PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
51
TUESDAY, March 28.
Debate on the Union of the Colonies resumed.
Hon. Mr. HENSLEY.— Mr Speaker, I shall conclude the
few remarks which I was making last evening when interrupted. I was referring to the
returns of the importations
into Canada and New Brunswick for 1863, showing that
these Provinces did not manufacture nearly enough of
boots and shoes, and other articles of the kind for themselves, and that consequently
they could not supply this
Colony. As regards tea and molasses which are said to
be cheaper in Canada than in this Island, if this be the
case it cannot arise from the fact that higher duties are
paid on them there than in this Colony. But one of the
principal points to which I did not refer last night was
military defences. The argument advanced on this feature
of the subject by those favorable to Union is that, in order
to prepare for efficient military defence we require a
central power. I, however, do not see the question in
that light. As long as we contribute our quota of men
and means, and the other Provinces do the same. I consider it would be quite as efficient
a method of providing
for defence as any organization into which we could enter.
We are told that the General Government would take
control of the general revenue and provide naval and
military forces. In the event of a war with the United
States, however, we know full well that there would be
no chance of success without the aid of Great Britain, and
it is difficult to understand how Confederation would
increase our ability of resistance. By late papers I
observe that the Colonial Minister, Mr Cardwell, has
introduced a bill into the Imperial Parliament providing
for a Colonial naval force, to be supported by Colonial
funds, but to be at the command of the Imperial authorities. It was laid down in regard
to the measure that
commissions could not be granted by Colonial authorities ;
they must be issued by the Imperial Government to be
valid. If this plan can be pursued in naval affairs,
may not a similar scheme be adopted in military matters?
All preparations for defence must be arranged under the
superintendence of the Imperial Government, and under
British commissioned officers ; and since this is the case
it is doubtful whether a central Colonial Government
would be any advantage. We do not wish to shrink from
our duty in regard to defence as subjects of the British
Empire. Disagreeable as it might be to be taken away to
fight in the neighboring Provinces, still if the order should
come it is not at all probable that we would refuse.
Whence the necessity of merging all these Legislatures
together to have a central power when we are already
all organized under the Imperial Government of Great
Britain? Another portion of the Report to which I obect
is that which provides that the expense of railways and
canals connecting two Provinces shall be equally borne by
all the Colonies. It was said by Mr Galt the other day in
Canada that it was necessary all their railways should have
an outlet to the sea. This is what he terms a geographical
necessity ; but I do not think that this Island would
benefit by these works. We have the same geographical
necessity in the winter season that Canada has ; our case
is even worse, for we are surrounded by ice, and there is
little prospect that anything can be done to improve our
position, unless indeed we obtain steam communication
over the Straits during the winter, as suggested by one of
the delegates the other night. The intercolonial railway
will confer very few commercial advantages on this
Island. It will no doubt afford facilities for travelling ;
but its benefits to us will not at all compensate for the
amount which we would have to contribute towards it by
the terms of the Report. In view, then, of the nature of
that Report, I am prepared to support the resolution
submitted by the hon Leader of the Government. I do
not say that I would be opposed to Union on any terms ;
but I think that such terms as are contained in the Report
are very unfair to this Colony. If agreed to I consider
that the interests of the Island would be altogether
sacrificed. Our taxation would be greatly increased
without corresponding advantages. Some maintain that
we should not be alarmed at taxes ; they would be no
burden providing we had additional scope for trade. Byt
what more scope do we require, as we have already
facilities for commerce as extended as the bounds of the
British Empire ?
Mr. BRECKEN.—I would gladly avoid speaking on this
question, feeling, as I do, my inability to deal with it, as
its importance and the interests involved in it require.
Never in the history of this Island, since it became a
British Colony, has a subject of such consequence been
submitted for the consideration of its Legislature. If we
are to view the proposition for a Union of the British North
American Colonies as an optional one, which we may
reject without imperilling our position as a dependency
of the British Crown, I confess I cannot see in the terms
offered to us in the Report of the Quebec Conference
anything to induce us to close with the offer. If, on the
other hand, the choice is between a Union with the sister
Provinces and a severance of our allegiance to the Mother
Country, I would say, let us be united, even at a sacrifice
of our local interests. But I do not think that the latter
is our position, although the advocates of the scheme
profess to believe that it is. Why should we be in such
a hurry to assume that it is? Previous to the Quebec
Conference this question had not been pressed upon our
attention by the Home Government, although we are now
aware, from Mr. Cardwell's despatch, written after the
receipt of the Quebec Report, that the measure is very
favourably received by the Imperial Government. Nor is
it at all to be wondered at that they should wish to see
our present political position changed Separate Provinces
grouped close together with governments independent of
each other ; separate laws, different currencies and
hostile tariffs ; and, yet, all paying allegiance to the same
Sovereign, is a state of things that will not, in all
probability, continue very much longer. I am not opposed
to a Union, provided just and equitable terms are secured
to us ; but it does appear to me that the urgent manner
in which this question at this time is pressed upon us, is
entirely owing to the action of politicians on this side the
Atlantic. It only requires a very slight acquaintance with
the politics of Canada to be aware that the political
difficulties and complications of that Province had arrived
at such a pitch, and had become so perplexing, that party
government was almost an impossibility ; indeed, it would
appear, that impending anarchy threatened them. The
Hon. John A. McDonald, Attorney General of Canada
West, In Parliament, when moving the Address to Her
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
51>
Majesty for an Imperial Act to carry into effect the Report
of the Quebec Conference, after stating the origin and
history of the Union question in Canada up tot he time he
was speaking, says :
"Then men of all parties and all shades of politics became
alarmed at the aspect of affairs. They found that such was
the opposition between the two sections of the Province,
such was the danger of impending anarchy in consequence
of the irreconcilable differences of opinion with respect to
representation by population between Upper and Lower
Canada, that unless some solution of the difficulty was arrived
at we would suffer under a succession of weak governments,
weak in numerical support, weak in force, and weak in power
of doing good. All were alarmed at this state of affairs. We
had election after election ; we had Ministry after Ministry,
with the same result. Parties were so equally balanced that
the vote of one member might decide the fate of the
administration and the course of legislation for a year, or a
series of years. This condition of things was well calculated
to arouse the earnest consideration of every lover of his
country, and I am happy to say it had that effect. Leading
statesmen on both sides came to the conclusion that some
steps must be taken to relieve the country from the dead lock
and impending anarchy that hung over it."
Such are the words of the join Premiers of Canada.
Mr McDonald then goes on to state that to remedy this
state of affairs--
"The Hon. Geo. Brown's Committee was appointed, whose
Report resulted in the formation of the present Canadian
Government, composed as it is of men of all shades of politics,
brought together for the purpose of bringing about a Union
of the Provinces."
In the face of such statements, coming from such high
authority, it is in vain for the advocates of Union to tell
us that it is either pressure from the Home Government,
or the threatening aspect of affairs in the neighboring
Republic, that has given rise to the Confederation question
at this particular time. I believe, Mr Speaker, that if the
Statesmen of Canada could have found within their country a solution of their political
difficulties, we would not
have heard much about Confederation. After the decision
pronounced by New Brunswick at their late General
Election to reject the scheme, I do not think there is any
necessity for our spending much time in debating the
subject, as it is quite clear that we shall not be called upon
to enter Confederation until Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick are ready to go into it. I shall not, therefore,
stany length, go into the objectionable parts of the Report
as they affect us ; they have been over and over again
brought to the notice of the public. While I admit that
we could hardly expect that the delegates assembled at
Quebec to block out a constitution for all British America,
would so frame their work as to make it suit the peculiar
circumstances and wants of the smallest and most
insignificant of the Provinces, they, at the same time,
appear to have entirely overlooked our claims. From our
insular position, and the nature and character of our limited
resources, the offer, as contained in the Report, presents
fewer inducements to us than to any of the other
Provinces ; but it is our duty to see that the interests of
those we represent are not sacrificed. With regard to the
financial arrangement justice has not been done us. We
are asked to give up nearly the whole of our revenue, now
(£60,000.) and which will no doubt go on increasing,
to the General Government, and in lien thereof receiving
a capitation allowance of 80 cents per head on our present
the difference between our debt and the debt of the Confederate Government, amounting
to £31,600. The latter
amount cannot be looked upon as a gift, as we are called
of a debt which we had no hand in contracting, and from
the results of which we have derived no benefit. These two
amounts will be insufficient to defray our ordinary local
expenditure, and if any large public work is required we
will, in all probability, have to pay for it ourselves,
unless its advantages extend for the general benefit of the
Provinces, which, from our situation, is not likely to be
the case. But who is to tell what increase of taxation
the General Government will not be obliged to impose ?
Mr Galt, Finance Minister of Canada, says :
"A revenue of $13,000,000 would, at the outset, be
required for the General Government. This estimate allows
but $1,000,000 for fortifications, military and naval purposes,
and, as we are told by our Union friends, that there is to be
a Confederate army and navy to protect us against Brother
Jonathan, this estimate will no doubt have to be increased,
not to say anything about deepening and widening the
canals of Upper Canada, and the construction of other great
public works, which must go on as the country becomes more
developed, and we, Sir, will be powerless to check any
extravagance on the part of the General Government. But
we are told that the commercial advantages which will flow
to us from the Union will so increase our prosperity that we
will be able to bear extra taxation. Intercolonial free trade
is to be established, and we will be able to import our manufactures from Canada and
the other Provinces duty free."
This is, in other words, telling us that our trade in
manufactures will be confined to the Provinces, which I
believe would be the case, as high and prohibitory duties
would have to be imposed on imports from Britain and
other countries, in order to provide a revenue for the
General Government, as we can hardly expect that any
Finance Minister would have the courage to attempt to
raise such a revenue by direct taxation, a line of policy
that even a Gladstone shrinks from. To have our trade
confined to these Colonies would be a great disadvantage to
us, as I do not believe that a new country like Canada
could furnish us with manufactures on as favorable terms
as the Mother Country. Among the many requirements
necessary to make a country a manufacturing one, a
surplus population is one of them. Now, all other things
being equal, can it be reasonably expected that a large
country like Canada, with a sparse population, the same
to the square mile as that of England to every two or three
acres, not to say anything of the inducements which the
fertile and cheap lands of Canada hold out to men to
become farmers, can supply us with manufactures of the
same quality and at as cheap a rate as England ! How would
such a policy affect our relations with the Mother Country !
Certainly not improve them. As it is, the Manchester
School of Politicians are for casting us adrift as uselesss
and expensive appendages. They say we are always
lightening John Bull's pocket, on some pretence or other,
and buttoning up our own against them, by placing high
duties on their exports. They say, and with much truth,
that we, their children, ought to buy from them more
largely than we do. Intercolonial free trade would, no
doubt, increase this cause of complaint, and strengthen
the ranks of men holding the views of Bright and Goldwin
Smith. Then, again, Mr Speaker, why was not the
principle of compensation extended to us as well as to
Newfoundland and New Brunswick ! It is true we have
no mines or minerals to surrender; but we are, for five
months in the year, shut out from the use and advantage
of the great public works of the other Provinces, for the
past and future cost of which we are to contribute, while
these works, during the winter, are as useless to us as the
Car of Juggernaut. If Newfoundland, by giving up her
mines and minerals. will have them opened and worked,
which I presume will be the case, otherwise $150,000 a
year in perpetuity would not have been offered for them.
That, alone, in the increase of trade which would follow
would be a sufficient compensation ; but I presume the
grant was made with another object. I am afraid we were
considered too insignificant to be worth bargaining for.
It was easily seen that if the other Provinces went into the
Union we would have to follow. And why pay for anything when you can get it for nothing!
Then, again, New
Brunswick was granted £60,000 for 10 years for a local
work.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
53
Mr. BRECKEN — Nova Scotia is in a different postion,
She has a great deal to gain by Confederation. Halifax
will likely be the terminus of the Intercolonial Railway,
and that city become the empire city of British America.
That Province has no claim for compensation. The reasons
which weigh with Unionists in New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia have little application to his Island. For instance,
the Intercolonial Railway makes the other Province spart
and parcel of Canadian; the iron horse annihilates time and
distance. With respect to the political part of the Report,
I think we have reason to complain. The principle of
representation by population is sought to be enforced on
too sweeping a scale ; but as this principle is a sine qua
nonwith the people of Upper Canada, and is, I believe,
at the bottom and root of the Confederation scheme, we
might expect to see it applied to the Lower House ; but I
see no reason why the constitution of the Upper House
should not have been assimilated to that of the Senate of
the United States ; but I do not attach much importance
to this, as I believe the more representation we have the
more our difficulties would increase. We have no men of
fortune amongst us; at any rate, none foolish enough to
engage in politics. Hon members from distant parts of
the Island, from the North Cape and East Point, can spare
a few weeks during the winter months to attend to their
legislative duties ; but it would be found a very different
matter to be obliged to leave home and business, and
that, too, very likely in the winter season, for three or
four months in the year to attend the General Legislature
at Ottawa. The public men of this Island cannot afford
to do so, even if willing. The sacrifice of interest which
a seat in the Confederate Assembly would entail, would
be greater than our public men could afford ; and if to remedy
this they were adequately paid, then their constituents would
begin to suspect that their personal interests might outweigh
their regard for the interests of the Colony. I doubt much
whether men of stake, and really interested in the welfare of
the country, would be found willing to offer themselves.
Indeed, so far as our representation is concerned, it might as
well be wiped out of the Report altogether. There is another
objection to the new constitution, as it applies to this Island.
What, I would ask, looking at the wide range of subjects
reserved for the General Government, will there be left to
engage the attention of our Local Legislature? As it is, with
the management of all our affairs, the subjects that most
frequently engage our attention are not of a very broad or
elevating character. If, from the subjects to be assigned to
our Local Legislature we withdraw Education and the
management of our highways, matters which, when once
properly provided for, do not admit of being tinkered at every
Session, what will be left for us to do? We might have a
party for bringing in a measure that all pigs should wear
rings in their noses, but on such a question it would be
difficult to keep altogether either a Government or an Opposition,
unless they were to differ as to the description of metal and
rings should be made of; but to be serious, I believe if we
went into Confederation we would find our Local Government
a nuisance too cumbersome and expensive for the work
assigned it, and before long would be petitioning to have it
done away with, and to have municipal institutions instead.
This very Building with its empty walls and untenanted
offices would stand a frowning remonstrance against the
policy of the Hon Col Secretary and his Union friends ; he
would take fright at the sight of its decaying walls. Somebody may yet say to him
what the great Irish Orator, Curran,
once said to a Peer who had been instrumental in bringing
about the Irish Union. Curran, who was one day setting his
watch at the Post Office, which was then opposite to the late
Parliament Buildings, when the noblemen, who well knew
that the Union was a sure subject with Curran, said as he
passed him, "Curran what do they mean to do with that
useless building ? For my part I am sure I hate the sight of
it." "I am not at all astonished to hear you say so, my
Lord," replied Curran, "I never yet heard of a murderer who
was not afraid of a ghost." We are told that by going into
the Union we will rise form being a small and obscure
Colony to be a part of a great country. This may, in some
degree, be true; but practically we are called upon to yield
up to a very great extent the control and management of our
public affairs, a great privilege, which none parted with is
not easily regained. But the argument which Unionists
dwell most strongly upon, as proving the necessity for
Confederation, is the question of defence. They argue that
unless we unite we must soon become absorbed in the
American Union. If there is really danger just now of our
|Republican neighbours adopting an aggressive policy ; if
they should take it into their heads to cross the Canadian
frontier for the purpose of carrying out the Monroe Doctrine,
or to indemnify themselves for losses recently sustained, and
for which they may choose to hold Britain responsible, would
a Political Union work such a change in our present position
as to convert us once from helpless Colonies into a powerful
Confederacy? It must be many years hence before these
Colonies will be able, unaided by the British arm, to defend
themselves against an invading foe, extending as they do,
over such area, with an extensive and exposed frontier, and
vulnerable in so many points. No doubt is it high time that
these Colonies did more for their own protection than they
have hitherto done. They have drawn largely from the
pockets of the tax payers of the Mother Country for the
purposes of fortifications and the maintenance of naval and
military forces among them. (This Island is not open to this
charge ; for very many years she has cost Britain nothing in
this respect.) Colonists ought to remember that many of the
tax payers at home who contribute to our protection are less
able to bear their public burthens than we are. There is
one argument urged by anti-Unionists which I do not agree
with, viz., that when united, in case trouble arises, our young
men will be liable to be drafted off to Canada and the other
Provinces, there to assist in fighting their battles. This is
not likely to be the case, as our small Militia and Volunteer
force would be required for our own defence, which the
safety of the other Colonies would require to be efficiently
maintained, the chances are in such a state of things that
not one man would be withdrawn from the Island, but men
would have to be sent here. But even if it should so happen
that they were taken off to assist in the defence of the other
Colonies, ought we to complain ? Our British interests are
intimately bound up with those of the other Colonies, in a
national point, at any rate, and when Canada and the other
Provinces have to succumb to a foreign power we will have
to follow suit. In helping them we are fighting for ourselves,
and that, too, under more favourable circumstances than the
sister Provinces; for we would not have to meet the foe at
our firesides. The further the scene of conflict is removed
from one's door the better; for the most terrible of all the
horrors and devastation that follow in the track of war is having
women, children and country exposed to the cruelty and fury
of a merciless soldiery. This consideration ought to make
ready at all times when the necessity arises (and God grant
that it may never occur) to assist our fellow Colonists, and
that with a good will too. Our position as British Colonies
must, for many years, depend upon the protection afforded
us by the Mother Country. Separate or united without that
aid we shall be powerless to defend ourselves. England's
European interests, her position as first among the nations,
more perhaps than her wide spread possessions, oblige her
to maintain her present powerful military and naval force.
Those forces require stations. England is not prepared to
throw off her wealthy West India possessions, not to say anything of those Colonies.
She has to maintain a naval force
out here, which costs no more than at home, and to maintain
that force the coal mines of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia are
necessary. The threat that Unionists hold out to us that we
will be cast adrift if we do not unite, is for the purpose of
frightening us into Confederation. They must, at any rate,
produce stronger arguments than they have done, before they
can expect us to be convinced that it is so. I believe that
Britain is willing to untie the apron strings and send us off to
do for ourselves when we are strong enough to stand alone ;
but I do not believe she will cast us off until we are able to
protect ourselves. Hon members in favor of the scheme had
better direct their attention to the other points of Confederation, and endeavor to
show us that our material interests
will become improved by the proposed Union. That, I take
it, is the great point for us to consider just now. Our
national relations rest with the Mother Country.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
54
Hon. Solicitor GENERAL.—Mr Speaker, I shall not shrink
from the free expression of my opinion on this great question,
because I happen unfortunately to be one of a minority of four.
This is the most momentous subject ever submitted to the
consideration of any of the Colonial Legislatures of British
North America, and its importance is evinced by the fact that
it has afforded the first example in the annals of this, or I believe
any other House of Assembly, of the discussion being carried on
with the Speaker in the Chair, thus retraining members from
the freedom that a debate in Committee would allow them. I am
aware that many hon members, on both sides of the House, are
of the opinion that this should be made a Government question.
I differ from them. Leaders of the Governments and Oppositions
in the other Colonies united in the adoption of the Report. Nova
Scotia treated it as an open question, and it is in that position
here. When the project of the Legislative Union was proposed, I
was strongly opposed to it, and I am of the same opinion still.
There is a vital difference between a Legislative Union of the
Maritime Provinces and a Federal Union of all the North
American Colonies. We would be bound in all our local affairs
by the action of a Parliament constituted under a Legislative
Union, while a Federal connection leaves to us the unfettered
control of all subjects of legislation peculiar to our circumstances.
At the Conference help at Quebec, at which were represented
Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince
Edward Island and Newfoundland, the vote was taken on the
details of the proposed Union, not by the suffrages of individual
members of the Conference, but by each of the Colonies represented. Therefore the
assertion that the Report was the work
of the Canadians is untrue ; it was adopted by all the Colonies
who had sent their delegates to take part in the deliberations,
and, consequently, the Maritime Provinces had a majority as
against Upper and Lower Canada of four to two. It is unjust
then to object to the Report as having been got up by the
Canadians for their own purposes. Whether the Report meets
popular favor or not, the delegates from the Lower Provinces had
the power to defeat it, had they been opposed to it. Why, Sir,
the very first paragraph in the Report passed unanimously, and
its passage was greeted with three cheers. That paragraph
reads as follows :—
"The best interests and present and future prosperity of British
North America will be promoted by a Federal Union under the
Crown of Great Britain, provided such Union can be effected on
principles just to the several Provinces."
I am truly surprised that any gentleman, who being present as a
delegate, voted for that paragraph, which affirms the principle of
Union, can be found now to oppose it. It has been said, Mr
Speaker, that a dead lock in the relations of political parties in
Canada induced the proposal for a Confederation of these
Provinces ; but, Sir, the principle of a political Union of British
North America did not see the light for the first time in the year
1864. The correspondence between the late Duke of Kent and
the late Judge Sewell shows that the idea occupied the minds of
men in high station many years ago. In that mine of political
information, the Report of the late Lord Durham, the opinion is
expressed that Union among themselves can alone preserve these
Colonies from absorption into the neighboring republic These
facts show that the idea is not peculiar to the Provinces. In
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick several of their leading public
mens have advanced similar opinions. At the time of the Union
between Upper and Lower Canada, the former Province
obtained as equal share of representation int he United Parliament. With Lower Canada,
although the population of Upper
Canada was less than that of Lower Canada, they each sent an
equal number of representatives—65. But the influx of immigration into Upper Canada
has so far changed her position to the
Lower Province, that the former provides two-thirds of the revenue, the share of which
appropriated to her is in the inverse ratio to
the amount which she contributes. When the Hon George Brown's
party came into power, the idea was broached of dissolving the
Union with Lower Canada, and having a general Confederation.
When the opportunity offered by the Conference of the delegates of the Maritime Provinces,
Canada thought it a favorable
occasion to send delegates to listen to the views of the leading
men of the Lower Colonies, and I may say that in this instance
Canada's difficulty is our opportunity. But, Mr Speaker, in
whatever motives the idea of this Confederation may have had
its origin, the result of the defeat of the project will be, I have no
hesitation in saying, our absorption into the United States.
Already the handwriting is on the wall, and it needs no prophet
to expound its meaning that Union or Republicanism awaits us.
A great outcry has been raised on the subject of the increased
taxation to which we would be subjected if we became united to
our sister Colonies ; but no hon member has yet shwon how
much our situation in that respect would be improved by having
to pay the far higher taxes if we should form part of the United
States. I leave the financial part of the subject to be dealt with
by others, and shall adopt the so-termed "glory argument." I
maintain, Mr Speaker, that the pages of history may be ransacked
in vain for the record of any people who ever rose to a position
among the nations of the earth whose minds were not imbued
with that sentiment, and the decline of those who have receded
from their once high position dates from the time when it began
to lose its influence. Without that element in her national
character where would Great Britain have been in her gigantic
struggle with Napoleon the first ? The hon member for East
Point (Mr Hensley) says that we would be taxed for the construction of the Intercolonial
Railroad, and that we would receive
no benefits in return for our expenditure. Under any circumstances we would receive
indirect benefit, but I contend that the
preservation of monarchical principles to us would be a direct
boon, and the promised military aid of the Mother Country by
her troops which that railway could transport in the winter season
from Halifax to the frontier of Upper Canada, would insure our
protection, for, as it has been truly said, if Canada falls we must
all share her fate. In addition we would have the protection of
her navy on our coasts as long as the navigation continued open.
In the convention at Quebec, it was urged by myself and others
that the principle of the constitution of the United States Senate,
as regards the number of members from each State, should be
applied to the Upper House of the Confederate Legislature. The
proposal was overruled, and since that time I have begun to
think the decision was right. The Conference adopted a medium
course between the two extremes, and if Newfoundland shall
come into the scheme the Maritime Provinces will receive four
additional members. The principle of representation by population in the lower branch
is not a novelty. It was recommended
by the Late Durham as far back as 1837. The duty of
arranging the electoral districts for the first election is to be left
to the respective local Governments. The Conference merely
apportions the number of representatives to the different Colonies.
The hon member for the city (Mr Brecken) said that it
would be time to consider our situation when our position as a
British Colony shall be involved. He labors under a mistake;
the present is the proper time. The crisis will soon arrive, and
the time is at hand when we must assume our full share of our
burdens. Let the old adage be remembered that those who aid
themselves the gods will aid. I am aware of the great satisfaction
experienced by the opponents of Confederation at the result of
the general election in New Brunswick ; but the issue, Union or
no Union was not fairly submitted to the people. Personal
antipathies had much to do in bringing about the results. Parties
took sides on the principle of the old distich—
I do not like thee, Doctor Tell,
The reason why, I cannot tell.
As to Nova Scotia, any action on her part would have been
premature before the result of the New Brunswick elections had
been ascertained. Sir, I believe that the sun will yet rise upon
a Confederation of those Colonies, notwithstanding the jubilant
feelings of the opponents of this great measure at its temporary
failure. Thirty-three representatives of the six North American
Colonies were united on the question last year, and now several
of them, strange to say, oppose it. The Report, in my opinion,
embraces the best features of the constitutions of Great Britain
and of the United States, applicable to our circumstances ; and it
is no small satisfaction to those who support the measure of a
Union, that though it may meet opposition in the Colonies, it has
received approval from the statesmen and press of Great Britain.
One great benefit which would accrue from Union would be the
diversion of the tide of immigration from the United States to
these Colonies, where his civil and religious liberties would be
secured to the stranger the moment he landed on our shores. Mr
Speaker, I may say that the Report of the delegates embodies
principles greater in some respects than those on which the
Constitution of the United States is based. The chief ruler of
that country is, himself, during his term of office, irresponsible to
the people, and is surrounded by a ministry equally unfettered.
The Constitution of the proposed Union acknowledges only our
gracious Queen and her successors as the chief authority, and the
administration of the Confederate Colonies will be conducted by
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
55
her representative to be appointed by herself ; but he will be
advised by ministers responsible for the acts of the Government,
and whom an adverse vote in the Lower Branch of the Legislature
would at once dismiss from power. In the States, one result of
their institutions is the extinction, or, perhaps, more properly the
total ignoring the rights of the minority. Where, however,
British principles obtain, the rights and privileges of a minotiry
are maintained to them inviolate. One reson for the fact
alleged by the hon member for the city (Mr. Brecken) that the
manufactures of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are of but
limited extent, is to be found in the limited market open for their
consumption. Once remove the barriers of hostile tariffs, and
free trade with four millions of people will at once be the result.
Union will have the effect of benefitting all parties, and removing
the feelings of estrangement arising from different tariffs. Not
many years since the Englishman was estranged from the
Frenchman. No international sympathy had existed between
the two countries for many centuries ; but now a treaty of
commerce mutually beneficial has united them, so that one
country will not move without the other. Their Union has made
these hereditary antagonists the harbingers of peace and civilization. So would it
be with us. If hon members had the
opportunity of associating with the statesmen of Canada, and if
they saw the great resources and made themselves acquinted
with her institutions, I am confident that some, at least, would
feel that their previously formed opinions were of a very contracted nature, and were
based on a defective knowledge of
facts. We have been told that Canada is bankrupt—that her
debentures are at a discount—that she is sunk in corruption—
that it would be madness to unite our fortunes to a country in
that condition. Sir, all this is delusive. The debt is seventy-
five millions of dollars ; of that twenty-five millions are represented by Canals
; an amount about equal in Railways, of which
she has two thousand miles. The purchase of the Seignorial
Tenures and the cost of the great Victoria Bridge will represent a
large proportion of that debt. True it is that Canadian Debentures
had fallen in the English market, but that was in consequence of
the Trent affair. British capitalists fearing that war might arise
out of that occurrence between England and the States, Canada
being a portion of the Empire, her securities were naturally
depreciated ; but I can tell hon members that on receipt of the
Report of the Conference in England, they advanced 15 per
cent. I have now, Sir, given you my individual views on this
vital question, which I am convinced will resolve itself either
into a Confederation, or an application to us of the Monroe
Doctrine by absorption into the United States. I, for one, am
not prepared to sacrifice the constitutional privileges we at present
enjoy, and I trust that the inhabitants of those now separate
Colonies will soon sing in chorus from Newfoundland to the
extreme boundary of Upper Canada
"Let us be firm and united,
One country, one flag for us all ;
United our strength will be freedom,
Divided we each of us fall. "
Mr. HOWLAN.—Mr. Speaker ; the hon and learned
member for Georgetown will probably think it vain for
me to place my views on this great question side by side
with his opinions. We have been told that sine the
result of the elections in New Brunswick, discussing the
subject in this House is only like a disputation in a mere
debating club, as our decision can lead to no practical
result. But, Sir, the principles involved in the scheme
concocted by the delegates at Quebec are still the same,
and I look upon it as our duty to give our sentiments
freely on this question. We know not how soon another
delegation may be originated, and advantage taken of our
indifference should we evince such on this occasion.
Before this debate is concluded, Sir, I hope the Hon
Solicitor General will find that his glowing description of
the benefits of Confederation has vanished into thin air.
With respect to the subject before the House, there is one
thing very apparent to those who were here last Session,
namely, that the resolution then passed has not been
adhered to. On that occasion the argument of the Leader
of the Government was that it would be very uncourteous
not to appoint delegates to confer on the subject of Union
with others to be appointed by the two neighboring
Provinces ; but so careful were hon members in regard to
the matter that they placed it on the records of this
House that no action should be taken on the question
until the delegates appointed should report to the Legislature of the Colony. Now,
Sir, we have among the
papers laid before this House, a document, which purports
to be a report from the delegates authorized to confer on a
Legislative Union of the Lower Provinces, but which I
take to be no report. It merely states that the delegates
met at Charlottetown, then adjourned to Halifax, then to
St. John, and then to Canada, where it was decided to
postpone the consideration of the question of a Legislative
Union of the Maritime Provinces. But the subject which
the people of this Island are now called upon to consider
is the Report of a delegation not authorized by this House,
and one by which the constitution of this Colony is to be
wrested from us. In considering the question of Confederation, we ought to view it
not as it would affect us
at present, but as it would probably operate upon the
interests of this Colony in all time to come. The
principle of representation by population in the Lower
House is borrowed from the American system ; yet the
Quebec Conference did not follow out the same model
with repect to the constitution of the Upper Branch. In
the neighboring Republic each State has the privilege of
sending two representatives to the Senate, no matter how
small its population. New York with its population of
3,097,394, has only the same number of Senators in
Congress as the State of Rhode Island with its population
of 147,545. The difference between the population of these
two States is as 20 to 1, greater fully than it is between
that of Upper Canada and this Island ; yet while this
Report allows Upper Canada 24 members in the Legislative
Council of the Confederation, this Colony is only allotted
5. Instead of all the Provinces being allowed the same
number of members each in the Upper House, according
to the principle of the United States' constitution, each of
the Canadas is to have as many Councillors as all the
Lower Provinces put together. Then, again, the members
of this body are to be appointed for life, a system which
would undoubtedly bring about a dead lock, the very state
of affairs in Canada which Confederation is intended to
remedy. In the 17th paragraph of the Report we are
told " the basis of representation in the House of Commons
shall be population, as determined by the official census
every ten years ; and the number of members at first shall
be 194. " Of this number Upper Canada is to have 82,
and Lower Canada 65 — in all for Canada 147. The
remainder of the 194 is distributed as follows : Nova
Scotia 19, New Brunswick 15, Newfoundland 8, P. E.
Island 5 — in all for the Lower Provinces 47. By this
arrangement it will be seen that Canada will have 100
representatives in the House of Commons more than the
aggregate of all the other Colonies. Representation by
population might be very well for Canada herself, but in
a general union of the Colonies it would operate injuriously
for the Maritime Provinces, as they could not expect to
protect their interests when they would have to contend
with 100 of a clear majority over their own representation.
This principle would give the city of Montreal with its
101,000 inhabitants one representative more than this
Island. Quite different is the representation of Great
Britain, for while London has about the same population
as Scotland, that city has only 16 members in the House
of Commons, while Scotland has 53. But it may be argued
that as our population increases our representation will
increase. This is very doubtful. Indeed, under the
operation of the 20th and 21st clauses of the Report it
seems probable that we might lose our representation
altogether. Lower Canada is always to have 65 members,
and the representation of the other Colonies is to be
arranged every ten years so as to give each the same ratio
to population as she will then possess. Now, should the
population of Lower Canada increase more rapidly than
that of this Island, which is almost certain to be the case,
our representation would decrease, and we would be left
perhaps without a member at all. To show at least that
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
56
it is much more likely that our representation will decrease
than increase, I will read the Hon. George Brown's
opinions on the subject, as given in the Toronto "Globe."
In treating of the probably effort of these two clauses of
the Report, to which I have been alluding, on the representation of the Maritime Provinces,
that journal says:—
"The fact is best shown by illustration. Prince Edward
Island, with a population, say $5,009, is, it is said, to have five
representatives at starting. Suppose she increases at the rate of
20 per cent. each ten years, at the end of twenty years her
population will be 126,000. But at the same rate of progress
the population of Lower Canada would be 1,596,000. Divided
by 65, this would give one representative to every 24,550 of her
people : so that the Island would not be able to claim an increase
of membership. If similar calculations be made with respect to
the other Provinces, it will be proved that the additions they will
be able to make their representation will be very small. In
fact, if the increase in the population of some of them be not
greater in the future than it has been in the past, they will, if
the plan be strictly carried out, lose instead of gain."
But there is another point which I desire to notice with
respect to representation in the House of Commons. An
important alteration has been made by the Canadians in
the 24th clause of the Report. In the copy before this
House which is signed by Sir E. P Pache as a "true
copy," the clause reads thus:—
"24. The local Legislature of each Province may from time
to time alter the Electoral Districts for the purpose of Representation in the House
of Commons, and distribute the Representatives to which the Province is entitled in
any manner such
Legislature they think fit."
But, Sir, I have another copy on my table in which this
clause is quite differently worded, and which is the same
as the one presented to the Canadian Legislature. It
reads as follows:—
"24. The local Legislature of each Province may from time
to time alter the Electoral Districts for the purpose of Representation in such Legislature, and distribute the Representatives
to which the Province is entitled in such local Legislature in
any manner such Legislature may see fit."
This is a very different matter. The clause as it first
stood was an important one, because it gave the Local
Legislature the power to arrange the districts for the
representation in the popular branch of the General
Legislature ; but as altered it would enable the gentlemen
who might hold the destinies of this Island in their hands
to cut and carve the constituencies as they pleased. The
privilege of being taxed is a very great privilege indeed.
And if the resources of our local government should be
insufficient for the wants of the Colony we have the
additional privilege of taxing ourselves. To show how
the arrangement for taxing ourselves. To show how
this arrangement for taxation contained in the Report
will operate upon the Lower Provinces, I will read an
extract from Mr. Galt's speech this his constituents at
Sherbrooke, wherein he treats of excise duties. He says :
"The General Government would also have the power
of regulating excise duties. The imposition of these duties
was a necessary corollary to the imposition of the duties
of Customs ; and the power to impose the one must be given to
the same authority that exercised the power to impose the other.
Excise duties were placed upon spirits made in the country in
order to place the consumer thereof on the same footing he
would be on if he consumed spirits imported from abroad. He
might remark that in the Lower Provinces they had no excise
duties; he believed they did not manufacture whiskey to any
extent, but in introducing a system of excise duties they would
have to be subjected to the same regulations that were followed
in Canada. In general terms he would add that the Central
Government would have the power of raising money by all the
other modes and systems of taxation—the power of taxation
had been confided to the General Legislature—and there was
only one method let to the local Governments, if their own
resources became exhausted, and this was direct taxation."
Again, in a speech delivered in the Canadian Legislautre
on the 7th February, Mr Galt said:—
"Let the house be frankly and kindly look at it, as a great
measure brought down for the purpose of relieving Canada,
from distress and depression. At this moment Canada standing alone, had seen her credit seriously impaired, but Confederation would give us a much larger fund to pledge
for the
security of the public creditor. The Lower Provinces are in
a much better position, and if the local revenues became
inadequate the local Governments would have to resort to
direct taxation."
This talk about direct taxation is no empty theory. The
Canadians hint that their impost duties might be lowered
under Confederation ; but if this were done taxation in
another form would have to be resorted to. This idea,
however, is not new, for in a debate in the British House
of Commons on the 28th of April, 1863, the Under
Secretary of State for the Colonies said:—
"Her Majesty's Government had freely expressed their
opinion,, (to the Governor General) " that nothing would
tend so much to raise the credit of Canada as a measure for
direct taxation, which would enable her to lower her duties
upon imports."
Further, we have the testimony of the Hon. George Brown,
as to the manner in which the Maritime Provinces are to
be taxed to bear the burdens of Canada. I will read from
his speech on the Confederation in the Assembly of Canada,
an extract wherein he touched on this subject:—
"It was said New Brunswick was getting more than her
share ; but it was absurd to oppose the adoption of a scheme
such as this for such a paltry sum. It could not be weighed
in the balance against it, and the subsidy was granted for
only ten years. We would get a large additional population
to assist us in bearing our burdens—a most economical population, too. Why the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia only gets
£600 a year. He ws in favor of the scheme if it was for
Canada alone. The Conference had pledged to open up the
great North West and deepen the canals.—He believed there
was no such instance in history ; other nations paid large
sums for territory. Louisiana was bought for twenty millions of dollars. What would we not give for Maine or
Michigan, or Minnesota, which it was possible to pay? Yet
we have peddling objections to give us nearly a million of
people and vast and rich territories: a few dollars for a few
years ought not to stand in the way."
So we see, then, that our "economical population" is to
assist in bearing the burdens of Canada ; that there is
danger ahead to the best interests of this Colony. It is
evident that the whole scheme has been concocted to relieve
Canada of her difficulties ; but while her politicians are
prepared to purchase New Brunswick with a "paltry.
sum," they have thought this Island too insignificant to
offer us any subsidy. The next paragraph to which I will
refer is the 55th, relating, among other things, to Canals
and Railways. The extension of the Canals, we are told
by some of the framers of this Report, is not to be proceeded with until the state
of the finances permit ; and
we are also informed that they will be a general benefit
to the Colonies. I am inclined to differ with these gentlemen upon this point. This
subject has occupied the
attention of the people of Canada for several years. Munro
in his work on British America says:
"What is the estimated cost of Canal extensions? A Canal
between Georgian Bay and Lake Ontario is estimated at
$22,170,750, and the improvements which will be required
in the St. Lawrence Canals, &c,. are estimated at nearly as
much more, so as to admit vessels of 1000 tons to pass from
Chicago to the ocean. In the Canada Board of works report
for 1856, it is stated that the Georgian Canal from comparison with other Works, would
cost $25,000,000."
So it appears that this work has been under the consideration of the Canadian Government
for at least ten years,
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
57
and now we are told it is to be undertaken especially for
the benefit of the united Colonies. But the question is,
when will the state of the finances admit of this Canal
extension. The Hon George Brown in his speech at
Toronto, said :
"I will, however, take care, gentlemen, that while I have
the honor to be one of the advisers of the Crown, the closest
economy shall be practised in all matters of the kind.
(Cheers.) But in agreeing to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, we were
not without a slight regard for
the interests of the West, and I am happy to say that with
UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE DELEGATES, WE HAVE AGREED TO
THE EXTENSION OF THE CANAL SYSTEM OF THE WEST." (Loud
Cheers.)
His constituents would have discarded him for consenting
to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway had he
not obtained this concession. Upper Canada will insist
on Canal extension if the Railway is proceeded with, and
without any regard to the state of the finances. The
finances would be considered sufficient as soon as Confederation was consummated.
We may look upon this as
almost certain, and the great point for us to consider is,
what benefit would those expensive Canals be to the taxpayers of Prince Edward Island?
This is a question which
hon members, and the people of the country can very
easily answer for themselves. Reference has been made to
corruption in Canada, and to the stories in newspapers ;
but in alluding to the manner in which money has been
squandered by Canadian politicians, I do not intend to
quote common newspaper authority, but the remarks of
the Hon George Brown himself, the present Premier of
Canada, based upon an authentic document. In the
Toronto Globe of March 8, 1861, the Hon George Brown
wrote :—
"The publication of the Auditor's Report upon the financial condition of the Grand Trunk Railway, may be regarded
as the final bursting of the great bubble. What was known
to a few, suspected by many, and feared by all, who had
money in the concern, has now been confirmed by official
examination, and published to the world."
"The Company's accounts have been systematically cooked
and deliberately falsified by John Ross & Co., to deceive the
English proprietors and capitalists. While these gentlemen
were claiming a profit in the shape of revenue of $1,472,113,
the Company actually suffered a loss of $1,009,491! No
wonder the Montreal Gazette, the faithful organ of the coalition for years, and the ready apologist of every railway
iniquity hitherto brought to light, stands aghast now. The
figures, revelations, and arguments of the Auditors, have
proved too much even for the Gazette, and he talks boldly
of criminal prosecutions, of the personal responsibility of the
directors to deluded purchasers of stock, and quotes the statute
book in support of his views. He declares that the Report
'will be read with painful interest, that its statements are of
the very gravest nature, affecting not only the character, of
the management of the Grand Trunk Railway, but the characters, and perhaps the fortunes
of individuals." Of the
fitness of the Auditors for their task the Gazette says:
'There are perhaps no men in this country better fitted than
Messrs. Allan and Workman to pass a judgment upon it,
none who better understand the value of figures, or who are
more capable in such matters to winnow the chaff from the
wheat. We simply mention this for the benefit of our distant readers. These gentlemen say distinctly, after a careful
investigation of the books of the company, that the balance
sheet which has been prepared for the eyes of the public is not
correct."
Hon George Brown adds,—
"But perhaps the most interesting part of the Report is
under the head of 'General remarks." It is there stated as
the deliberate opinion of the Auditors, that 'the present
embarassments of the company have arisen, chiefly from its
connection with the successive Governments of the Province,
and the necessity therefrom of conciliating political support.
Under this head they appropriately place Mr GALT'S HUGE
SWINDLE in the purchase of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic
Railway at 37 1/2 per cent. premium WHEN IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
PURCHASED AT 60 per cent. discount. The leasing of the
Portland end at 6 per cent. annual interest on its entire
capital, when its stock was selling at a very large discount,
ANOTHER SWINDLE OF MR GALT, by which he realized a
FORTUNE, is added to the list. The loss to the company
through the SPECULATIONS of Mr Galt and his friends is set
down by the Auditors at $6,000,000. The murder is out at
last, upon the authority of the Company's own Auditors,
that ALEXANDER T. GALT, our worthy Minister of Agriculture,
have made ENORMOUS FORTUNES, but at an expense to the
Grand Trunk stockholders of (6,000,000) SIX MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS."
I may be simply allowed to ask if it is safe to entrust the
financial affairs of the United Colonies to such men.
The clauses of the Report numbered 60, 61 and 62, call
for a passing notice. The 60th says that "the General
Government shall assume all the debts and liabilities of
each Province." And the next two state the amount of
debt to be assumed for Canada, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. The arrangement does not give satisfaction
to the people of Nova Scotia, for they say the debt of
Canada is large, her railroad does not pay, and her
debentures rate very low in the money market. New
Brunswick has not so much reason to complain, for she
presented her claim for compensation, and obtained
$63,000 for ten years. But when poor Prince Edward
Island asked for a few thousand pounds to buy up her
proprietary lands, it would not be granted. A proposition
to this effect was made by one of our delegates, and I
believe none of them can tell who seconded the motion.
There was certainly something wrong here. I am of
opinion that had our delegates advocated the interests of
the Island as well as Mr Tilley did those of New
Brunswick, we would have received a grant for the
purchase of our lands. They would have some show of
argument in favor of this Colony entering the Union,
could they come down to this House and tell us that the
long vexed Land Question was to be at last set at rest.
Instead of procuring a sum for this purpose they have not
obtained a single farthing. Is the settlement of our land
question not as important to us as the railway to Pictou
for Nova Scotia, Western extension for New Brunswick, or
$ 150,000 a year to Newfoundland? We have the best of
authority for supposing that had the application for a
grant to buy up the proprietors' lands of this Island been
unanimously supported by our delegates, it would have
been acceded to. That authority is the Hon George
Brown, who, in an extract which I have already quoted,
said respecting the allowance to New Brunswick, "It
was absurd to oppose the adoption of a scheme such as
this for such a paltry sum." I now come to what we are
to receive under Confederation, as laid down in the 63d and
64th clauses of the Report. I, however, can scarcely call
it receiving, for in this case we are to pay the difference to
boot. The Hon Colonial Secretary says this Report is just
and liberal to Prince Edward Island. Is it justice to
require us to pay some £20,000 more than we receive?
If this be justice, it is such as I will never accede to. We
are to give up a large and increasing revenue to the
politicians of Canada, who have never been able to govern
their own country, and what are we to receive in return?
We are to get 80 cents per head of our present population,
and the interest of £632,812, being the proportion of debt
in our favor, in all amounting to about £50,000. We
have been told that a part of this £632,812 may be taken
to buy up proprietary lands ; but the Report says nothing
of the kind ; it only states that we shall be entitled to
receive the interest at 5 per cent. Besides, if the principal
was taken to purchase lands, the amount of interest which
would then be received would be less, and our local
revenue diminished to that extent, consequently than
would be no gain. With respect to the allowance of 80
cents per head for the benefit of the local governments, it
would be insufficient for the Lower Provinces, but it would
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
58
be a gain to Canada, as will be seen by the following
statement : —
CANADA.
| Subsidy, |
$2,006,121 |
| Local revenues retained, |
1,297,043 |
|
$3,303,154 |
| Deduct local appropriations given up, |
2,260,129 |
| Gain by Canada, |
$1,403,035 |
This gain to Canada would amount to about 41 cents per
head of the population, while the Maritime Provinces by
giving up their customs' revenues and only receiving 80
cents per head in return, besides having the Judges' salaries
and a few others paid, would be under the necesrity, in
in order to carry on their local governments, to resort to
direct taxation, together with having to submit to an
increased Tariff. But it is said that after the Union their
Tariff will be reduced from 20 to 15 per cent. Why should
theirs come down and ours go up? If, under Confederation,
the tariff could be made 15 per cent, it must be on account
of the flourishing state of the Maritime Provinces. But
why should our tariff be raised to even 15 per cent? i
must say again this is a justice and liberality which I can
not understand. As a set off, however, to an increased
tariff we are told that would an interest in thte
vast public works of Canada, costing over 20 millions of
dollars, and that we would be united to a country
possessing great wealth. It is a strange thing that Canada
with all these advantages is running so rapidly into debt.
The following statement of her financial affairs for several
years, copied from authentic sources, does not show thate
she is a prosperous country : —
|
Receipts. |
Payments. |
| 1857 |
$6,981,062 |
$11,846,690 |
| 1858 |
8,072,536 |
11,163,039 |
| 1859 |
8,157,346 |
9,630,592 |
| 1860 |
9,014,831 |
12,585,652 |
| 1861 |
9,738,258 |
11,962,652 |
| 1862 |
10,629,204 |
11,395,923 |
In 1868 an attempt was made to reduce the expenditure,
which was accomplished to the extent of $228,837 and still
the result, as officially stated, was
| Expenditure, less redemption of debt |
$10,742,807 |
| Receipts, less sale of Debenture and Sinking |
|
| Fund |
9,760,816 |
| Deficiency |
$972,491 |
These annual deficiencies, amounting in the aggregate to
$16,964,000 have passed into the funded debt of Canada, and
now form part of the debt of $62,500,000 which that Province
asks the Confederation to assume.
Here in a few short years we see that her debt has
increased over 16 millions, and for the great privilege
of contributing towards paying the interest of this debt, we
are to receive 80 cents per head ! But Galt says that
last year Canada would have a balance of revenue in her
favor, and talk of reducing the debt under Confederation.
Now, Sir, when the statesmen of a country propose to
lower their tariff and reduce their debt, they must intend
to do it by taxing some person. But even though 80 cents
a head should be sufficient for our present wants, it would
not be sufficient in a few years. Our Prince of Wales
College costs us a large sum, and our common Schools
require no small portion of our revenue ; but if in a few
years our population were to increase to 300,00, and we
should want larger Colleges, and almost twice as many
schools, we would not receive a single farthing more from
the General Government. Is this justice or liberality ?
Our revenue in 1850 was £18,000, and last year £66,000
or nearly £70,000, making a difference of nearly £52,000.
Supposing, then, that this Delegation had taken place in
1850, £18,000 would have been taken as the basis to work
upon, and the increase in 14 years, namely £52,000,
shows to some extent the increasing amount which we
would annually pay into the general treasury under Confederation. But to begin with,
the difference between the
Tariffs of Canada and this Island, would give us at once
nearly £27,000 additional to pay. Some, however, may
say that the Tariff under Confederation would not yield so
great a revenue as would appear by adding the difference
between the Canadian Tariff and our own. The amount
could be very little less, for the principal items which go
to make up our revenue are the duties on articles not
produced within the bounds of this great Confederation.
In 1863 the revenue which we derived from the following
articles was: —
| Molasses |
£4834 |
2 |
0 |
| Sugar |
1562 |
0 |
0 |
| Tea |
7045 |
0 |
0 |
| Tobacco |
1206 |
0 |
0 |
| Rum |
3506 |
0 |
0 |
| Brandy |
661 |
0 |
0 |
|
£18,814 |
2 |
0 |
On these six articles alone — which are only some of the
number that must be imported— you see we had a revenue
in 1863 of £18,814, while the whole revenue for the year
was merely £38,550. But we are told to look at the
advantages of intercolonial free trade. This is only a very
weak argument, for free trade could be obtained
independently of a Union of the Colonies. The following
memorandum under date 18th September, 1862, signed by
the Premiers of the three Provinces, is conclusive on this
point :—
"The delegates from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick,
and the Government of Canada, having under consideration
the report of the Hon. the Finance Minister of Canada, of
the 8th September, instant on the subject of Intercolonial
Reciprocity, agree—
1. That the free interchange of goods, the growth, produce
and manufacture of the Provinces, and uniformity of tariff,
are considered to be an indispensable consequence of the
construction of the Intercolonial Railway.
2. But in consequence of the recent diminution of the
revenues of the respective Provinces arising out of the war
in the neighbouring republic, and the increased liabilities
incurred by the additional obligations necessary to the construction of the proposed
road, the delegates from New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia regret that they are not at this
moment in a position to adopt measures to carry this important principle into practical
effect.
(Signed) J,S. MCDONALD (For Canada.)
(Signed) JOSEPH HOWE,
(Signed) S.L. TILLEY."
Then, again, it is said Canada will furnish a market for
our produce. We are to have nearly 4,000,000 of people
to deal with. It, however, will be a strange thing if
Canada, which exports large quantities of the same kinds
of agricultural produce we have to spare, will afford
us any advantages in this respect. The Board of Trade
returns for that Province show :
"In the 1863, Canada exported 8,905,578 lbs. of
butter ; 556,305 dozen eggs ; 3,844,272 lbs of pork ; 1,182,576
lbs of ham; 1,201,819 barrels of flour; 1,905,980 bushels of
oats; 5,741,479 bushels of wheat; 2,147,977 bushels of barley
and rye; 17,650 barrels of oatmeal; 29,168 barrels of fish, and
187,599 ewt. of dried fish."
So that in almost every way we can view this Report, it
presents nothing to us but increased taxation on the
industry of this Island. And I now come to notice some of
the more prominent items of expenditure of which we
would have to bear a share under Confederation. The
67th clause say: "All engagements, that may, before
the Union, be entered into with the Imperial Government
for the defence of the Country, shall be assumed by the
General Government." This question of defence seems to
have been the burden of nearly every speech of the
delegates. At one of the dinners given to them the Hon
George Brown said;--
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
59
"I cannot conclude without referring to some other things
which have received the grave attention of the Conference.
And the first point to which I desire to call attention is,
the fact that the delegates have unanimously resolved that
the United Provinces shall be placed at the earliest moment
in a thorough state of defence. The attacks which have
been made upon us have created the impression that these
Provinces are in a weak and feeble state ; if, then, we would
do away with this false impression, and place ourselves on a
firm and secure footing in the eyes of the world, our course
must be to put our country in such a position of defence that
we may fearlessly look our enemies in the face. It is a pleasure to me to state, and
I am sure it must be a pleasure to
all present to be informed, that the Conference at Quebec
did not separate before entering into A PLEDGE TO PUT THE
MILITARY AND NAVAL DEFENCES OF THE UNITED PROVINCES IN
A MOST COMPLETE AND SATISFACTORY POSITION."
Not being a military man, I approach this question of
defence with considerable diffidence. I believe, however,
it is all a matter of moonshine. I have the fullest confidence in Great Britain's
ability to defend her Colonies,
and very little faith in their being able to protect themselves. For stating that
the latter is a ridiculous idea, I
have the authority of a military man—no less than Lieut.
Colonel Haviland—who, in addressing this House on this
subject last Session, said :—
"As to the idea attributed to the Imperial Government that
these Colonies are able to bear the burden of defending themselves against the invasion
of a foreign foe, the sooner Great
Britain awakes from that delusion the better. Our small annual
appropriation of £400 for the volunteer organization is not
passed without strong expressions of disapprobation, while Nova
Scotia grants $20,000 for that service."
I think since last year, another change has come over the
spirit of his dream. (Laughter.) But at the utmost what
does Great Britain expect us to do for our defence? I
will read the resolution of the House of Commons on the
subject, together with the war Minister's explanation
thereof:--
"That this House (while fully recognizing the claims of all
portions of the British empire to imperial aid in their protection
against perils arising from the consequences of imperial policy), is
of opinion, that colonies exercising the rights of self-government,
ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their
own internal order and security, and ought to assist in their own
external defence."
A few days after the passage of this resolution, a debate
occurred in the Commons relative to an appropriation for
military purposes in the Mauritius and Nova Scotia, when
Mr Adderly spoke as follows :—
"According to the resolution assented to by the House, the
distant possessions of the Crown were to be responsible for their
own internal defence, and to take their share in the repulse of a
foreign enemy, the further proposition that distant fortifications
should be discontinued was not pressed because accepted of
course." Mr A. continued "as regards Nova Scotia, bearing
in mind the resolution agreed to the other night, he would like
to ask what share of the burthen of the defence, the Government expected that Colony
to take ?"
Sir Geo. Lewis replied, "its share would be the maintenance
of a Militia."
If that is what Nova Scotia is expected to do, I do not
think it probable that this Colony will be required to
undertake more. Then, again, what are we to understand
by "the communication with the North Western Territory," as set forth in the 69th
clause. That it is no new
subject, and an undertaking which will involve great
expense, will be seen from an extract from the preface of
a work by Professor Hinds, called "A Narrative of the
Canada Exploring Expedition." He says :—
"The chief difficulty in the way of rapid transit across the
continent lies between Lake Superior and Rainay Lake. The
liberality which has already been manifested by the Parliament
of Canada, in voting supplies to explore and open this communication, will doubtless
be persevered in until the route is
well established." In 1857 an expedition was sent out by the
Canadian Government with the following instructions; "The
primary object is to make a thorough examination of the tract
of country between Lake Superior and Red River; to determine
the best route for a communication through British Territory
from that Lake to the Red River Settlement, and ultimately to
the great tracts of cultivable land beyond them." In vol. 2,
page 212, it is stated "That the shortest line of road from the
limits of the settlement on Western Canada via the shores of
Lakes Huron and Superior form the basis of speculative enterprise on an enlarged scale,
a winter communication with these
regions will become a necessity, and may ultimately extend
Westward to Red River. It is not improbable that circumstances now dimly forseen may expedite the opening of this
communication, and make it a matter not only of Colonial but
Imperial interest."
It would appear from these statements that the communication referred to is principally
for a military road.
However that may be, if we enter the Union we must pay
for it, whatever its cost, which will probably be nearly as
much as that of the Intercolonial Railway. And in the
face of all this we are told that taxation will not be
increased. I will sum up a few of the items of increased
expenditure to show that such an idea must be absurd; and
in doing so I will only mention those expenses which
must be borne immediately should the Confederation
scheme be consummated :—
| Intercolonial Railway, as estimated |
$15,000,000 |
| Canal Extension |
30,000,000 |
|
$45,000,000 |
| Interest on the above amount for Railway and |
|
| Canals at 6 per cent |
$2,700,000 |
| Estimated expense of new Parliament |
600,000 |
| Militia beyond present expense |
500,000 |
| Army and Navy, estimated to cost |
2,500,000 |
|
$5,300,000 |
Of this sum not a farthing is paid at present. How, then,
I ask could the Government under Confederation be carried on without increased taxation
! Again, we are told,
that Union would tend to develope our fisheries. But I
would ask is there anything now to prevent people from
Canada or any other place coming here and engaging in
the fisheries ! I heard a gentleman who was extensively
engaged in fisheries at Gaspe state that though he received
a bounty of 25 per cent he would not come to prosecute
them in this Colony. We are further told that if we do
not enter the proposed Union we will be like dormice.
But, Sir, would we then have any greater scope for our
youth more than now ! Have not Davies, Hyndman, and
others of our young men, as great a field open for them in
the British service as they would have in a Confederation
with a paltry population of 4 millions of people? Have
the people of this Colony petitioned to do away with its
constitution? Do they wish to enter Confederation? I
believe they complain of their land tenures; but have
they set forth any other grievance? And further, is there
anything in the financial condition of the Colony to warrant
us in going into Confederation? Take our Blue Book for
1863-4 and see what unceptionable state of our Revenue
it presents. It shows:--
| Imports |
£293,431 |
|
| An increase of |
£82,191 |
over |
| those of the previous year. |
|
|
| Exports |
£200,472 |
|
| An increase of |
£58,923 |
over |
| those of the previous year. |
|
|
| Value of Imports over Exports |
$83,959 |
|
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
60
| Which is set off by 100 vessels, |
|
| 24,991 tons, the value of |
|
| which is about |
£125,000 |
| Which leaves a balance in the |
|
| favor of the Colony of |
£40,000 |
It is well enough for those to go into Confederation who
have not been able to manage their own affairs ; but for
us to do so in the prosperous state of our Revenue, would
be but committing political suicide. Some of the delegates,
however, inform as that we may obtain £250,000 to buy
proprietary lands. There is nothing in the Report to this
affect ; all that I see promised is interest for a certain
sum. If the hon. member for St. Peters were in the
General Legislature, and to rise and ask for a grant of
£200,000 to purchase proprietors' lands, could he have
the face to paint to a certain paragraph of the Report, and
may I claim this sum as a constitutional right ? (Laughter.)
But it might be said, he would have other four members
to aid him in orging our rights. Our delegates, did they
wish to secure our rights, had a much better opportunity
tog ain their point at a conference of a few individuals
than in a Hopse of 194 membes. Their first object ought
to have been to get the settlement of our Land Question- the only question which is
a grievance in the Colony, and
then they might have come with some show of reason and
asked as to go into Confederation. But they ask us to give
up our constitution - for what ! simply the glory of
belonging to a country with four millions of people !
(Hear, hear.) I believe our people would prefer representation in the Imperial Parliament
to Union with
Canada, for though they might scarcely have one member
in the British House of Commons, they would at least
feel that their liberties were in the lands of people that
could be trusted.
The Debate was then adjourned.
This individual participated in:
