member for LanaudiĂšre division, in a speech a
few days ago, respecting the Monroe doctrine,
alleging that we ought not to legislate upon
this delicate subject, or words to that effect.
I will quote two letters lately discovered and
published by Monsieur PIERRE MERGOZ,
Guardian of Archives of the Ministry of the
Foreign Affairs in France, and his remarks on
these two great honored navigators who discovered the Mississippi and other parts
of
America, and which remarks are as follow:-
We cannot shut our eyes to the affinity of
the
interests of the present times and those of former
days, and which recommend the memory of LASALLE and D'IBERVILLE. In 1699 D"IBERVILLE
wrote on the subject of Louisiana: "If France
does not take possession of this part of America,
which is the finest, to have a colony strong
enough to resist those that England possesses in
the east from Pescadoue to the Caroline, these
colonies, which are becoming very extensive, will
increase to such an extent that in less than a century they will be strong enough
to seize upon
the whole continent of America, and to expel all
other nations " D'IBERVILLE wrote again in
November, 1702: "What may be said against
the establishment that the king has made at Mobile? It is the only one that
could sustain America against the undertakings of the English on
this continent. In a few years they will be able
to forward in fifteen days, by means of their large
navy, more than 20,000 or 30,000 men upon
such of the French islands as they would be inclined to attack, the distance not being,
at the
utmost, more than 500 to 600 leagues, the wind
being generally favorable to carry them on those
shores, and by land they may reach Mexico."
"These views (says Mr. MERGOZ),
together with
D'IBERVILLE's remarks, will
account for the natural uneasiness felt by the European powers at
what is now taking place in South America."
What I have just quoted is, I believe,
sufficient to convince the honorable member for
the LanaudiĂšre Division that the European
Powers were not disposed, even
at those
remote times, to favor the doctrine now called
the Monroe; the British colonists of these
times being now replaced by our republican
neighbors. Having said so much, I will conclude by stating that I shall
vote for those resolutions as they are laid before us.
(Cheers)
HON. MR. HAMILTON (Inkerman)Honorable gentlemen, so much as been said
during the course of the present debate with
reference to the elected members of this House,
325
and the rights of the electors who sent
us here,
that I desire to make a very few remarks to
explain why I, representing a Lower Canadian
division, a majority of whom will be amongst
the minority of the Lower Canada of the
future, have decided that it is my duty to vote
for the resolutions of the Quebec Conference
as they have been laid before us by the
Government, and consequently against all the
amendments. I am free to confess, honorable
gentlemen, that there are among
the resolutions some that I would have gladly seen, as I
conceive, amended; but considering, from the
nature of the thing itself, and therefore fully
concurring in what many of as heard from an
eminent and distinguished statesman in another
place, that the whole scheme of Confederation
partook of the nature of a treaty, into which,
as a matter of course, the spirit of compromise
must largely enter; and the Government having, as I also consider they were bound
to do,
informed us we must accept the scheme as a
whole, or reject it as a whole, I conceived it
was my duty not to be a bar in the way,
however humble, of the passage of the resolutions, and I came to this conclusion the
more
willingly because I have been for a long time
an advocate for a union of the provinces, and
I have been so because it is indisputable that
a much greater share of our
self-defence must
rest upon ourselves than
heretofore; and
though at the best our means of defence may
not be as great as we could wish, yet it must
be manifest they must be greater by being
consolidated under one head. Some hon. gentlemen, especially my neighbor from St.
Clair,
have ridiculed the idea of Confederation increasing our powers of defence, inasmuch
as
under the best of circumstances it must take a
long time to perfect our arrangements; but I
would ask hon. gentlemen to consider what
will be the effect in England,
as to our defences,
if we reject or even postpone this scheme of
Confederation, coming as it would on the
heels of a rejected Militia Bill. During the
discussion, we have had, if the
term is parliamentary and may be used, many fancy finance
statements. Now, without
disputing the correctness of any of them, I would ask the
honorable gentlemen who have made them,
have they made any calculation as to the costs
we would be at after we had been gobbled
up
by our neighbors south of 45°, or, to use the
words of the honorable and gallant Knight the
Premier, after we had slid down the inclined
plane, and become merged in the
neighboring
republic? I for one would say that such a
position was altogether too
oontemptible to
occupy. With reference to the change
doing
away with our elective Legislative Council, of
which we have heard so much, I for one can
say that I consider the delegates came to
the only correct conclusion, and this is no new
conclusion, and involves no change of opinion
on my part, for I can appeal to an honorable
member of this House as to whether, within
half an hour of taking my seat in it, I did
not express the opinion that though it was not
right to speak ill of the bridge over which one
had crossed safely, yet that I was
opposed to
the elective system as applied to this House.
I also dissent from the sentiments I have heard
expressed by many honorable members of this
House as to our position here, for I never
understood that I came here as the mere
delegate of the men of Inkerman, to vote just
as the most active village politicians happened
to pull the wires for me. No, gentlemen, I
came here, as I thought, as the representative
of my division, to do my best according to
my humble ability in legislating for the
benefit of the whole country, and
under no
other circumstances would I have accepted
the position. I shall not occupy your time,
honorable gentlemen, in saying that which has
been better said by others; but thanking you
for the few moments' hearing you have so
kindly given me, conclude by reducing my
explanations as follows: I vote for Confederation because I consider it essential
to the
maintenance of British connection, and to
preserve that, I for one am prepared to make
man sacrifices. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. BLAKEâI feel it to be my
duty, honorable gentlemen, to make a few
remarks upon the general question of Federation before the vote is taken. A great
deal
has been said about the manner in which the
scheme has originated. It has been said that
the honorable gentlemen composing the Conference were self-elected. Now I hold that
it is most unfair to charge honorable gentlemen who have, as members of a government,
entered into this matter at the request of His
Excellency the Governor-General, with a sincere desire to do the best that could be
done
for the interests of Canada, with being too
precipitate, especially when the subject was
surrounded with so much difficulty. Although
I have been an advocate of a union of the
provinces for very many years, yet I am fully
prepared to admit that there are some matters
of detail in these resolutions that are very
distasteful to me. I refer particularly to the
abandonment of the elective principle in the
constitution of this branch of the Legislature.
326
I was always in favor of the elective
principle
as applied to the Legislative Council, and a
very large proportion of my constituency is
also in favor of it. I am opposed to
the building of the Intercolonial Railway, on account
of the immense expenditure which it will
entail upon the country, not only now, but
for all time to come. I think that that
expenditure will be so great that it will fall
very heavily on our finances, which are now
so very poorly able to bear the burden, and
that the road will be of very little
use to the
country. Much has been said about this
scheme not being understood by the people.
With regard to that, I can only speak of my
own locality. Before coming here, I went
through my own constituency, and conversed
with a great many leading men of all political
parties, and all urged me to go for Confederation, without a single exception. (Hear,
hear.) I pointed out the objections which I
had to the scheme. I told them that I disapproved of the elective
principle being ignoredâof the building of the Intercolonial
Railwayâand of the increased expense of
maintaining two sets of government. I pointed
out all these and other objections, but notwithstanding, they said that it would be
far
better to take Federation, even as proposed by
the resolutions, than to remain as we are.
They said: " The government of the country
has come to a dead-lock; we have seen
one strong
party pitted against another strong
party; we
have seen two or three governments formed
that were unable to pass a single important
measure, and some change is therefore absolutely necessary." The question then arises,
What are we to do ? Now, I would ask the
opponents of this scheme, if they have any
other plan to propose that will relieve the
country of the difficulties under
which it has
been laboring? (Hear, hear.) On the other
hand, we have been told by high authority
that we were on the brink of ruin. We were
told by the honorable and gallant Knight at
the head of the Government, that we were on
an " inclined plane," on which we were fast
sliding into the republic of the United States
of America. I think it is therefore my duty
to vote for the resolutions as they stand, and
to vote for no amendments of any kind.
(Hear, hear.) We are told that if
we adopt
any amendments to the resolutions, the whole
scheme must fall to the ground. Are we to
go back to the position we formerly occupied,
or will it not be better to accept these resolutions, on which a new Constitution
may be
formed ? If it is not formed to suit us, we
can alter it hereafter. It is not, I apprehend,
to be like the laws of the Medea and Persians,
totally unalterable. The Constitutions of
Great Britain, of the United States, and of
the different civilized nations now in existence
have been altered, and why are we to expect
that these resolutions are a finalit ? Gentlemen, the Constitution of the Confederation
can be altered in future as easily as our
present Constitution has been altered. I hope
this scheme will go into effect at an early
period, and I trust it will be productive of a
vast amount of good to our country. (Hear,
hear.) Honorable gentlemen say it is a
revolution. It may be a revolution, but
certainly it is not so violent a one as was
proposed in 1837 and 1838. (Hear, hear.)
There has been a great deal of heavy artillery
brought into play since this debate began, but
I hope that the revolution will be carried out
without the shedding of blood. (Hear, hear
and laughter.) I am prepared to give my
vote for the scheme. (Cheers)
HON. MR READ next addressed the
House. He saidâHonorable gentlemen, I
have voted for delay in the passage of these
resolutions, believing that to be my duty; and
if I have been wrong in doing so, it has been
through want of judgement. I have
had no
other intention in so doing than to promote
the best interests of the country. As,
however, I observe that a large majority of this
House entertains a different opinion, I shall
no longer attempt to mar the scheme, but
shall give it my support when the time for
voting upon it arrives. (Hear, hear, and
cheers.) I never intended to mar it, but I
wished to be sure that the country was satis fied with it, and would appreciate it
when
they got it. (Hear.) I think human nature
is the same now as it always was and always
will be. As the hon. Premier and the hon.
Commissioner of Crown Lands have used
some comparisons with reference to the proposed union, I have also a comparison to
make. They said that a union could not be
effected without some sacrificesâa little giving
and taking all round. I think so too, but I
think there is a different way in which this
proposed union must be viewed. I compare
Canada to a young man who has had guardians appointed to take care of his estate;
but having arrived at that age
that his guardians think it is time he should be married,
they arrange a matrimonial alliance for him.
He is all the time looking on, and expecting
to be asked how the arrangement suits him.
But in this case it appears he is not to be
327
asked at all.
(Hear, hear.) When they have
all things in readiness, he says to himself:
"You may have power to marry me, but you
cannot make me live happily." Now, had he
been consulted, he would probably have made
the same choice and have been fully satisfied
with the alliance. As human nature is always
the same, I have thought these were sufficiently
strong reasons for wishing to have some delay,
in order that the people, after the matter was
fully before them, might cordially enter into
the proposed union. I am favorably
impressed
with a great many of the resolutions composing this measure. I cannot, however, agree
with my hon. friend from Toronto (Hon. Mr.
Ross), that Upper Canada would
build the
Intercolonial Railway herself rather than be
without it. Upper Canada does
not produce
anything that can be profitably taken over
the road. There is no alternative, however,
but to build it, if Confederation is to be
carried out. In 1862, we had a good bargain
thrown open to us, but as we refused to accept
it at the time, we cannot now get it without
paying a higher price. Along with the matrimonial alliance into which we are about
to
enter, there will be fresh responsibilities, and
I really do not think the country is quite
prepared for them. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) It seems we are pretty certain to form
the alliance, and it is equally certain that
those little responsibilities will immediately
spring up. (Laughter.) I think, however,
that we must call them great
responsibilities,
and I repeat, much greater than we are prepared for. I would make a great sacrifice
for
the defence of the country, but if England
tells us we must do more than the country is
able to do, I do not think we will be willing
to submit to it. We are prepared to do all
we can, but I am not prepared to go to such
an enormous expense as to involve our country
in such debt as will render it an undesirable
place to live in. With Confederation we will
have to go to great expense, not only for our
defences and our militia, but also for a navy;
because I believe that, as soon as the Americans put an increased number of gun-boats
on the lakes, we will have to put on an equal
number, and it is very doubtful to me if we
can afford it. (Hear, hear.) Where is the
money to come from ?
HON. Mr. READâWe are now very
heavily taxed, and have a heavy bill to pay
for interest on our large debt. I would like
to see the Government adopt some method by
which this interest should not go out of
the
country. I do not like to see so much borrowed from abroad. Interest is a thing that
accumulates very rapidly, and it has to be
paid regularly. If some system could be devised by which this borrowing from abroad
could be stopped, the Federation scheme would
suit me much better, especially when we consider that the taxes of the people of this
country, per head, have been running up at
an alarming rateâfrom one dollar to threesince the union, in 1841. It seems that the
Confederation is to increase our taxes; that
fact is generally admitted, independent of the
ex use of building the Intercolonial Railway.
I do not see where all the money is to come
from, but I dare say the Finance Minister
will find out some means of raising it by increased taxation. When the final vote
comes
on, I shall be prepared to support the motion
rather than have it rejected
altogether, and
shall press my opposition no
further. (Hear,
ear.
HON. Mr. REESORâHonorable gentlemen, I rise to move-
That the following words be added to the
main
motion: " Provided always, that His Excellency the Governor General be prayed to withhold
the transmission of the said Address until
the said resolutions shall have been a proved of
by the electors of this province, qualified to vote
under th Act 22 Vie., cap. 6, to be signified by
a direct vote on the said resolution, to be taken
in the various municipalities throughout Upper
and Lower Canada."
HON. Mr. DICKSONâI am desirous of
calling to the notice of the House the fact
that this amendment appears on the face of
it
to embody the same principle as the amendment proposed by the honorable member opposite
(Hon. Mr. CURRIE), and
seconded by
myself, and which, after a long and somewhat
tedious discussion, was decided in the negative.
I would like to know, therefore, whether the
amendment is in order. I do not oppose it,
but if it is not in order, time will be saved by
disposing of it at once, and I rise to obtain
the Speaker's decision upon the
point.
HON. Mr. ROSSâThe objection of the
honorable member is, I think, conclusive with
regard to the amendment. It appears to be
the same in principle as that moved by the
honorable member for Niagara, and seems to
me to be out of order.
HON. Mr. BUREAUâI think the motion
is in order. It declares that before the scheme
is finally adopted, it shall be referred to the
people, for them to vote yes or nay upon it.
328
No such amendment has before been offered
in this House.
THE HON. THE SPEAKERâThe motion
proposed in amendment to the main motion
by Hon. Mr. CURRIE was in the following
words :â"That in 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." Now, the present motion isâ
" That His Excellency the Governor General
be prayed to withhold the transmission of the
said Address until the said resolutions shall
have been approved of by the electors of this
province, qualified to vote under the Act
22
Vic., cap. 6, to be signified by a direct
vote
on the said resolution, to be taken in the
various municipalities throughout Upper and
Lower Canada." Although there may be
some similarity, still it is not substantially the
same motion. (Hear, hear.) The " urther
manifestation o the public will"
may be
quite a different thing from the manifestation
of that will by a direct vote, as provided for
by this amendment. I believe, therefore, that
the motion is in order; and, as in a case of
this kind it is my opinion that a liberal interpretation of the rules and practice
of the
House should be made, I cannot declare that
the amendment is included in the motion decided by the House yesterday. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. REESORâIt will have been
observed, that the course of this
debate has
taken a most extraordinary turn. At first,
honorable members addressed the House in
favor of the resolutionsâmembers
of the
Government more especially, and then some
honorable gentlemen supporting them; but
latterly we have heard several
honorable gentlemen expressing their views very strongly and
emphatically against many of the resolutions
embraced in the scheme of Confederation, but
while expressing themselves so strongly, they
seemed to feel it to be their duty to support
it as a whole. (Hear, hear.)
Now, it strikes
me, and I trust it will strike some other honorable members, also, that we have been
elected to this Legislature with a view to
perfect as far as possible every scheme or proposition that may properly come before
it.
If we have views on a particular measure
which would lead us to propose amendments
for the purpose of making it different in shape
or scope from what it is when first introduced,
I maintain that it is our duty to express our
views in that directionânot taking the
measure without looking fairly and impartially
into it, or accepting it in the belief that we
have no right to dispute or alter any portion
of it. For my part, I look upon the scheme
now before the House as upon the whole very
different from what we had a right to expect
from the members of the present
Government.
They have been strongly supported in both
Houses of Parliament and in the country,
and I do not desire to see an difficulty thrown
in their way, or anything done calculated to
lessen their support in the Legislature; but
at the same time I do say that, with the support and confidence they have received,
they
ought to have brought forward a better scheme
than that which they have presented to the
House and country. Why, take the question
of the Intercolonial Railroad involved in these
resolutions, and what do we find? More than
two years ago the governments of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia made
a proposition to the Canadian Government to
build this road and pay seven-twelfths of
the cost, Canada to pay the remaining five- twelfths. Well, what arrangement
have we
nowâwhat has time brought aboutâwhat
advantages have these two years gained for
us? This, that the Government of Canada
come down to the Legislature with a scheme
according to which Canada will have to pay
towards the construction of this road nine-
twelfths of the entire amount, and the other
provinces the balanceâthus involving additional expense on the part of Canada to the
amount of several millions of dollarsâcertainly
not less than six millions to build the Inter-
colonial Railway aloneâmore than was demanded of us two years agoâand a total
additional expenditure that will add to the
annual taxation of Canada more than a million and a half of dollars for all time to
come.
This heavy expenditure over the proposition
made two years ago has, therefore, been needlessly undertaken. It is admitted, even
by
the promoters of this scheme, that the eastern provinces will benefit far more largely
than Canada by the construction of the Inter-
colonial Railway. It is admitted by the best
commercial men who have spoken upon the
subject, that as a commercial undertaking it
will not pay. It is admitted that it will be
of little or no value whatever as a defensive
work. This being the case, why then rush
into this large expenditure with such precipitancy ; why not, at least, postpone its
passage
in order to get a measure of a more perfect
character, and one more in harmony with the
329
wishes of the people chiefly interested? Honorable gentlemen who betray such
anxiety to
press this scheme at once should remember
that we are not voting away our own but the
people's money, and that this
should not be
done to the extent that is now proposed,
without consulting their wishes in the matter.
This the law requires before a municipal
council can make any special grant of money.
In such cases a vote of the people has to be
taken, which is conclusive as to whether the
proposed expenditure shall be incurred or not;
and yet we are here passing a measure of vastly greater importance to them, a measure
involving a revolution in our political affairsâa
measure involving an immense outlay of money
without asking whether the
people are favorable
to it or not. (Hear, hear.) I maintain, honorable gentlemen, that before it is finally
passed
upon, the whole question should be submitted to the people, and that the law which
requires a reference to them in minor
matters,
should be extended in a matter
which so nearly concerns their future condition and prosperity. The people of the
eastern provinces
have very little to complain of in the plan of
Confederation proposed. The fact is, they
will be largely the gainers by it, if it is
carried out. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the members of the governments of
those provinces, and other public men, see the
great advantage they have gained over Canada, and are not slow to set them before
the
people. They are naturally anxious that the
scheme shall be carried as speedily as possible, and are making every effort in this
direction, for under it unprofitable local works
in those provinces are assumed and paid for
by the General Government; such, for instance, as the railways of New Brunswick,
which, before five years go round, will, I have
no doubt, be run at very considerable cost beyond the returns they will yield to the
General Government. The Hon. Mr. TILLEY, in
a speech to the electors of St. John, sets forth
the advantages to be gained by New Brunswick by the union, as follows:-
New Brunswick is allowed to enter the
Confederation with a debt of seven millions, and Nova
Scotia with a debt of eight millions.
Now, what
was the nature of the arrangement by which we
came in? It was found that the debt of Canada
was not much larger per head than
that of New
Brunswick. We came in on better terms than
that province.
Mr. TILLEY then proceeds to show how New
Brunswick gained a clear advantage of $610,000 a year for all time to come on the
Intercolonial Railway alone. So much better are
the
terms to that province under the Intercolonial
scheme than those upon which they offered
themselves to join us in building that road,
two years ago, Hon. Mr. TILLEY says :-
Of the cost of that road (the
Intercolonial Rail
way) New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had guaranteed the provincial credit for seven
twelfths,
and Canada for five-twelfths. Now, if the Confederation would build the road, New
Brunswick
and Nova Scotia would be relieved of the interest on the seven millions,
amounting to $420,000,
as well as upon the interest of the three and a
half-twelfths of the three millions sterling,
amounting to $l90,000, making in all $610,000
provided for by the General Government.
This liberal bribe to bring New Brunswick
into the union, one would think, was quite
enough to satisfy the little province; but on.
Mr. TILLEY adds:-
Over and above all these advantages, we
get
for ten years a subsidy of $63,000
per anuum.
Our local expenditures summed up
amount to
$320,630, and we get from the
General Government, without increased taxation, $90,000,
in
lieu of our import duty and casual territorial
revenue, 80 cents per head on the
population,
making $201,637, and a special
subsidy of
$63,000 a year for ten years,
making in all
$354,637, being $34,000 over and above our
present necessities.
These (says Hon. Mr. TILLEY) are the
principal points looked to. Hon. Mr. TILLEY is
very candid, and acknowledges these advan
tages in the name of "subsidies." He further
assures his audience in the following words :-
But we are asked,
what guarantee have on that
you will continue to receive these subsidies promised by the General Government? Most
unquestionable securityâwe are not
at the mercy of
the Canadians. ' ' ? So close is the contest
between parties in the Canadian Legislature, that
even the five Prince Edward Island members
by
their votes, could turn victory
on whatever side
they choose, and have the game entirely in their
own hands.
This is the success with which Hon. Mr.
TILLIY has acted on behalf of the people of New
Brunswick, and I think the Commissioner of
Crown Lands, when he reflects upon the advantages that the eastern provinces have
received over those obtained by Canada, will
admit that I was not far astray the other day
when I said that our public men had acted
with a great deal of recklessness. It appears
to me that they went to work with the determination to get Confederation--to get it
on
fair terms if they could, but to get it on any
terms that might be found necessary to con330cede to the Lower Provinces. (Hear,
hear.)
Another of the delegates to the Quebec Conference, Hon. Mr. WHELAN, of Prince Edward
Island, enumerates all the advantages that
will be secured to that province by Confederation, and winds up by saying, that that
little
island will have $40,000 a year more than
necessary to carry on its local affairs. (Hear.)
Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I do think the Government ought
to have
given more time to deliberate upon and perfect
this measure; and, at any rate, to leave it
over till another session of Parliament before
demanding a final decision upon the question.
Failing to do that, and failing to consent
to any alteration in any one of the resolutions, however objectionable, I think it
it is our duty to refer it to the people
for their decision upon it. I know I will
be met with the objection that this is contrary to British practiceâthat a reference
to the people in the manner I propose is
unknown to the British Constitution. We
may say the same thing in regard
to every
branch of legislation and public business in
this country, that it differs in some respects
from the mode of conducting it which prevails in England; but we must remember
that we are differently situated
in this country from the people of England, and that our
feelings and habits of thought upon public
affairs are altogether different. And
since we
have adopted the principle in the conduct of
our municipal affairs, to refer all matters involving the expenditure of money for
special
purposes to the people, it will do no possible
harm to apply it to this measure; and if the
peeple adopt it, and it should afterwards prove
that they had entered into a bad bargain,
they would have no one to blame but themselves, and I have no doubt would, under
such circumstances, bear it more patiently.
But if we take the opposite course, if we
close this arrangement on terms disadvantageous to us, it will be many years before
a
change can be effected. Would Prince Edward Island, at the demand of Canada, give
up the lien, the constitutional right she will
have obtained under this scheme, to the
money she receives over and above what is
necessary to meet her local requirements?
Not at all. Would Newfoundland give up
her bonus of $160,000 a year for
all time,
should the looked for coal not be found to
pay? Not a bit of it. Would Nova Scotia
give up her right to impose an export duty
on coals and other minerals, because Canada
found that this right gave her undue advan tages? Certainly not. Would New Brunswick surrender her right to levy an export
duty on timber, or, at the call of Canada,
give any extra assistance towards the construction of the Intereolonial Railway, which
will
benefit her far more largely than any of the
other provinces, inasmuch as it will open up
a large tract of country within her borders,
and render the land and timber it contains
far more valuable? Undoubtedly she would
not; we would have to abide by our agreement, no matter how invidious might be the
advantages it conferred, no matter how unfavorably it might affect western interests.
(Hear, hear.) The complaint that has been
made against the working of the present union
is that in Lower Canada the people do not
pay as much in taxes to the general revenue, man for man, as the people of Upper
Canada. It was contended, I believe, by
the present Attorney General East, at a
speech delivered some years since to his constituents at VerchĂšres, that the expenditure
for the redemption of seigniorial rights did not
affect Lower Canada very much, because
Upper Canada paid two-thirds of the revenue
of the country; and all the advocates of the
western section, who have urged
its rights
before the people, have taken the ground that
it contributed in that proportion to the public
exchequer. Now, if there be any truth in
this statement, it must follow that under this
arrangement Canada, at all events, will have
to pay more, man for man, than the eastern
provinces to the general revenue,
because it
cannot be contended, I apprehend, that Prince
Edward Island, Newfoundland, or either of
the other Maritime Provinces, however prosperous their condition may be, have a population
as wealthy as that of Upper Canada. or
one that will contribute as much in taxes to
the General Government. If then, during the
past, Lower Canada has paid less than Upper
Canada to the revenue, while enjoying the
benefit of as large or perhaps a. larger expenditure than that section, what is proposed
to
be done now? Why, to remove that difficulty which led almost to a dead-lock in our
legislation, to get rid of the embarrassments
that have beset the Government of this country for many years past, we are asked to
adopt
a scheme that will perpetuate them on a larger
scale than before, and involve, in the construction of the Intercolonial Railway alone,
the expenditure of a million or a million and
a half annually for ever. (Hear, hear.)
How
absurd then to urge on this scheme without at
least sharing the responsibility of it with the
331
people? Why not take time and maturely
consider it? Why not submit it to the
verdict of those who have to pay its cost,
and if they accept it, let them bear the consequences. (Hear, hear.) With regard to
the constitution of the Upper
House of the
General Legislature,
a good deal
has been said, but I think the main point has
too often been lost sight of. The
course
of the debate upon these resolutions has
seemed to run in some instances as though
we regarded a membership of this branch of
the Legislature a position which
we ought to
occupy by right, as though we had some sort
of a constitutional right to remain here, and
as though governments and parliamentary
bodies were instituted by the people, not for
the benefit of the community, but for the advancement of those who compose them. We
would seem to have overlooked a fundamental
principle of all free governments, that governments should be carried on for the good
of the
governed; and the principle of responsible
government, according to which government
must be carried on according to the well-understood wishes of the people.
HON.
MR. REESORâAs expressed, my
honorable friend says, by their representatives. Very well; we must remember that
those who constitute the Government of this
country have brought down here a very curious scheme, and have held out to you the
inducement that if you support it you have a
chance of being appointed for life to the seat
you occupy; and there is thus a probability
of your being blinded to what you owe to the
people, of your ignoring the constituencies
that sent you here, and of your forgetting the
duty you owe to the country. Now,
I hold
with regard to the elective
principle in this
House, that the oftener a man is brought in
contact with the people in a
legitimate way,
to learn their wishes as constitutionally and
properly expressed, the more
likely he is to
use his influence and talent in
conducting the
government in such a manner as to
secure the
happiness and prosperity of the
country.
(Hear, hear.) It is said that, as
you have a
responsible government, the
Government of
the day will be held responsible
to the people,
through their representatives in the lower
branch of the Legislature for the
appointments, it may make to this House.
Admitting
this to be the case, we know what
the tendency is in England, and what it
was
in this country when the Government
had the appointment
of the members of the
Legislative Council; the effect will be to find
a place in this House for men distinguished
for the aid they have given at elections to certain men or parties, and not as a reward
of
true merit or legislative ability. Furthermore, if this House is to be of any value
at
all, it is as affording a
wholesome check over
hasty and unwise legislation. But if you
place the whole legislation of the country in
the hands of a single man or body, I care not
whether it is democratic or aristocratic in its
tendencies, a power like that in the hands of
the Executive to create the Legislative Council is a dangerous one. Unrestrained or
unchecked action by a single elected body of the
most democratic character is apt to go astray
if they feel they have only themselves to consult. This is what is proposed to be
done
under this scheme; but let this House be
elected, as before, by the people; let them be
returned for a period of eight years as at present, or even longer if desired, and
then, if
there is a demand for legislation of a selfish
or ill-considered characterâa demand which,
founded on ignorance or passion, is likely to
right itself after the lapse of a few yearsâthe
members of this House would take the responsibility upon themselves of rejecting it,
and public opinion would eventually sustain
them and acknowledge that they
have done
some service to the country. But inasmuch
as you appoint these members for life, you
have no check over them, nor are they so
likely to check legislation of an immature and
ill-considered character. While the Ministry
of the day which appoints them remains in
power, it will expect and receive a cordial
support from them; but let it be defeated, and
a ministry, formed out of the opposite party
obtain office, there will certainly be difficulty
âthere will be a tendency to dead-locks between the two branches of the
legislature, and
a repetition of these scenes which were witnessed in this country some years ago,
and
which formed one of the principal causes that
brought about the rebellion of 1837. Honorable gentlemen say that we will have the
power to remedy these defects in the scheme
if they are found to be injurious in their action, but it is well known from the experience
of the past that no power can be brought to
bear to bring about any change that may be
required, without a great deal of agitation and labor. What has been the
agitation to
secure a change in the representation of the
two sections of Canada in Parliament? It
has been going on for ten or twelve years,
332
and yet, on the eve of accomplishment,
those
who have advocated it have not effected
a change of the nature that was desired,
but have jumped into a new and totally
different scheme, that really seems to me
to have been brought about for the sole
purpose of advancing their own personal aims,
rather than satisfying any demand on the
part of the people. (Hear, hear.) The honorable and gallant Knight at the head of
the
Government stated that we were on an inclined plane, and in danger of sliding into
the
republicanism of the United
States. This
phrase has been referred to so often by honorable members who have spoken, and so
many
deductions have been drawn from it, that I
may perhaps be permitted to say a few words
upon it. I think all must see that the tendency of the scheme now before the House
will be in a few years to impose direct taxation
upon the people for the support of the local
governments. Let us then have direct taxation, and what will be the result? If there
is
a large expenditure on the part of the General Government, in addition to this taxation,
political agitators will arise, who will cry out
that the public burdens are unequally borne
â(hear)âthat two-thirds of the revenue is
borne by the people living west of Quebecthat is, the population west of this city
will, man for man, pay twice as much to
the public exchequer as the population east
of it. There will undoubtedly be
the same
tendency, under such a state of
things, as has
been charged to exist on the part of the Lower
Canadian representatives since the union was
formedânamely, a tendency on the
part of
those who pay the smaller portion of the revenue to spend the public money freely
and
extravagantly. They will naturally say when
any appropriation is proposed for their own
sectionâ" We will go for this expenditure,
for it will benefit us; and we will support a
corresponding expenditure in the other section, because we have not so much to pay
of
it as the people of that section--we will have
only fifty cents to pay of it, while they will
have to pay a dollar." This argument will
be used in support of all extravagant and
wasteful expenditures, and you may depend
upon it that they will soon be incurred. Then
you will have political agitators who will constantly keep these things before
the people,
who will demand a dissolution of the union of
the provinces as a remedy for the evil. Then
a further difficulty will be found in the fact
that breadstuffs, the American market for
which will probably be closed,
cannot be
transported to the Lower from the
Upper
Provinces without being protected by a
heavy
import duty. Will the representatives from
the Lower Provinces allow that import duty
to be imposed? No, undoubtedly they will not.
Attempt to carry it in the interest of Upper
Canada and you will at once transform the
whole of them into advocates for the repeal
of the union. Thus you create cause
for agitation in all the sections, and it
will not long continue until you will again
see another dead-lock. You will
again have
three administrations formed and three general elections occurring within two years,
and
again you will have suflicient excuse for
another change in the Constitution. And you
may rely upon it, that before such an agitation goes on five years it will be made
an excuse for sliding further down
the inclined
plane than would have been afforded if we had
remained as we were. (Hear, hear. I cannot help coming to the conclusion, honorable
gentlemen, that these resolutions contain the
seeds of our destruction as colonies. There
can be no political advantage in the proposed
union, unless we assume the rights and responsibilities of an independent country.
We are
not yet prepared for that step. Our population is not numerous enough; we are too
young
and too weak to assume these rights and responsibilities. We have no commercial advantages
to gain by the union. Why then force
it upon us? Let it remain for more mature
consideration, and the evils you have will be
borne the more quietly; but if you force it
upon the people prematurely, and the evils I
fear spring from it, depend upon
it that the
public men who press it forward will be as
seriously condemned as they are now
highly
lauded. The fact is, the people of the country
do not understand this scheme. How can it be
expected that they should understand it in all its
bearings? Why, the honorable member from
the Rideau Division said he heard the explanations of it and was here a couple of
weeks
before he understood it, and that he had sent
2000 circulars to his constituents that they
might have a knowledge of it. How can he
expect them to understand it from these printed documents, when he himself, with the
advantage of hearing all the explanations upon
it, was two weeks in gaining an understanding of it? Honorable gentlemen, I am in
the
abstract in favor of the union of these colon-
iceâ(hear, hear)âbut I do not wish to force
on this scheme in a way that is unfair and un333 just,
that will lead to future difficulties of
even a graver character than
those we are now
laboring under, and that will give cause for the
advocacy of such a change in our position as
few in this country would desire to see brought
about. (Hear, hear.)
The House then divided upon the amendment, with the following result:-
ContentsâHonorable
Messieurs Aikins, Archambault, Armstrong, Bennett,
Bureau, Chaffers, Currie, A. J. Duchesnay, Flint, Leonard,
Leslie, Malhiot, Moore, Olivier, Proulx, Reesor,
Seymour, Simpson, Vidal.âl9.
Non-ContentsâHonorable
Messieurs Alexander, Allan, Armand, Sir N. F.Belleau, Blake,
Boulton, Bossé, Bull, Campbell, Christie, Crawford, DeBeaujeu, Dickson, E. H. J. Duchesnay,
Dumouchel, Foster, Gingras, Guévremont, Hamilton (Inkerman), Hamilton (Kingston),
Lacoste,
McCrea, McDonald, McMaster,
Macpherson, Matheson, Mills, Panet, Price, Read, Ross, Ryan,
Shaw, Skead, Sir E. P. TachĂ©, Wilson.â36.
So the amendment was negatived.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHĂ saidâI am anxious that honorable gentlemen should have a
full opportunity of expressing themselves upon
the measure which is now before the House,
and as I am the mover of the resolutions, I
think it is but just and fair that I should close
the debate. (Hear, hear.) If no
other honorable gentleman desires to speak upon them,
I think that before the vote is taken I should
have an opportunity of answering
the arguments that have been advanced against the
scheme, and of explaining certain expressions
that have fallen from me. I believe the
House will be disposed to give me that fair
play which has always been given under circumstances similar to theseâ(hear, hear)and
I purpose, thereforeâno other honorable
gentleman desiring to address the Houseâto
close the debate this evening.
HON. MR. CURRIEâI would ask if it is
the intention of the Government to explain
the resolutions more fully than has been done?
HON.
MR. CAMPBELLâThe members
of the Government will be happy to
afford any
information the honorable member may desire.
The House then adjourned till eight
o'clock
in the evening, and on
reassembling,
HON. MR.
RYAN saidâThe importance
of the vote we are about to give on these resolutions is very great, as the future
of the
country is so largely dependent upon it, and
representing as l do the division of Victoria,
which is one of the most important in the
country, containing a large representation of
those sections or divisions of races which make
up the population of Canada, I think it is due to
my constituents to make a few
observations
upon the subject before us. (Hear)
If
the constituency I represent is, perhaps, not
quite the most numerous in the
country, it
possesses a large share of the
wealth, business and manufacturing energy
and commercial enterprise of the province. It also
contains, in not very unequal proportions,
people of the different nationalities. religions
and languages which most largely prevail
amongst us. You have the French element.
with the Roman Catholic religion and
French language; you have the English,
Scotch and Irish Protestant element, and
you have the Irish Roman Catholic element,
which I may be said more especially to represent, and which is by no means an unimportant
one. Go through Canada, and you will find
that these, with a few European foreigners,
such as Germans and Norwegians, make up
nearly the whole population. My division
is, in fact, an epitome of Canada. (Hear,
hear.) It may not be too much to say that
the opinion and feeling of Montreal will be
a fair representation of what the opinion of
the country generally is, and that if Montreal
has come to a nearly unanimous conclusion,
it is very likely the different sections of the
country will have arrived at a very similar
one on the subject of Confederation. I am
happy to be able to state with confidence,
that I have taken pains to ascertain the
opinions of each of the different
sections of
my constituency to which I have alluded,
and that I believe they are in consonance
with the votes I have given in this chamber.
(Hear, hear.) I have alluded to the energy
of my constituents. to their great commercial
enterprise. I believe that energy is one of
their leading characteristics, and I may say
this, that if that energy has led them, on
rare occasions, a little further than their own
interest and that of the country required,
they, nevertheless, on such occasions acted
on an honest and generous impulse, or were
prompted by the feeling that some injustice
had been done to them. I was greatly
gratified with the remarks of the honorable
and gallant Premier at the commencement
of
this debate, when alluding to events
which long since took place in Montreal; he
put the blame where it really should
reston the Legislature of the day, which was
pressing on the people a measure distasteful
to them, and which was vainly
remonstrated
against by numerous
portions of the country.
The
same impulsive character which led
334
them at that time into a course which is
certainly much to be regretted, afterwards
led them to countenance a movement of
which I disapproved at the time, and which
I opposed with all my mightâthe move-
meat towards annexation. They favored
that movement, because they thought they
had been aggrieved and maltreated. But I
may tell you now, that this
feeling has completely vanished, and that their wish now is
to place Canada on a footing in which, united
with the Lower Provinces and in close connection with Great Britain, she may be
thoroughly independent of her neighbors,
and free from any need of looking again
towards Washington. (Hear, hear.) In
considering the project of
Confederation, one
of the principal subjects which has
undergone discussion in this House has been the
proposed Constitution of the Council, and
the most prominent question connected with
it has been the question of the elective
versus
the nominative principle. Although an
elected member, I voted without the least
hesitation against the elective principle, and
I believe that in doing so I represented the
views of my constituents as well as my ownâI
mean the great majority of my constituents,
for there may be some exceptions with regard to this point, as there are no doubt
with respect to the general question of Confederation. I based my vote on what is,
I
think, a true principle in politics, which is
that if you wish a check to be established,
such as I think this Council is intended to
establish on the legislation of the other
branch, you must not have the two Chambers
returnable by the same constituents. If the
constituents of both Houses are nearly the
same, you lose the power of check, or at
least you will not have it effectual, because
you will have the same sentiments and feelings represented in this House as in the
other. I am not singular in this opinion,
but were I to cite the opinions of men who
are of a conservative turn of mind, and who
have always upheld the privileges of the
aristocracy and the prerogative of the Crown,
I should, perhaps, give you opinions which
would carry less weight with the opponents
of this measure than will that of a gentleman
whose views I will cite, who has written a
great deal, and very ably, and who belongs
to the ranks of the advanced Liberal party
in EnglandâI mean Mr. JOHN STUART
MILL. In his chapter on the Second
Chamber (
Considerations on
Representative
Government, page 212), he says:-
That there should be in every polity a centre
of resistance to the predominant power in the
Constitutionâand in a democratic constitution,
therefore, a nucleus of resistance to the democracyâI have already maintained, and
I regard it
as a fundamental maxim of government.
If any
people who possess a democratic representation
are, from their historical antecedents, more willing
to tolerate such a centre of resistance in the form
of a Second Chamber or House of Lords than in
any other shape, this constitutes a strong reason
for having it in that shape.
Now, honorable gentlemen, I think a
Second
Chamber, constituted nearly in the same
way as the Lower Chamber, would be wholly
ineffectual to stop the current of legislation
coming from that Chamber; the point, indeed, admits of very little question. (Hear,
hear.) The objections which have been raised
to nomination by the Crown or the Executive Government arc of very little effect at
this time of day. For myself I should have
preferred to have the nomination of legisative councillors vested in the Crown independently
of the recommendation of the
Local Government, so as to have left the prerogative unfettered. There is no doubt
that
abuses formerly existed in Canada when the
nominative system was in forceâbefore responsible government was established and
when the Colonial Office meddled a good deal
with the affairs of the
province; but now
every honorable gentleman with any knowledge of historical events in Canada will say
at once the case is altogether altered. So
far from interfering in our internal matters,
the Colonial Oflice now leaves us a great deal
to ourselves and lets us do as we please.
There never was a freer Constitution than
ours. Under these altered circumstances, I
should have preferred, I say, that in order
to avoid all appearance of nominations for
party purposes, the direct nomination of legislative councillors should have been
left to
the Crown or the Crown's representative in
the Confederation. (Hear.) There was
one remark made by the hon. member lor
Wellington in reference to Mr. CARDWELL's
letter, which I think was made in error. He
inferred from that dispatch that Mr. CARDWELL was opposed to the nominative system.
Now, the passage he alluded
to was
this:-
The second point which Her Majesty's Government desired should be reconsidered is
the Constitution of the Legislative Council. They appreciate
the considerations which have influenced
the Conference in determining the mode in which this
body, so important to the constitution of the Le335gislature should be composed. But it
appears to
them to require further consideration whether, if
the members be appointed for life, and their
number be fixed, there will be any sufficient
means of restoring harmony
between the Legislative Council and the popular Assembly, if it shall
ever unfortunately happen that a decided difference of opinion shall arise between
them.
Now the point of this (Mr. CARDWELL'S)
objection clearly is to the number being fixed,
not to the principle of nomination, nor to
members being appointed for life. (Hear,
hear.) Like many honorable
gentlemen in
this House, there are certain of the clauses
in these resolutions which, I think, might
have been improved. I, for instance, might
have preferred the Confederate seat of government being established elsewhere than
at
Ottawa; and, with reference to this subject,
I have been much struck with a remark,
which I will cite, from a recent writer, who
says thatâ"Any country compelled to forego the use of its natural chief city, and
make
some inferior and ill-placed town the seat of
its government, labors under incalculable
disadvantages." Everybody, however, has
his own little bantling, and thinks it
the handsomest in the world; and I
doubt very much if, after all, we should
have made the plan of Confederation much
better, had every one of us been consulted and taken into the Conference, at Charlottetown
or Quebec, to urge our own
special views.
(Hear, hear.) I rather infer, from the differences of opinion I have heard around
me
in these debates, that the compromise system
would not have been so easily adopted by us
as by the gentlemen who composed these
conferences. I hope, however, that we shall
adopt that system now, and get through the
debate in the faith that they have done what
is best for the interests at the country, and
that the measure is so important, as a whole,
as to render it unwise to place minor impediments in its way to interrupt its course.
(Hear, hear.) I have marked several sections of the resolutions which I think are
open to objection or susceptible of improvement, and I hope the honorable and gallant
Knight at the head of the Government will
give some explanations respecting the views
which animated the Conference in reference
to them. One of them is a matter in which
Lower Canada is somewhat peculiarly interestedâthe system of marriage and divorce,
which, I see, is to be left in the hands of the
Federal Government. I hope nothing will
be done by the General Government, in relation to this action, which will outrage
the
feelings of Lower Canada, or lead to the
laxity, in dealing with the marriage tie,
which prevails south of the line 45°. (Hear,
hear.) Again, emigration is a subject which
is left to the Local as well as the General
Government to deal with. I think it should
be under the care of the General Government entirely. Then, as to the question of
education, I hope that the Government will secure
to Roman Catholics in Upper Canada the
same rights which will be extended to Protestants in Lower Canada. To have the same
privileges is only equal justice, which I trust
and believe will be granted. Having been
in communication with several of the Roman
Catholic clergy, I can say that they desire to
have every justice done to their Protestant
fellow-subjects, but expect to have the sameÂ
privileges granted to Roman
Catholics in
Upper Canada (who are the minority there,)
as will be given to the Protestant minority
in Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) I must
also refer to the clause which gives to local
governments the right of dividing the sections of the Confederation into constituencies
and electoral divisions. This power may
become very dangerous and lead to great
practical injustice, and should, I think, be
placed in the hands et the General Government. I come now to the question of railway
extension, and this is a matter which
seems to have been a serious stumbling-block
to a great number of those who are really
favorable to the measure of Confederation.
Now, I do not think the Intercolonial Railway
will be a profitable concern, all at once; but
I think I can remove a few of the objections
which have been raised to this part of the
scheme. In the first place, I think
a mistake
prevails as to what will be the cost of carrying
freight on this railway. I have here the annual
Trade and Navigation Returns of New
Brunswick for 1863, in which I find the
following statement:-
If New Brunswick was connected with Montreal and Quebec by direct railway communication
through British territory, our importations from
the States would decrease immediately, and much
of our flour and other supplies would come direct
from Canada; and in the event of the Reciprocity
Treaty and the bonding system of the United
States, which allows British goods to pass through
their territory free of duty under bond
to Canada,
being abolished, Saint John would probably
become the Atlantic shipping port of Canada for
the winter months.
People may suppose the rates of freight
336
would be so very extravagant that this
could
not come to pass; but in the same report,
which has very opportunely come to hand, as
it corroborates the remarks I made during the
debate on the Address as to the fact that
we should have some offset in the trade of
the Lower Provinces, under Confederation,
for what we should lose if the Reciprocity
Treaty were to be annulled, I find the
following statement:-
The cost of transportation of flour from
Montreal to Portland, Maine, by rail, has been reduced
to the low figure of 35 cents per barrel, and from
Portland, Maine, to this port, it can be conveyed
for 25 cents by steamer, or 15 cents by sailing
vessel, making altogether 60 cents for conveying
a barrel of flour, weighing 200 lbs., by rail and
steam, a distance of 585 miles, and it could be
delivered at this port (St. John, N. B.) within
five or six days from the time of loading at Montreal. Of course these low rates of
railway
freight apply to large quantities only.
Well now, gentlemen, the distance from
Montreal to St. John, by railway, is at a
rough estimate about 600 miles.
HON. MR. RYANâSo much the better
for my argument, but I will give my hon.
friend the benefit of the 600 miles. Now,
the further a barrel of flour is carried the
less the freight per mile is, because you get
rid of the cost of handling it at successive
stages. If you can carry it from Montreal
to Portland, say 300 miles, for 35 cents,
you can certainly carry it 600 miles for less
than twice that sum, or let us say for 60
cents, not more than what it now costs by
the combined rail and steamboat route
via
Portland, while the flour conveyed all the
way by rail will be the better for not being
moved about from one means of conveyance
to another. I have indeed reason to believe,
from a very good railway authority, that it
would pay a railway company well
to
carry flour from Montreal to St. John
for from 60 to 70 cents per barrel, and
that if it were necessary, the work could
be done at a profit at 50 cents per barrel.
(Hear, hear.) I want to shew by this, that
the carrying of flour over the Intercolonial
Railway will not be so difficult of accomplishment as people who have not
gone into
the calculation closely may be disposed to
imagine. (Hear, hear.) I have here, too,
a statement of the imports of flour into New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
It is as follows:-
| Imports of Flour. |
Barrels. |
| New Brunswick. ........... |
243,000 |
| Nova Scotia ............... |
328,000 |
| Newfoundland ............. |
226,000 |
|
797,000 |
If we now look at our imports and experts
for 1863, we shall find that we imported
into Canada 4,210,942 bushels of wheat,
while we exported only 3,030,407 bushels.
Well, this may appear strange, considering
that we are an agricultural and exporting
country; but we come next to the article of
flour, and find that while we imported only
229,793 barrels, we exported 1,095,691
barrels.
HON. MR. RYANâExactly so. The
excess of flour exported was 865,898 barrels,
which, taken at 4 1/2 bushels to
the barrel,
would be equal to 3,896,541 bushels of
wheat. Deducting from this the excess of
our imports over our exports of wheat, vis.,
1,180,535 bushels, will leave us 2,716,006
for export, which at the same calculation,
viz., 4 1/2 bushels to the barrel,
gives as
603,557 barrels of surplus flour, ground from
wheat in Canada, with which to supply the
demand of the three Maritime Provinces
mentioned of 797,000 barrels. (Hear, hear.)
Thus, if the Reciprocity Treaty be repealed,
we can just about supply what they annually
require. (Hear, hear.) Their
importations
are moreover very constant, for the return
says:-
Our importations of wheat flour in 1863 amounted to 243,391 barrels, against
232,237 barrels in
1862; 210,676 barrels in l861, 198,323 barrels
in 1860; 295,356 barrels in 1859, 226,649 barrels in 1858; and 153,515 barrels in
1857.
That is as far as wheat or wheaten flour
is
concerned. They consume also a large
quantity of pork, a large quantity of beef
and other produce; but I do not wish
to trespass longer upon the time of the
House.
HON. Mn. RYANâI will just read from
the New Brunswick return. It says :-
Our importations into the Province in
1863, of
all kinds of agricultural produce,
amounted in
value to $2,060,702, the
description of which was
as follows:âFlour and meal of all kinds, bread,
beans, peas and pot barley, $1,333,786; grain of
all kinds, bran, horse [and pig
feed, $148,413;
vegetables, including potatoes, $76,769;
meats
337
vis., salted, cured and fresh including poultry,
$242,933; butter, cheese, lard
and eggs, $75,235;
animals. including horses, oxen, cows, sheep and
pigs, $58,715; apples, pears, plums, cranberries,
&c., $60,257; tallow and soap grease,
$29,973,
hops, $5,226; hay, $3,142; malt,
$4,719; shrubs,
trees, &c., $2,188; seeds,
$10,815; wool, $8,531;
amounting altogether in currency to ÂŁ515,175.
The value of the agricultural produce imported in
1862 was ÂŁ476,581 currency; in 1861 it was
ÂŁ427,083 currency; and in 1860 it was ÂŁ447,341
currency.
The Nova Scotia and Newfoundland returns
also show that large quantities of agricultural
produce of all kinds are imported into these
colonies, as well as immense quantities of
pork and other meats which we could easily
and profitably supply. Now all these articles
Canada will be able to supply, and this is
another item in the return which is very
noticeable. The Lower Provinces import
large quantities of boots and shoes. The New-
Brunswick return states that-
The value of boots and shoes imported in
1863
was $59,851âduty, $7,521; against $57,957duty, $9,105, in 1862; $101,967âduty,
$16,385,
in 1861; and $131,424âduty, $20,83, in 1860.
These under Confederation would go duty
free from Canada. There is a large manufacture of such articles, and with them, as
with some other articles we make, we might
supply the Lower Province markets. (Hear,
hear.) If there is one feature in our connection with the Lower Provinces which we
must not lose sight of, it is their possessing
coal in large quantities; this is sure eventually to create manufacturing communities
amongst them, to increase their population,
and cause a larger home demand than at
present, for the agricultural productions of
Western Canada. (Hear, hear.) I may
now recur to the Intercolonial Railway question, and express a hope that it will be
gone
about by the Government in the
most economical manner possible. This much may be
said. that whatever money is spent on it will
be spent in the country, that is, in our new
country, will be spent among ourselves, and
will attract a great army of laborers; and
I do hope and trust the
Administration
will so arrange the prosecution of the
work, that these laborers shall be induced
to settle on the lands traversed
by the
hue, which, I am told, are very favorable
to settlement, so that another market for our
manufactures and productions may be formed ;
and that if the Reciprocity Treaty should be
lost to us (an event which I deprecate as
much as anyone), we may have something to
fall back uponâwhich we shall have, hon. gentlemen, if we look at our position boldly
and
energetically, and take advantage of circumstances as they arise (Hear, hear.) With
respect to the statement that the road will
not be valuable for purposes of defence, not
being a military man, that is, nothing more.
than a militia oficer, I do not pretend to
offer a very valuable opinion: but it appears
to me that, removed a certain distance from
the frontier as it will be, an attack on the
railway must be next to impossible in the
winter time; besides, it will be our duty to
guard our frontier in such a way that incursions cannot be made upon us with effect,
and I hope we shall be able to do so.
(Hear, hear.) It has been remarked that the
English Government would not think of sending a military force from Halifax to Canada
by railway, but I confess I
differ from this
view. In the war which is now going on in
the United States, if it has been proved
that
railways can be easily broken up, it has also
been proved that they can easily be relaid,
and the value set upon them by military
men
is clearly exemplified by the struggles
they
make to gain or to retain possession of
them.
If a railway is partially broken up, they
have
appliances at hand quickly to repair it.
It
is a part of modern warfare to lay
railways
and lines of telegraph, and armies have
corps
attached to them whose special duty this
is.
(Hear, hear.) There is another thing,
important in a military point of view,
which
has been lost sight ofâwhich is, that
although
soldiers might walk over the snow,
military
munitions and the heavy articles used in
war,
such as cannon and mortars, can not be
put on
snow-shoes. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I
think the railway would be of incalculable
value for transporting such things as these
if there were occasion for it, which I hope
there never will be. It is, however, meet to
be prepared for such an eventuality as war,
for that is the best way to avoid it. (Hear,
hear.) I may here refer to what some
honorable gentlemen have remarked in this
debate, that the circumstance of certain
portions of the population of the Lower
Provinces being occupied in maritime pursuits, diminishes to that extent their power
of aiding Canada in case of war.
In this
opinion am unable to concur; for if there
be one arm more than another in which
they can assist us, it is by the aid of their
hardy seafaring population, who will swarm
the seaports of the Confederacy and the
338
Empire, and act with great effect upon
the
commerce and sea-board towns of any foreign
foe. It has been said, honorable gentlemen,
that this measure is being hurried through
the House, and complaint has been made
that it has not been referred to the country
for arbitrament. But, look at the consequences of so referring it to the country.
Look at the consequences of
delay. You
have read the telegram today
which gives
the news of the assembling of
the British
Parliament, and I am glad to see a statement
in Her Majesty's Speech, that She has
approved of the measure which is now under
our consideration. Well, gentlemen, the
Parliament of Great Britain will not sit for
an unlimited time. Its session, this year,
may be shorter than usual, for the natural
dissolution of this and the assembling
of a
new Parliament are drawing near, and contending parties generally make an effort,
towards the close of a Parliament, to make a
change in the Administration. Any one who
reads the English papers and political documents will see that a change of Ministry
is
confidently expected by some people; and if
a defeat of the present Ministry takes place,
and Parliament is dissolved, their own affairs
will occupy the minds of British statesmen,
so that when again called together, for a short
time in summer, it may be merely to legislate on local matters, and our Confederation
project may thus be indefinitely
delayed.
HON. MB. RYANâI think any man with
his eyes open will see that events are marching on upon this continent with great
strides.
Event follows event in such rapid succession
that we can hardly tell whither the tide will
flow next. Already we hear the great anticipated successes of the North. If the news
be true that Charleston has been evacuated,
it will be a severe blow to the cause of the
South; and if the South be conquered, we
know what have been the sentiments towards
Canada expressed in the United States for
the last three years. They will, perhaps,
turn north for further conquests, and try to
humble a power which has not in every way
met their wishes. We should, at all events,
be prepared to meet such a contingency,
prepared to repel attack, prepared to defend
our homes and the free Constitution under
which we live. I will conclude by saying
that if the citizens of Montreal have been
accused in former times of energy in a wrong
direction, they are prepared now, and
I speak
it advisedly, to use that energy for the defence of the province. For the people of
the
nationality to which I belong, I
will further
say they have come to this country to find a
home and they have found one, where they are
not oppressed by any wrongs, where there is
no invidious distinction between races and
creeds. They appreciate the blessing and
value of the institutions under which they
live, they are ready to defend them, and
they look on the union ot the British
North American Provinces as the surest
means of preserving and
perpetuating them.
(Cheers.)
HON. MR. PRICEâHonorable gentlemen,
being one of the newly elected members of
this House, I would like to say a few words,
by way of defining my position, before the
vote is taken. Although I have said that I
was in favor of Confederation as the only
means by which we could make proper provision for our defence, yet, until I understood
the details more clearly than
what I could
learn from the resolutions, I could not make
up my mind to vote for it. Previous to the
declaration at the election in my division, the
press had circulated the views of the Conference, and I went over the details so far
as I
was in possession of them, and the verdict of
the people at the hustings was unanimously
in favor of the scheme. (Hear, hear.)
I
would like to enter into a discussion
of the
details, clause by clause, but it is impossible
to do so at the present time. It is not surprising that almost every member of the
House is opposed to one or more of the resolutions; it is impossible for us, even
when we
go into committee on almost any subject, to
unanimously agree on all the clauses. Before
going further wish to thank my honorable
friend the gallant knight at the head of the
Government, for his kind remarks with reference to my father and myself, at the opening
of this debate. For the last twenty years I
have been known and resided in the constituency which sent me here, and if I have
been
elected without much opposition, it was from
friendship towards me on the part of my constituents. Although I represent people
having different religious views, yet I believe
only twenty-six Protestant votes were given
for me. I have had a great deal
of personal
friendship and intercourse with the Roman
Catholic clergy of Lower Canada, and must
say I have always found them liberal and
loyal in their views, and, as a
body, almost
339
unanimous in supporting the scheme of Confederation, being convinced that it is the
only
sortie from our present political troubles, and
of our continuing under the
British Crown,
knowing well the liberty that all subjects enjoy under it; and I feel certain that
if ever
flie day comes to defend the British flag
on this soil, while a shred is left on the
staff they will be there to defend it. Being
an elected member of this, House, who by
this scheme may be offered a seat for life,
beg to say that I care little for the chance;
but I have been congratulated by my constituents, on all sides, upon the prospect
before
me, and if I vote for the measure as it stands
I shall not, therefore, in any way displease
them. Although I voted for rendering this
House elective, in 1856, yet I did so, contrary
to my Own convictions, for the sole purpose
of sustaining the Government, believing that
this House should be a conservative body. I
consider that this should be a special branch,
where we should judge measures without reference to popular prejudices, if such a
thing were possible. I think we are here to
judge without that political partiality which
actuates most of the members of the Lower
House, some of whom got their seats by a
majority of one. I am sure persons elected
in that manner can hardly claim to represent
the popular feeling of the country. For my
part, I intend to vote for these
resolutions,
for it becomes a matter of choice with us
either to support them and thus become one
strong Confederacy, or else by driblets into
the American Union. (Hear,
hear.) I am
fully convinced that we are tending rapidly
towards annexation, and that the only thing
that can save us is the formation of a strong
Confederacy. And if that is not done immediately, I firmly believe that we shall let
the
golden opportunity slip, and will not again
have the opportunity. Honorable gentlemen
say that our debt will be rapidly increased
under Confederation. Well, that is hard to
say, but I think it quite likely it may increase slightly. But what would be our debt
if we were annexed to the United States?
What would our taxes be if we had a proportion of the enormous war debt of that country
to pay, in addition to our own? For my
part, believing as I do that this is the only
hope of the country, and the present the only
opportunity we shall have of carrying it
throughâand so far as I know it
is the only
oneâI should feel myself unworthy the position I hold if I did not vote in favor of
it.
It is the only practicable scheme that has
ever come before the country for settling
the
difficulties that have afiieted the country.
For the past ten years, during which I have
had the honor of being a representative of the
people, there has always been a running fight
between the ins and outsâfirst one side and
then the other, contending for office, and the
result has been anything but satisfactory to
the country. I think if honorable members
would take an impartial view of this question,
and consider that we cannot alter the details,
if we desired to do so, without defeating the
whole, they would not hesitate to vote for it.
As I understand it, the details in reference to
the formation of our own local governments
will be brought before us, and we shall
then have ample opportunity of considering
and amending them if we think it necessary.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. REESORâI do not wish to
make any lengthened remarks; but there are
one or two points to which I wish to call the
attention of the House before the vote
is
taken. (Cries of "Question," "question!") If
I am out of order, I will take my seat.
HON. MR. REESORâ I wish to call the
attention of the House to the opinion of the
celebrated author quoted by my honorable
friend from Victoria Division (Hon. Mr.
RYAN). My honorable friend quoted some
part of a work by Mr. JOHN STUART MILLS,
a celebrated writer on Representative Government, but he did not go far enough. Mr.
MILLS says:-
The consideration which tells most in my
judgment in favor of two Chambers (and this
I do regard as of some moment), is the evil
effect
produced upon the mind of any holder of power,
whether an individual or an assembly, by the
consciousness of having only
themselves to consult.
This is perfectly true. But what does my
honorable friend advocate ? He advocates
that the whole power shall be concentrated in
the General Government; that they shall
have the power to create this House, so that
the whole power shall be legally centred in
"one body." The writer he quoted goes on
and condemns that principle in the following
words:-
If the writings by which reputation has
been
gained are unconnected with politics, they are
no evidence of the special qualities required,
while, if political, they would enable successive
ministries to deluge the House with party tools.
That is the position to which my
honorable
340
friend would drive us. He would give the
ministry the power "to deluge
this House
with party tools." He then went
on and
proved too much with regard to the trade
between the provinces. He said
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would take our manufactures, that already we had large
manufactures of boots and shoes, and that the
Lower Provinces would take these and other
manufactures from us. And then he told us
that they had coal in Nova Scotia, and that
where there is coal, manufactures will
spring up.
HON. MR. RYANâCoal is not used in
the
manufacture of boots and shoes.
HON. MR.
REESORâBut coal makes a
manufacturing country, and there is no reason
why Nova Scotia, as a manufacturing country,
should not manufacture boots and shoes as
cheaply as they can be manufactured at
Montreal.
I have lately learned from good
authority that the very articles to which my
honorable friend refers (boots and shoes) are
now being largely manufactured in the city of
St. John. Labor is quite as cheap in New
Brunswick as in Canada, and there is no
reason why they could not supply themselves
with the articles named, and with
many others,
even cheaper than they can be supplied from
Canada.
HON. MR. RYANâAs regards Mr. MILLS'
opinions, the extract I read was this :-
That
there should be in every polity a centre
of resistance to the predominant power in the
Constitutionâand in a democratic Constitution,
therefore, a nucleus of resistance to the democracyâI have already maintained; and
I regard
it as a fundamental maxim of government. If
any people who possess a democratic representation are, from their historical antecedents,
more
willing to tolerate such a centre of resistance in
the form of a Second Chamber or House of
Lords, than in any other shape,
this constitutes a
strong reason for having it in that shape.
He admits that a check can be used, and
properly used, by a House of
Lords or a
Legislative Council. Then he goes on to
say
that he does not think this the best check,
and prescribes a plan of his own; but his
statement on this point is too long to enter
upon now.
HON. MR. CURRIEâI wish to ask the
Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands a question with reference to the meaning of the 5th
sub-section of the 29th clause, which commits to the General Parliament " the raising
of money by all or any other modes or systems of taxation." Am I to understand that
the General Government are to have the pow
er-of imposing local taxation upon the
lands
of the provinces?
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâThe general
national power of taxation is to be in the
General Government.
HON. MR. CURRIEâThe 34th sub-section of the same clause commits to the General Government "the establishment
of a
general Court of Appeal for the Federated provinces." Is that to be in lieu of the
Courts
of Appeal we now have? Is it intended to
do away with the present Court of Appeal
and to establish a new one?
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâI do not think
my honorable friend has caught the meaning
of what is intended. It does not say the
general Court of Appeal shall be established,
but that the power to establish it shall be in
the General Government.
HON. MR. CURRIEâNew Courts of Appeal?
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâIf a statute of
the Parliament of the United Provinces shall
be passed creating a Court of Appeal, it will
state whether it is in lieu of, or in addition
to, the present Courts of Appeal. I should
suppose it would be in addition.
HON. MR. CURRIEâI think that point
is one which we ought to understand before
giving a final vote; and I do not think the
Hon. Commissioner of Crown
Lands, with
reference to it, has fulfilled his promise to
give an explicit answer to any question which
might be put, to elicit further information
about the scheme. Then the 43rd clause
gives the Nova Scotia Legislature power to
make laws respecting export duties on coal.
What is the meaning of that ?
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâI thought I
had explained that the export duty there
was almost synonymous with our royalty. It
is levied in lieu of a royalty at the mine;
and we therefore permit the Nova Scotia
Government to exact it on coal coming to
this country.
HON. MR. CURRIEâThe honorable gentleman must see it cannot be a royalty, because the royalty must
apply to all coal consumed in the Province of Nova
Scotia, while
the export duty only applies to coal exported
from that province. The 9th sub-section
of that clause imposes on the local governments, " the establishment, maintenance
and
management of penitentiaries, and of public
and reformatory prisons." There is but one
penitentiary
in Canada, which is situated inÂ
Upper Canada. Does this clause impose on
341
the
Local Legislature of Lower Canada
the
construction and maintenance of a new Penitentiary, leaving to Upper Canada
the Penitentiary now in existence in that province?
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâNo
doubt; but
Lower Canada may arrange with Upper Canada for the temporary use of the Penitentiary,
so long as she requires it, or for its permanent use, if that is thought better.
HON. MR. CURRIEâBy the 6th subsection the local legislatures have the control
of " Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic
minority in both Canadas may possess as to their
denominational schools at the time when
the union into operation." I do not
know whether the representations which
have been made in some portions of the
country are correctâthat, under this section,
the Roman Catholics would be entitled to no
more schools than they have at the passing of
the act? Will the Commissioner of Crown
Lands please explain ?
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâBy this section
it is affirmed that the principle of action with
reference to those schools which may be in
existence at the time the Confederation takes
effect, shall continue in operation. Should
this Parliament and the other legislatures
adopt the scheme, and if the Imperial Parliament adopts an act giving effect to it,
there
will be found in existence
certain principles
by which the minorities in Upper
and Lower
Canada will be respectively protected, and
those principles will continue in operation.
HON. MR. CURRIEâBut suppose no
alteration is made in the Common School Law
of Upper Canadaâand, as I understand, none
is promisedâwould the Roman Catholics be
entitled to establish more separate schools ?
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâThe present
Act would continue to operate, and the honorable gentleman knows what are the rights
of
Roman Catholic schools under that Act.
HON.
MR. CURRIEâThat is the way in
which I understand it. With reference to
the 61st clause, I would-ask is it proposed, at
this session of the Legislature, to arrange the
balance of the debtânot taken into the Confederationâbetween Upper and Lower Canada?
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâIt is proposed,
before any Federation scheme goes into operation, that the debt shall be
arranged between
Up and Lower Canada.
HON.
MR. CURRIEâIn the 64th section
it is provided that, "in
consideration of the
tranfer to the General Parliament of the
powers of taxation, an annual grant in
aid of
each province shall he made, equal to eighty
cents per head of the population, as established by the census of 1861; the population
of
Newfoundland being estimated at 130,000."
Would the Commissioner of Crown Lands
state why the population of Newfoundland is
to be estimated at 130,000, while the population of the other provinces is taken according
to the census of 1861âNewfoundland
thus
being allowed 8,000 of a population more than
it would be entitled to under the census, and
being allowed to take in on that basis $200,000 more of debt, and also receiving more
subsidy than it would otherwise be entitled
to? If we are to assume that the population of
Newfoundland increased 8,000 between 1861
and 1864 or 1865, why should not a similar
increase be allowed to Canada? Assuming
that the population of Canada increased at no
more rapid rate, we would have an increase of
160,000, which would entitle us to go into
the Confederation with a debt exceeding that '
with which we now go in of upwards of $4,000,000, and which would give us $130,000
a year more of subsidy. I cannot understand
why the population of Newfoundland should
be taken at 130,000, when all the other provincesâmost of them, at all events, increasing
in population much more rapidly than Newfoundlandâgo in with the population ascertained
by the census of 1861.
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâThe reason is
just this, that there happened to be no census
taken in Newfoundland in 1861. The last
census there was some years beforeâI think
in 1857. The estimated increase, if I recollect rightly, was based on the increase
which
had taken place during the period between the
previous census and that of 1857; and, taking
that ratio of increase, it was found that the
population, at the time of the union, would be
close upon 130,000. We therefore put it at
that fi re.
HON. MR. CURRIEâThe honorable gentleman is right in saying that the last census
of Newfoundland was taken in 1857; but the
increase should have been reckoned only for a
period of four years, and I can scarcely believe that Newfoundland could be entitled
to
an increase of 8,000 in its population in four
years, giving to that colony the benefit of
four years' increase more than Canada. Our
census was taken in 1861.
HON.
MR. CAMPBELLâNot at all; we
all go in with the amounts of our respective
populations estimated at the same time; 130,000 was the estimated population
of New
342foundland at that date. We had no desire
to
give Newfoundland any advantage. Its
population was estimated at 130,000 at the time
at which the populations of the other provinces were taken.
HON. MR. CURRIEâPerhaps the Hon.
Commissioner of Crown Lands will inform us
whether, in stating the revenues of the various
provinces, the customs revenue raised on
goods exported from one province to another
was taken into account? Prince Edward Island, in 1861, paid customs duties amounting
to ÂŁ17,769 sterling; of that, only ÂŁ11,096
was paid on goods imported from foreign
countries, or countries other than those which,
it is proposed, shall form part of this union;
so that the people of that island paid only
about 70 cents per head in duties on goods
brought in from countries outside the proposed
Confederation.
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâWhat do you
make the total customs revenue of Prince d-
ward Island for that year?
HON. MR. CURRIEâSeventeen
thousand
seven hundred and sixty-nine pounds sterling.
Great Britain furnished the largest proportion
of the imports; then Nova Scotia; then the
United States; then New Brunswick. The
whole duties, as I have said, paid on
goods
coming from other countries than the British
Provinces, were ÂŁ11,096, or about two-thirds
of the entire customs revenue.
HON. MR. CAMPBELLâI suppose the
person who was probably the best informed
about the state of the revenue in Prince
Edward Island, was the Secretary of the
Treasury, Hon. Mr. POPE; and our estimate
of the revenue of that island was based on
a printed return which Mr. POPE handed
round among the members of the Conference,
informing us what had been the revenue of
Prince Edward Island in 1863, and for a
series of years before 1863. In the same way
Hon. Mr. TILLEY furnished the statement of
revenue for New Brunswick, Dr. TUPPER for
Nova Scotia, and Hon. Mr. GALT for Canada;
and on these statements furnished by the
Ministers of Finance for the various provinces the estimates were based. I observe
that the Minister of Finance, Hon. Mr. GALT
in a speech delivered elsewhere, puts down the
total revenue of Prince Edward Island at
$197,000, all of which is from
customs and
excise, save about $32,000.
HON. MR. ALEXANDERâMy hon.
friend from Niagara (Hon. Mr. CURRIE) in
his own speech stated the revenue of Prince
Edward Island at $153,000.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHĂ then rose to wind
up the debate, with a general reply. He
said:âHon. gentlemen, I was very anxious
that ample opportunity should be given to the
members of this Honorable House to express
their opinions on the matter which has been
for the last two or three weeks under debate.
And now as I see no member disposed to rise,
with the view of offering any further remarks.
I think the time has come when the debate
may be closed, if such is the pleasure of the
House. I commenced, hon. gentlemen, to
take notesâpretty copious notesâwith the
view of answering the statements and arguments of hon. gentlemen who have spoken in
opposition to the scheme. But, at the suggestion of some of my friends, I have taken
my pen and crossed out all these notes(hear, hear)âby way of compromise, if I
may so express my â(laughter)âand in
order that might not provoke further discussion. I hope that this sacrifice of minefor
it is a sacrificeâ(laughter)âwill be taken
in good part, and that the few remarks I have
now to make will not be of a nature to provoke
any reply. In the first place, I must answer
a question that was put to me, I think by my
hon. friend from St. Clair Division (Hon.
Mr. VIDAL). He said he did not understand
exactly what I meant by the province being
at the top of an inclined plane. It is true
that in going over very rapidly the different
topics on which I touched, I did not explain
that figure very fully. But I stated that the
province stood in a twofold dangerâof being
dragged violently into the American Union,
and, in the next place, as we stood on an inclined plane, of slipping down gradually,
and
without our being aware of it, into the vortex
below. It seems to me that the thing was
plain enough. Still, as I am a Frenchman,
and cannot express myself in English in the
manner I would like, I think I should be
allowed the privilege which is conceded to persons belonging to certain foreign nationalities.
For instance, they say that an Englishman is
allowed to speak once, an Irishman twice-
HON. SIR E. P. TACHĂâWell, three
times be it; that is still better. And a
Dutchman as long as he finds it necessary,
until he can make himself understood. Well,
I want to have the privilege allowed to the
Dutchman. (Laughter.) As to being
drawn
violently into the American Union, if this
scheme of Confederation does not take place, it seems to me that that might be a
very pro
343bable result of our position. Suppose war
was
declared late in autumn, at the close
of navigationâwith the little means we have here of
defending ourselves, we would be placed for
five months in a very disagreeable and trying
position, having no opportunity of obtaining
the powerful succour of the Mother Country.
(Hear, hear.) That must be so easily understood, that I shall make no further remark
upon it. But, my statement about the pro-
vines being placed upon an inclined plane may
require some little comment and explanation.
I say that, if we do not cultivate with our
sister provincesâthe Maritime Provincesâa
close commercial, political, and social intercourseâbeing all of us British subjects,
all
of us monarchists, owing allegiance to the
same Crownâif we neglect the cultivation of
that intercourse, we run a great danger. We
are, in our present position, small, isolated
bodies, and it may probably be with us, as
in the physical world, where a large body
attracts to itself the smaller bodies within the
sphere of its influence. If we do not make
those alliances with the Lower Provincesâif
we do not open with them those communications, political, social, and commercial,
which
are essential for our own
interest, we shall
little by little lose some of those principles
we now esteem so much; we shall lose little by
little our attachment to the Mother Country,
and the interesting reminiscences which, with
many of us, now give intensity to that attachment; and we shall becomeâyou
may depend
upon it, hon. gentlemenâmore and more democratised, before we are aware of it. (Hear,
hear.) And really, hon. gentlemen, if I
were to form my opinion by some of the
speeches which we have heard in this Honorable House since this debate was opened,
I
think there are some hon. gentlemen who,
from the way in which they have expressed
themselves, might be supposed to beâalthough
I hope in reality they are notâalready half
way down the inclined plane. (Hear, hear
and laughter.) Well, hon. gentlemen, I say
that if we want to avoid that, we must have
a Federal union with our fellow-subjects of
the British Provinces, and that besides we
must have easy means of access to the seaboard, so that, in case of danger, help can
be immediately forwarded to Canada and to all
parts of this Federal union, and
that we may
have a powerful army of Great Britain coming
here as an auxiliary to the defence which I
hope we shall be able to make ourselves.
(Hear, hear.) An honorable gentleman has
stated that expressed myself to
the effect
that, if this Confederation did not take
place,
Canada could not become prosperous. I never
said anything of the kind. I said expressly
the contrary. Perhaps I may not precisely
apprehend the meaning of the word "prosperous." But I said this, that Canada had
within itself all the means to become populous, to become wealthy, to become a great
people. But on the other hand, I said that
Canada and the other British American Provinces, without union, could not become a
"powerful," as distinguished from a prosperous people. I said that we in Canada
could not become a powerful people unless we
had some maritime elements, unless we had
the means, by having harbors and ports of
our own open at all seasons, of communicating
freely with all the nations of the world.
(Hear, hear.) That is what I said. I never
stated that Canada could not become prosperous, make money, and so forth. No; I think
Canada can do that; but Canada, even though
its population should reach forty millionswhich it may in a century henceâcan
never
be a powerful nation, unless its power is felt
all over the world; and how can its power he
so felt, unless it has its seaports open all the
year round? (Hear, hear.) And I
said-
"Point out to me the nation in this world
which is powerful, that has not some maritime
elements." I say there is no one in the
world. Every nation whose power has been
felt over the globe, has been a nation that
had some maritime outlet. But Canada,
situated as it is, is in great want of free access to the sea; and, as long as we
are shut
up, during five months of the year. without
being able to communicate with the rest of
the worldâfor, notwithstanding our fine
river, we cannot be said to have a real maritime elementâwe are in truth a dependent
people. (Hear, hear.) I have some notes in
French, made with the intention of answering
honorable gentlemen who spoke in that language; but I think, having commenced, that
will go on in English. It has been asked by
several honorable gentlemen how we were to
make provision for the protection of the minorities in Upper and Lower Canada respectively.
We have in Upper Canada a Catholic minority, in Lower Canada a Protestant
minority. Well, those minorities are now in
possession of certain rights; and,
if we were
not to legislate at all upon those rights, my
interpretation of the scheme is, that they
would still, under the local governments, enjoy the rights which they now
possess. But
it has been provided that, if necessary, addi344tional protection
shall be afforded; and in that
case, I say, without hesitation, that what will
be done for one portion of the country will
also be done for the other
portionsâjustice
Ă©gale distributive. (Hear, hear.) Honorable
gentlemen have said that we have merely
submitted the general scheme of the Government, and they have called upon us to
give detailsâdetails about the School bill,
details about the local governments, and
the immense string of other details embraced in the amendment moved the other day
by my hon. friend from Grandville (Hon.
Mr.
LETELLIER DE ST. JUST), which I
am sure was
at least a fathom long, and a very long fathom
too. ( Laughter.) Now, suppose we had all
these matters before us, could we really digest
such a mass of information as hon. gentlemen
have asked for? It seems to me it would
be like introducing liquids into a vessel whose
month is very small; if you throw in the
liquid rapidly and in two great quantities, the
vessel will be overflowed, and the fluid won't
be got into it. I think we have enough before
us at present, when we have the principal
matter, without the accessories. For, what
would be the use of the accessories if you reject
the principle? (Hear, hear.) Depend upon
it, as soon as these resolutions are concurred
in, then the details will be given one after the
other; and I trust they will be of such a
nature as to meet with the approval of the
majority of this Honorable House. (Hear,
hear.) Some hon. gentlemen have told us
that this was not a Federal unionâthat the
project before you, hon. gentlemen, was in
point of fact a project for a Legislative union.
One hon. gentleman who took this view read
the 29th section, in order to shew that the
General Government, if it chose, could repeal
any of the local acts of the different local
legislaturesâthat the General Government,
for instance, could do away with our religious
and benevolent corporations, or deprive them
of their property. I think the honorable
gentleman must have been rather short-sighted
when he read the 29th resolution, for he
omitted a very important part of it; and,
if he had not omitted that part, I do not
think he would have said that this Federal
scheme was really a scheme for a Legislative
union. I have no doubt my honorable
friend acted in good faith; but being rather
short-sighted, he did not read the whole clause;
otherwise he must have arrived at a different
conclusion. The 29th section says: "The
General Parliament shall have
power to
make laws for the peace, welfare and good
government of the Federated Provinces
(saving the sovereignty of England),
and especially laws respecting the following subjects."
Then follows a list of all the subjects committed to the General Government. But the
resolution does not finish there. There is
something that comes after all that, and it is
this: "And generally respecting all matters
of a general character, not specially and exclusively reserved for the local governments
and legislatures." Now I would ask honorable gentlemen if an act incorporating a religious
body or benevolent society here in
Lower Canada is a subject of a general character; is it not a subject purely local?
(Hear,
hear.) Take, for instance, the sisters of
charity. Could the General Government,
under this clause, interfere with the privileges
of those ladies? I say they could not. I
suppose the honorable gentleman who used
the argument advanced it conscientiously and
in good faith. But I think it is quite evident
from a reading of the resolution that, if Confederation takes place, the General Government
will have no power to interfere with such matters. (Hear, hear.) I must say positively,
if I am competent to draw any conclusion at
all from what I read, that the General Government will have no right to meddle at
all
with those religious and
benevolent corporations, none in the world. (Hear, hear.)
Remarks have also been made about the laws
of divorce and marriage, and the honorable
member for the division of DeLanaudiére
(Hon. Mr. OLIVIER) told us that the Conference had done well in transferring the
power of divorce to the General Government.
On his part, I think this was a wise view of
the question, and I am glad to have the opportunity of now telling him so. He was,
ow-
ever, very uneasy about the word "marriage."
Well, I will try to put him right and at his
case on that point; and I will give him the
answer as I find it put down in writing, so
that no possible misunderstanding may continue to exist. If the honorable gentleman
will but take his pen, he will be able to note
my answer :â"The word 'marriage' has been
inserted to give the General Legislature the
right to decide what form of marriage will be
legal in all parts of the Confederation, without
in any way interfering with the rules and
prescriptions of the Church to which the contracting parties belong." Another honorable
gentlemanâI think the honorable
member for
DeLorimier (Hon. Mr. BUREAU)âasked me
if the General Government would be responsible for the debts contracted by Canada
345
prior to the Federal union? I replied "
Yes,
the General Government would be liable
for all the debts contracted before this
date." "But," says he, " there are certain
sums above the sixty-two and a half millions of dollars which will have to be settled
as between Upper and Lower Canada. And
what will become of the amount due to the
seigniors? It may be that Lower Canada
will repudiate that portion of the debt so
allotted her." Well, I reply, Lower Canada
cannot do that, if she were 'disposed to do so;
but I do not believe that Lower Canada would
be disposed to repudiate a debt which she has
herself contractedâa debt of honorâa debt
which is, as it were, sacred. But even if
Lower Canada were disposed to do so, the
General Government are liable for the amount
of that debt, and as the General Government
has to give to Lower Canada a subsidy of 80
cents per head, it would, of course, take very
good care to substract from the amount allotted
to Lower Canada the interest
which is to be
paid to the seigniors. (Hear, hear.) So that
on that scoreâI do not know if the hon.
gentleman is himself a seignior or not, but
he seems to take a great interest in the seigniorsâthe hon. member need not be uneasy
at all.
HON. MR. BUREAUâWhat I stated was,
that under the authority of a public act,
special appropriations have been made for the
redemption of the debt due to the seigniors,
and that the putting aside of that act I consider
an act of repudiation. Then, for the sake of
argument I stated this, that you are shewing
an example of repudiation. But I added that
if you were going to pay to Lower Canada
what you state, or her Local Government;
in the event of her refusing to pay the seigniors, probably the General Government
would
retain sufficient from the 80 cents per
head
apportionment for that purpose. I do not
wish to push the argument further; and I
may state that it was only for the sake of
argument that I advanced the proposition.
HON.
SIR E. P. TACHĂâ No law has
been repealedâno repudiation taken place.
The seignors, as it appears to meâI may not
have understood the law, for I am no lawyer
âwill have additional security. That, it
seems to me, is a plain fact. (Hear, hear.)
Then the hon. member from DeLorimier found
a great deal of fault with the mannerâI must
say the able manner in which the
gallant
Knight (Hon. Sir N. F. BELLEAU) explained
the action of responsible government in this
country. The honorable Knight showed
how
responsible government protected the
French
Catholics in Lower Canada under Confederation, saying that if ever an act of flagrant
injustice was to be attempted in the Federal
Government, the whole of the Lower Canadians
would join as one man, and by uniting with
the minority against the Governmentâbecause honorable gentlemen must know that
there always will be minoritiesâby means of
thus strengthening the minority any Administration could be ousted out of their places
in
twenty-four hours. My honorable friend
stated this, and be state it justly; he said
so, well aware of what he was saying . But
the honorable gentleman from DeLorimier
comes forward and says: " Don't you recollect that at one time the Upper Canadians
with the minority from Lower Canada, united
to impose upon Lower Canada their will?" I
tell you, honorable gentlemen, that they never
did harm to Lower Canada, and that they
never could do harm to Lower Canada had
the so chosen. And why? The French
had the use of their own language conceded
to them in order to bring them to support the
Government, and much more would have been
done to accomplish the same end. I am referring now to the Government of the day
from 1844 to 1848. That Government would
have given you, what was passed afterwards,
an act to secure to the sufferers the payment
of their losses, the Rebellion Losses Bill- They would have given every shilling of
those
losses, and they would have given you more
if you would have consented to become their
followers. The honorable gentleman made
out no case at all, and he could not have
studied parliamentary history since 1841 correctly. Had he done so, he would have
found
that at that period what was called responsible government was not worked out. Sir
CHARLES BAGOT, it is true, had
lent himself
to the views of his advisers, and responsible
government had been going on
perfectly under him; but then he died here, and
honorable gentlemen must understand that Lord
METCALF was opposed to responsible government.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHĂâYou had it in
name only, but not in practice; otherwise Hon.
Mr. BALDWIN and on. Mr. LAFONTAINE
would never have left the Cabinet. They resigned their seats in Council because they
held
themselves responsible to Parliament, while
Lord METCALF chose to appoint
persons to office
without consulting them, as his constitutional
346
advisers. Well, then, I assert that the case
the honorable gentleman has cited to show
that my honorable friend on the other side
was wrong, is no case at all. It is not applicable in any respect to present circumstances,
because, I repeat it again. we had not responsible government at that time.
HON. MR. BUREAUâThe honorable gentleman has stated that since the death of
Lord BAGOT we have not had responsible
government.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHĂâThe honorable
gentleman cannot surely have
understood me.
I think I said that under Lord METCALF
there was responsible government in name
but not in deed. And if the honorable gentleman will study our parliamentary history
a
little closer, he will admit that such was the
case. The consequence was, as I have already
stated, the resignation of Hon. Messrs. LAFONTAINE and BALDWIN. Still the Lower
Canadian party was unbroken. It is true the new
advisers of Lord METCALF coquetted much
with that majority to obtain adhesion; but it
was in vain. They remained firm to the
last, until the general election of 1848 brought
back the parties to Parliament in much about
their natural strength. I have already stated
that I have destroyed my notes, and I am
ready to await the verdict of this honorable
House. (Applause)
HON. MR. VIDAL saidâHonorable gentlemen, as I consider it my duty to vote for
the motion now before the House, I think it
desirable to clear myself from the imputation
of inconsistency in having supported the
amendments which have been proposed. and
which the House has rejected. I may state
that my views as to the desirableness of submitting the question to the people are
unchanged; the plan has been voted down, but no
argument has been adduced to demonstrate that
it was wrong in principle, or likely to destroy
the scheme. I have previously expressed my
general approval of the Confederation, and that
my desire was to secure its permanency by
having its foundation broad and deep in the
expressed approval of the people. Submission
of the proposal to them has been refused, and
the only question now for me to decide is
whether I should accept the scheme as it is,
or vote for its rejection altogether. Under
these circumstances, I have no difficulty
in
deciding that I must support the motion
for
its adoption. (Hear, hear.)
The question was then put on the main
motion, which was carried on the following
division:-
Contents.âHonorable
Messieurs Alexander,
Allan, Armand, Sir N F. Belleau, Bennett, Fergusson Blair, Blake, Boulton, Bossé,
Bull, Burnham, Campbell, Christie, Crawford, De Beaujeu,
Dickson, A. J. Duchesnay, E. H. J. Duchesnay,
Dumouchel, Ferrier, Foster, Gingras, Guérvemont, Hamilton (Inkerman), Hamilton (Kingston),
Lacoste, Leonard, Leslie. McCrea, McDonald, McMaster, Macpherson, Matheson, Mills,
Panet, Price, Read, Renaud, Ross, Ryan, Shaw,
Skead, Sir E. P. TachĂ©, Vidal, and Wilson â45.
Non-Contents.âHonorable Messieurs Aikins,
Archambault, Armstrong, Bureau, Chaffers, Currie, Flint, Letellier de St. Just, Malhiot,
Moore,
Olivier, Proulx, Reesor,
Seymour, and Simpson.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHĂ moved, seconded
by
Hon. Mr. FERGUSSON BLAIR, that a select
committee be appointed to draft an Address
founded on the said resolution, and that the
committee be composed of Honorable Messrs.
CAMPBELL, FERGUSSON BLAIR, ROSS, CHRISTIE, Sir N. F. BELLEAU, and the MOVER.Carried.
The House adjourned during pleasure; and
on resuming,
It was then ordered that the Address be
engrossed, signed by
the SPEAKER, and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by the whole House. It was
also ordered
that such members of the Executive Council
as are members of this House, do wait on
His Excellency the Governor General, to
know what time His Excellency will please to
appoint to be attended with the said Address.
The House then adjourned.
This individual participated in:
