The House met pursuant to the adjournment at 9 a. m.
A number of Bills received a second reading.
The Bills passed through Committee yesterday were read a third time, and passed the
House.
Leave was granted to bring in certain Bills, and petitions were received in support
of the same.
Several members opposed the suspension of the rule on the ground that it was
a matter of no immediate importance, and
as there was a petition against it, it was
evident the matter was not considered by
the people necessary to be hastily carried.
The rule however, was suspended and
leave granted, when the Bill was read a
first time and the petition presented.
At 10 o'clock the order of the day was
taken up.
DELEGATION ON UNION.
Mr. SMITH resumed—I have asked
the hon. Provincial Secretary if it is the
intention of the Government to submit
the Correspondence on resignation of the
late Gonernment, and what it means. I
do not know, but I am told that he will
answer to-morrow. I am aware that I
can obtain the papers by motion.
HON. Mr. TILLEY—You asked if the
Government would submit them without
a motion, and I replied that I would give
you an answer to-morrow.
Mr. SMITH—Well then, I now ask
for an answer from the Attorney General
to the question I put to him yesterday,
whether any despatches have passed between the Colonial Secretary and His
Excellency relating to the resignation of the late Government, and if they are to
be submitted to the House.
Hon. Mr. FISHER—The Governor only returned from Woodstock last
[?] and I have not yet on the subject will see him during the day and give the necessary
information.
Mr. SMITH—The Government do not appear disposed to be very courteous in their replies to questions
for information with regard to public papers, and yet they expect respect to be shown
to their wishes in the pushing on of the public business. I suppose I must submit
to the explanations they give.
When I closed my remarks yesterday, I stated that I believed that it was most important
that the House should have time for the consideration of so important a matter as
is involved in the Resolutions before the House. I believe that it is the solemn duty
of hon. members to bring their judgments to bear on this great question, and deliberately
and calmly arrive at conclusions that will be satisfactory to the people of this Province,
I stated yesterday, and again repeat it, that as the matter now stands, and from information
which I have obtained, the Quebec Scheme, and that alone, without any alteration,
will be decided on as the plan of uniting these Colonies. I ask hon. members around
the boards of this House if they are ready to adopt that Scheme ? Many of them have
been returned by constituencies to support a plan of Union on a new basis : I would
ask them if they were sent to pass the Quebec Scheme ? Were they sent to go it blind
? to leave it entirely in the hands of the delegates to say what the terms of Union
should be ? Or were they sent here to exercise their judgments in regard to the terms
of any new plan that may be submitted ? Were they sent here to delegate their power
to two or three men who are committed to the terms of the Quebec Scheme ? I would
ask if hon. members are ready to lay aside their right of judging and passing upon
the plan of Union proposed to be adopted ? This is what the Government ask us to do
; to divest ourselves of our powers of judgment, to delegate all our powers to delegates—we
are not told how many— who are to meet delegates from other Provinces in London, and
there frame a Scheme binding on this country for all time to come, and the people
are to know nothing at all about it. I believe that the majority of the people of
this Province are opposed to the Quebec Scheme. It was put before them that new negotiations
were to be opened, and they, under this impression, sent men here to see to it that
the terms proposed should be such as would be for the interest of the
24 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
country. Are hon. members prepared to go back to their constituents and say : " You
need have no fear, the Quebec Scheme will not be inflicted on this country. These
Resolutions give plenipotentiary those very men who assisted in the draw Quebec Scheme,
and when they meet the gates from Canada what will they be able to say. Nothing, absolutely
nothing— their mouths will be stopped. Has the Government given to the House any increased
information by which they will be able to return to their people, and say, " The Quebec
Scheme will be altered ?" No, they are asked to go it blind, they have no information
they can give more than hon. members already know. I say again, that for men to go
to London and say, " We'll take the Quebec Scheme if we can't get anything better,"
is mere child's play. And to give out to the country that new negotiations will be
opened, and then bring in a bold resolution like this, is to put things in a very
unfair position. The Canadian Parliament having passed upon this Scheme, they are
bound to its terms, and the Imperial Parliament must also be confined to it in all
its features in their dealings with the delegates. I know that the British Government
are in favor of that Scheme, and that alone. When in England with Judge Allen we asked
Mr. Cardwell if any change could be effected in the terms of that Scheme, and he assured
us that no important alteration would be allowed. When the Canadian delegates see
that we are willing to take the Quebec Scheme, if we can do no better, they will not
ask the House now in session for power to effect any change, but if they know that
this House has confined the delegates to accept Union on certain conditions which
they have laid down, the Canadian Government will, I am sure, at once ask and obtain
leave to make such modifications as will meet with our wishes and requirements. They
will ask for such delegated power as will enable them to make such concessions as
are demanded by the Lower Provinces. Unless we do restrict the powers of our delegates,
no such course will be taken, and they will not have the power to make alterations
even though our delegates have the assurance to ask for them, and we shall have the
Quebec Scheme, and the Quebec Scheme alone.
I will now come to the scheme which it is proposed by our Government to make the "basis,"
as they term it, for new negotiations, and I shall state my objections to that scheme
pretty fully. And first there is a provision for the appointment of the representatives
according to population.
" 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, distributed as follows :
| Upper Canada,............ |
82 |
| Lower Canada,...... ..... |
65 |
| Nova Scotia,........ .... |
19 |
| New Brunswick,.. .... .... |
15 |
| Newfoundland, . ......... |
8 |
| Prince Edward Island, .... |
5 |
|
194 |
In no other part of the British dominions is such a provision made for the representation.
They have probably taken the idea from the plan adopted by the Constitution of the
United States. There they have representation by population in the House of Representatives.
But in the Senate it is provided that every State alike sends two Senators. And it
must be remembered that the Senate of the United States have executive as well as
legislative functions ; they have power even to veto many of the acts of the President.
What he does must have their approval and consent. Here they have a check on the House
of Representatives. But under the provisions of this scheme, the people's House will
be the all-important and all powerful branch, for they will be able even to overturn
the executive of the country. It is not so in the United States. But large as the
House is, there is another provision that the number of representatives may be increased.
"Immediately after the completion of the census of 1871, (no change is to take place
til that time,) and immediately after every decennial census thereafter, the representation
from each section in the House of Commons shall be readjusted on the basis of population."
There is then to be a new arrangement every ten years, and we should, therefore, all
the more require that there should be some check to this great power. Under this scheme
it is evident that Canada will become the all- important power, and I therefore invoke
the aid of hon. members of this House to ask for some further checks in our favor
in the second branch over the lower. I warn the delegates against admitting this to
pass as part of the scheme of Union, and I ask them in the name of a common interest
and a common country to deliberate well on this point.
While the framers of this scheme have copied this provision from the United States,
have they given us the same checks as are provided there? Not at all. There every
State, large and small, send one representative to the Senate, but here the provision
is,
" Upper Canada shall be represented in the Legislative Council by 24 members, Lower
Canada by 24 members, and
the three Maritime Provinces by 24 members, of which Nova Scotia shall have 10, New
Brunswick 10, and Prince Edward Island 4 members."
Thus Canada is not only to have the
great majority in the Lower House, but in the Legislative Council she is to be represented
by 48 members, whilst all the Lower Provinces will only have 24. We are told that
Canada sympathises with us, that the men in power there have no desire to override
us, or infringe on our rights. Even were this the case, we must remember, Mr. Speaker,
that men pass away, that they are transitory, and men may arise in the future who
will abuse the power they possess to our ruin. Let us then see that we have conceded,
not as an indulgence but as a right, the proper checks in the Upper Branch. New Brunswick
has by this arrangement but ten members to their 24 each. It may be asked why we should
have an equal number with them in the second branch? I say because they have full
power and control in the Lower House. I again repeat, we have come here to express
our opinions and form a judgment with regard to a subject that is to affect for all
time our common welfare and our common country, and it behooves us to look carefully
into every matter that concerns us. I may be wrong, and it is possible that my voice
will have no effect in obviating the difficulties that surround us. I am aware that
I have no power, but the Government have all power at the present time, and I ask
them not to be
bound by a previously expressed opinion on this subject. I say that we should have
at least an equal number of representatives in the Legislative Council with Upper
and Lower Canada. There is another reason why this should be, for it is provided that
the members of that Council.
" Shall be appointed by the Crown, under the Great Seal of the General Government,
and shall hold office during life."
In the United States the Senators are elected by the people, and not for life but
one-third of their numbers every two years. But here they acknowledge no sway from
the people, and with all this Canada is to have a two-third's majority in that House.
Then there is a point that has been omitted from the Scheme altogether. I do not know
whether it was intended or not, but it is certain that there is no provision made
that the Legislative Councillors should reside in the districts they represent. Now
we know that in the selection of these men, at first they can't go outside of the
body up stairs, and there is nothing to prevent their going out of this Province to
live. The temptation is very strong to men in the decline of life, to desire to be
in a position of social quiet and to secure a status in society,
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 25
and this could best be secured by their removal to Canada. And if such were to occur,
then we may look for the same result here as centralization has produced in Ireland.
I ask hon. members of those who represent New Brunswick in the second Branch of the
Legislature should not reside in this Province ? We know exactly what has occurred
here. Mr. Steeves was appointed to the Upper Branch to represent the interests of
the County of Albert, but he removed to St. John and all his interests and sympathies
go with his place of residence, but still he retains his seat, and the County whose
interests he was appointed to look after is unrepresented. Yet there is no power to
put him out. I ask these delegates when they go home to require and demand that the
Scheme be so altered that when Legislative Councillors are appointed they shall be
compelled to reside in our own country and among our own people, or lose their seats.
But in this matter as in every other, I submit my opinion with great deference to
hon. members on the floors of this House.
" The first selection of the members of the Legislative Council shall be made * *
* from the Legislative Councils of the various Provinces * * * such members shall
be appointed by the Crown at the recommendation of the General Executive Government,
upon the nomination of the respective local Governments, and in such nomination due
regard shall be had to the claims of the members of the Legislative Council of the
opposition in each Province, so that all political parties may as nearly as possible
be fairly represented."
I see no hope even in this, for political parties and lines have faded out in the
discussion of this question. I see many of my personal friends who have fought measures
side by side with me, now politically opposed to me. Still I hope in the selection
they will choose the best men. There are men in our Upper Branch who would adorn any
Council, and do honor to any people, and I do hope they will appoint those best qualified
to represent us without regard to political feelings or party promises. But the Government
in this case too have the power in their own hands to do as they choose.
There is one thing that strikes my mind as somewhat strange, and that is the great
hurry the thirty-three men who formed the Council at Quebec were in to push through
this matter. I think they should not have finally decided on the various terms until
they had had time to deliberate, and have had a second meeting of the Conference.
Here matters of the utmost moment were brought up and decided on in a few days, and
the unanimity with which they acted is most wonderful. And, Mr. Speaker, I should
very
much like to have an expression from you on the subject, but I suppose I shall not
be able to get it.
In all the Constitution there is no provision requiring that the parties selected
to go to form the General Government should be qualified in the Provinces they represent,
and yet it is evident to my mind that such a provision should be made, and with a
strong clause that they should also reside in it.
" For the purposes of readjustment, Lower Canada shall always be assigned 65 members,
and each of the other sections shall at each readjustment receive, for the ten years
next succeeding, the number of members to which it will be entitled, or the same ratio
of representation to population as Lower Canada will enjoy according to the census
last taken by having 65 members."
Now looking at the advantages of Upper Canada, it is evident that she will increase
in population much more rapidly than Lower Canada. In the last twenty-five years she
has far outstripped the latter Province, so that now Lower Canada is only to have
65 members whilst Upper Canada will have 82. She has, therefore, 17 members more than
her sister Province, and looking forward to a similar increase in the next twenty-five
years, she will then have 17 more, or 34 members more than Lower Canada. On this decennial
re-adjustment principle then Upper Canada in twenty five years from this will have
a majority in the House of Commons, and the result will be that we shall lie bound
at the foot of Upper Canada for her to do with us as she chooses. I think the delegates
should see to it that a modification is made in this particular.
But there is a further provision, and I am alarmed and tremble for the consequences
to this country. Not only is Upper Canada to go into this Union with a much larger
number of representatives than either of the other Provinces, not only will that number
be increased every ten years, but there is a still further concession made which provides
that
" The number of members may at any time be increased by the General Parliament,—regard
being had to the proportionate rights then existing."
It permits the representation to increase at " any time," besides the decennial increase,
so that Upper Canada can gain the majority at any time she chooses, even at once.
I would ask, is it necessary that there should be such a large representation in the
Lower House ? Is not 194 members enough ? Why this section was inserted I do not know,
and I again invoke the serious consideration of this House on this
question, especially when we are told that this scheme is to be the basis for Union,
and when we know that no power has been given to the Canadian delegates to depart
from its provisions.
" The General Parliament shall have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and
good government of the Federated Provinces."
And among those enumerated is,
" The raising of money by all or any other modes of taxation."
And this General Parliament have the further power to make any laws
" Respecting all matters of a general character not specially and exclusively reserved
for the local Governments and Legislatures."
Now here is an overriding power which may come in conflict with the interests of the
local Parliaments. And then when there is such a power the question of taxation is
one of the greatest importance, for it effects the poor man and the man that toils
for his living, and should, therefore, receive the most careful consideration. Now
let us see. A power is given to the General Parliament not only to raise the necessary
resources by duties on the imports and exports, but also to raise money " by all or
any other modes or systems of taxation." I reiterate the statement that I call upon
the delegates to see to it, that in the appointments made they select the best men
they have. In the powers given to the General Government by specification is, that
of " lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, and other works, connecting
any two or more of the Provinces together, or extending beyond the limits of any Province."
Now in Canada they have a line of steamers running to Great Britain, and in Confederation
I believe the cost and support of that line would be made a burden on us. And more
than this, they have the power to subsidize any other steamers, and to throw the cost
of canals and other public works upon the whole Provinces. Now I would ask the Attorney
General what is meant by the words " other works ?" In my opinion it means that any
work in Upper or Lower Canada, of any description whatever, may be undertaken by the
General Government if they consider it for the general welfare. I ask the Attorney
General if such is the fact ?
Mr. SMITH.—I wish the explanation from the Attorney General. I ask him as a lawyer. He does
not reply, so I may assume that I am correct. Another power given is the providing
for
26 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1866.
" Militia—Military and Naval Service and Defence." I have always been afraid of this
section, knowing, as I do, that the people of England understand by this provision
that the expenses for military services in times of peace will be removed from their
shoulders and be borne by this country. The next provision is for " Beacons, buoys
and lighthouses ;" these become the property of the Confederation. In the United States
these belong to the General Government, but there they have no dues on shipping for
the purpose of keeping them up. Here there is a power to raise money for lighthouses
and tax ships for it. Now this is a matter of great moment to these Maritime Provinces,
and should be looked into very carefully. Another power given to this Parliament is
to legislate on
" The criminal law, excepting the constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction,
but including the procedure in criminal matters."
I don't know what that means, so I shall pass on. The next power is to render uniform
the laws of all the Provinces except Lower Canada. So it is in reality a provision
that the laws of the United Provinces shall not become uniform at any future time.
This also is unlike the case in the United States where the laws relating to property
and civil rights are the same in every State. The next section provides for a Court
of Appeal, and, Mr. Speaker, I did at one time intimate that you, sir, would doubtless
secure a seat on the bench in that Court. And it is possible they may appoint the
Attorney General as one of the Judges as well.
Mr. SMITH—I have not the slightest doubt but that he tells the truth. The last section of the
specified powers which I have already mentioned just reverses the principle of the
Constitution of the United States.
" All Courts, Judges and Officers of the several Provinces shall aid, assist and obey
the General Government in the exercise of its rights and powers, and for such purposes,
shall be held to be Courts, Judges, and Officers of the General Government."
There is another obscurity about this that I can't understand. It does not say what
officers are meant. It seems to me that any officer of the local governments will
become an officer of the General Government, and if this is not the meaning, I shall
be obliged to the Attorney General to explain it.
" The General Government shall appoint and pay the Judges of the Superior Courts in
each Province."
But a favor is granted to Upper Canada, for there the Judges of the County Courts
are provided for, whilst here they are appointed and paid by the local government.
" The Judges of the Courts of Lower Canada should be selected from the Bar of Lower
Canada."
But here, after the consolidation of the laws, they may not be selected. Why, I ask,
is this ? We all know the feeling of dissatisfaction that was raised in this Country
when Chief Justice Carter was brought from England, and put over our heads, but here
Judges may come from any part of the United Provinces, to the exclusion of members
of our own Bar.
The first section under the local governments is the appointment of a Lieutenant Governor.
Now I believe that when Confederation is consummated our local government will be
nothing but a burlesque and farce. Why even George Brown believes the same thing,
for he admits that Upper Canada may not retain the machinery of a Responsible Government,
but become merely a municipality. Here however, will be all the machinery of government,
responsible heads of Departments, except, I suppose, the Postmater General ; they'll
have to give that up I suppose, although the interests involved will be of less importance
than those of the Corporation of the City of Saint John. Well the Governor is to be
paid out of the funds of the General Government, so that ensures that all his sympathies
will go with them. Now here are the powers vested in the Local Legislatures ; first,
Direct Taxation, and this is a power I am afraid they will very soon need to use.
Let us look at the question of Western Extension. There are a majority perhaps who
would make it a Government work. But if the amount provided by the Subsidy Act won't
pay the cost, and a company can't go on with it, how is the road to be built under
Confederation. It cannot be done unless direct taxation be resorted to. Then in Nova
Scotia they have a power granted them to legislate on their coals and other minerals,
and I would ask the Attorney General, if we are to be excluded from such legislation,
and if the Attorney General won't reply, then I appeal to the Solicitor General. We
come now to the Sea and Inland fisheries, and on this subject, the Local and General
Governments come in conflict, for they both have the power to legislate upon them.
The 17th section of the 29th resolution gives it to the General Government, whilst
the 8th section of the 43rd resolution gives it to the local government. Now how are
differences and controversies on this subject to be settled ? Have they a Superior
Court to which the matter can be carried as in the United States, where differences
between States and the Gene
ral Government can be carried and settled ? No, there is nothing of the kind provided.
Is it not important that there should be some tribunal where disputes of this nature
may be settled ; and I ask the Attorney General to look into the matter and provide
for some means of appeal. But even then there is the other power they possess of vetoing
any action of the Local Legislatures. Should we submit that Canada should have the
power to abrogate and nullify all or any of our legislation, with no power to which
to appeal ? They have also let us the power of managing our own private or local affairs,
but the question may be raised what is private and local, and then who is to determine
? We may also administer Justice " both of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and including
also the procedure in civil matters." There is something here again I can't understand.
I must again assert that this House has a right to deliberate on the different objections
I have stated. They may not appear to have much weight to minds of hon. members, but
to my mind they have much force. I should like to take the judgement of this House
upon them, but I suppose I shall not get it. If however this Resolution passes, every
man on the floors of this House yields up his right of judgement to those who have
already approved of a Scheme not sanctioned by this people. If the Government will
assure us that no Scheme will be carried unless it is submitted to the people for
their approval or condemnation, then I shall be satisfied, but if not, I shall move
before I sit down a resolution to that effect. This may be the last time my voice
may be heard in this House, and whilst I have breath I will protest against our judgements
being clogged, and I will to the last raise my voice against the delegation of such
power to two or three men. I say it is only right and fair that any measure decided
on in England should be sent back to this House. It is provided by this Scheme that
Bills passed by this House may be reserved for the consideration of the General Government,
but I do not think that it is necessary to do this as the General Government will
have a veto power over any Bill we may pass without the power of appeal. It has been
the pride and glory of our country that politics has been kept clean of the sacred
precincts of our Courts of Law. We have been able to boast that our Judges have kept
themselves free from the turmoil of political strife. But shall we be able to say
the same under this Union ? I fear not.
It is provided under the head of property and liabilities that " All Stocks, Cash,
Bankers' Balances and Securities for money belonging to each Province at the time
of the Union, except as hereinafter mentioned, shall belong to
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 27
the General Government." Now suppose that the Union should take place at the middle
of a quarter, when there are large sums becoming due for salaries of public officers,
&c., the whole of our cash, stocks, bankers' balances and securities are to be handed
over to the General Government, and our local Government will have to pay them out
of the sum we are to get at 80 cents a head. Then all public harbors are to be provided
for, as are also canals. Now I think the construction of new canals should not be
made charagable upon the General Government, for if these canals are enlarged, ships
of large tonnage will be enabled to pass through them, and thus an injury will be
inflicted upon the trade of the Maritime Provinces. I believe if the House give powers
to the delegates to claim that canals shall not be chargeable on the Confederation,
while the Canadian Parliament is in session, that they will concede it to us. The
harbors are to belong to the General Government, St. John not excepted, for there
is no such thing as a private harbor. In Canada too they have spent immense sums in
the improvement of their rivers and lakes, and for these improvements they will be
able to tax us. The moment Confederation passes into law, the railroad we now own
and control passes into the hands of the General Government, and every man employed
upon it will owe allegiance and alone be responsible to the Government at Ottawa.
The seven million dollars of debt we go in with includes the cost of this road, but
if we get connection with Nova Scotia and with the United States, that road will in
a very short time pay six per cent , and the moment it does that it ceases to be a
debt. By this arrangement then about five millions of the seven millions will be lost
to us. In Canada the debt has been incurred on improvements to their rivers, canals,
&c., which will not pay anything like such a per centage, and, therefore, they will
be in a better position than we. It is further provided that all lands, mines, minerals,
and royalties shall belong to the local government of the territory in which they
are so situate. Now I would ask is it intended to give us the power to legislate on
our mines and minerals? Why then in the provisions for the local Legislatures is there
an exception made in favor of Nova Scotia with regard to her " coals and other minerals?"
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. SMITH resumed.—I think the course adopted by the Government
should be that as they intend to make the Quebec Scheme on the basis of Union, they
should have resolved this House into Committee, and submitted it and its modifications
to us. Why ,we have not the Scheme before us, except as it is published in books.
If every hon. member returned to support Union had said on the hustings, " Here is
the Scheme of Union, and I am bound to support it," the course now adopted might have
been right. But it was not so. It is known that many of the hon. members were opposed
to the provisions of that Scheme. Why, Mr. Speaker, it is reported that you, sir,
on the hustings declared that you expected to assist in the preparation of a new Scheme.
It seems to me if these Resolutions pass, hon. members will not be able to render
a just account to their constituents for their conduct in this matter. There is no
way that I can lay the subject before the House ; I have no power here. The Government
may say that Smith raises these objetions merely to defeat the Union. I have not the
power even if I had the will. I suggest these objections as they strike my own mind,
because as I feel there is no power to prevent Union, it is for the interests of this
country that the best terms possible should be obtained. To do this I think the delegates
should reeie certain and definite instructions from this House as to the terms they
shall require. The delegates cannot oppose the Scheme in its entirety, for they have
already declared it to be all that can be desired, unless they are instructed by this
House to demand such modifications as the interests of the people demand. I find that
a number of alterations have been made in this Scheme, and there is something strange
in that. For two years past we have been trying to find out about the change that
was made with regard to the electoral districts, and now again I have been just informed
that in the Canadian journals another charge has been made with regard to the impositions
of duties on the exports of timber, logs, masts, spars, deals, and sawn lumber ; this
is made to apply to New Brunswick only, and in " Nova Scotia on coals and other minerals."
In our reports the words New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are left out, and it is made
applicable to all the Provinces. Now which Scheme is right? the Cana dian one, or
that submitted to this people?
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—The document
laid before our people is the copy certified by the chairman of the Conference, Sir
E. P. Tache, and there is no doubt that this s the copy of the resolutions as signed
at Montreal. You, Mr. Speaker, and I recollect that as we derive a revenue from stumpage
we thought it right that it should be put into the rights conferred upon the local
Governments, but in Upper and Lower Canada they have no stumpage duty,
neither do they receive any revenue from
mines of coal, &c., as in Nova Scotia. They, therefore, did not want it, and in the
copy they submitted to their Parliament they inserted the words referred to, to show
their people to what Provinces it referred. It was not in the original document, but
left open as it is in our copies. The arrangement was, that this section should cover
the wants of these two Provinces, and so the alteration was made.
Mr. SMITH.—Then we have the right
to legislate on our mines and minerals, and so a little alteration in the phraseology
will make that all right. Railways, post offices, and other public works are transferred
from us to the use of the General Government, and so all the patronage and control
that belong to them go with them.
" In consideration of the transfer to
the General Parliament of the powers of taxation, an annual grant in aid of each Province
shall be made equal to eighty cents per head of the population, as established by
the census of 1861."
Here is another peculiarity with regard to the eighty cents a head. This is a section
against which I have expressed my opposition again and again. Any one must know that
as we increase in population our wants must increase. We shall want more money for
our roads than now ; we shall want more money for schools and other local purposes.
We shall also want to assist those who are willing to go back and clear up new farms,
and so as our numbers increase we shall want to do more. But how will it be? Why even
now it is as much as we can do to provide for these purposes, and why then should
the amount we are to receive be carried back to the population in 1861 ? And if our
population increases in ten years to double what it is now, then we shall only get
forty cents a head, and in ten years after that again only twenty cents a head, and
so on. The statesmen of Canada do not fail to state that if the wants of the people
increase, resort must be had to direct taxation. But while population and consequent
wants increase, the amount we are to receive remains the same. Canada will have the
power to do as they will with their own money, and with ours too. If the population
doubles in ten years we shall pay $480,000 into the general treasury, and get out
a sum based on the population of 1861 at eighty cents a head. I believe this will
bring desolation and ruin upon this country. If the country grows as it ought to grow,
we may look into the future and see the time when we shall get only ten cents a head
for our whole population. But this appropriation is to be made annually. Instead of
being paid out of the treasury it is to be made an annual grant of the Legislature,
and I would ask if the public works of Canada go on, where will the money come
28 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
from to pay us even this paltry eighty
cents a head. We make appropriations for our schools, but even though the sum required
may not be in the trea sury, the warrants issue just the same. But if the money in
the general treasury runs out, it will be for them to say whether the grant of eighty
cents a head shall issue for any year, and then what redress have we? None whatever,
for we, under this arrangement become subject to the whim and caprice of Canada.
" In consideration of the surrender to
the General Government, by Newfound- hand, of all its rights in mines and minerals,
and of all the ungranted and unoccupied Lands of the Crown, it is agreed that the
sum of $150,000 shall each year be paid to that Province by semi-annual payments."
Again I would appeal to this House and ask hon. members if they are ready to accept
that proposition ; if they are ready to subject our people to a burden of ten or fifteen
thousand dollars a year to buy up the Crown Lands of Newfoundland, and its mines and
minerals, something that does not exist. Why was this done ? Was it not a mere colouring
to gain over Newfoundland ? The whole Crown Lands of Newfoundland are utterly worthless.
I do not believe they would support a rabbit. Why does she want to sell her Crown
Lands to Canada? I think it is a very bad speculation, and no private person would
care to invest his money in those Lands. I do not believe the people of this Province
are willing to pay $10,000 or $15,000 a year for all time to come for such a purpose.
The whole thing was merely a sop to get her into the Union.
" 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 Gov ernment."
Now before we agree to this we should know what arrangements Canada has entered into.
I think this is a dangerous section.
" The communications with the North West Territory, and the improvements required
for the development of the trade of the Great West with the Seaboard, are regarded
by this Conference as subjects of the highest importance to the Federated Provinces,
and shall be prosecuted at the earliest possible period that the state of the finances
will permit."
It is evident that Canada is very much interested in the opening of her Canals. This
section seems to be extraordinarily worded. It is without doubt put forward for a
purpose. As it reads it seems to be nothing but a mere expression of opinion of the
Council. Is it so, or is it a part of the Constitution ? What does it mean ? It means
that every work and improvement in Canada is to be a charge on the
General Government, and that we are to be taxed for it ; and these works are to be
carried on as soon as the finances permit. Let me ask if Canada has the power to increase
the taxation by every means as she likes, and her desires are for increased public
works. What is there that will cause the finances not to permit of their being proceeded
with ? Yes, the finances will permit just whenever they choose to tax the people for
that very purpose. And more than this, I am led to believe that under this section
the purchase money of the Hudson's Bay Territory will justice be called the greatest
statesman of at least British America. About a year ago his voice was heard in the
Convention at Detroit pleading in the interest of these Colonies, and he was justly
styled eral Government.
" The sanction of the Imperial and Local Parliament shall be sought for the
Union of the Provinces, on the principles
adopted by the Conference."
I take the position that the Government have not done this. They have not submited
a Scheme, but a bald resolution to appoint delegates with unheard of powers to change
the constitution of this Country without its being submitted either to the people
or their representatives.
I stated yesterday that I saw yet one chance of escape, and that was that Newfoundland
and Prince Edward Island may not be represented, and as this Resolution gives authority
to our Delegates to confer with Delegates from all the Colonies, if any are unrepresented,
our Delegates will have no power to act. We have been told even by the framers of
the Quebec Scheme that the safety of this Province against Canada was in the cooperation
with us of these other Provinces whose interests are identical with our own. And now
if these Provinces sends no delegates, the whole matter must fall to the ground. I
do not believe moreover that Nova Scotia will enter into this Union unless her people
are appealed to. I have too much faith in the integrity of the House of Commons to
believe they will pass an Act in favor of a Union that has never been submitted to
the people. The Government of that Province were not appointed to barter away the
rights and privileges, the valuable mines and minerals, the success and prosperity
of that noble Provinces, but to preserve them. Nova Scotia will send home a delegation
with that great man Joseph Howe at its head, and I believe he will be heard at the
bar of the House of Commons pleading in the strongest terms for an appeal to the people
on this subject. It has of late become quite common to speak lightly of the abilities
and acquirements of this truly great man, a man who may with Â
justice be called the greatest statesman of
at leat British America. About a year
ago his voice was heard in the Convention at Detroit pleading in the interest of \
these Colonies and he was justly styled
the champion of British America. But now on account of the stand he has taken on this
subject of the Quebec Scheme he is charged with " imbecility." The Hon. Joseph Howe is an imbecile ! The people of Nova Scotia have risen in their
might, and called for a dissolution of the House and an appeal to the people on this
question, and if it is refused to them I tremble for the consequences. But I am confident
they will be heard, and that the House of Commons in England will not suffer their
Constitution to be taken from them against their will.
We have no guarantee from the Government what course the delegates will pursue. They
have not condescended to give any explanations as to what modifications they will
insist on. But I do think they should come before this House and assure us that they
will not accept the Quebec Scheme unless we can get certain concessions. The Government
have refused to this House the right of members expressing their opinions and judgment
on this question. I know that my efforts will be unavailing, and I expect we shall
get the Quebec Scheme and nothing else, but I hope in God I am mistaken in my opinions.
In reference to the Inter-Colonial Railroad, hon. members seem to be under the impression
that no Union will take place unless this is secured. Now I would require that it
should be stated in the Scheme that no taxation should take place unless the Inter-Colonial
Railway was bona fide commenced. This would make them go on with the work, but if it is left as it stands
in the Scheme, viz : that " the General Government shall secure without delay the
completion of the Inter-Colonial Railway from Rivere du Loup through New Brunswick
to Truro in Nova Scotia," and this is to be done only as the finances permit, then
there is no difference made between the prosecution of this work and those works in
Upper Canada provided for by by the next section for the opening up of the Great Western
Territory, and the railway will not be built.
There is another provision which, I
think, ought to be inserted, and that is, that a member of the Executive Council should
be taken from these Provinces, one from each. The Executive Council is to consist
of twelve members, and this arrangement would give us one-third. Does any hon. member
think it desirable that no Government should be formed unless we are represented?
Is there anything improper in this request ?
I once more appeal to the manly sentiment and reason of hon. members of this House
who have been sent here by the people, because they believed their interests would
be carefully guarded in any arrangements which may be entered into. I ask that they
shall not delegate their power to two or three persons
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 29
without a strong expression of their judgment on the subject before us. I have heard
it stated that the delegation is to leave on Tuesday next, and that Dr. Tupper and
Mr. Archibald, of Nova Scotia, have gone on to Canada on the matter of the delegation.
Why, I would ask, this indecent haste ? Why prevent a calm and deliberate discussion
of the question ? Hon. members are not to be allowed to see the Scheme or pass their
judgment upon it. Was ever a plenipotentiary so empowered before ? This may be right,
but in my opinion it is entirely wrong. If my predictions are verified, I shall have
the satisfaction of knowing that I have cleared my conscience. I put it to the Hon.
Attorney General, I put it to the Hon. Solicitor General, and to the Hon. Provincial
Secretary, if it is right to appoint delegates to go to England—3,000 miles away—
and there frame a Scheme of Union, binding upon the people of this Province for ever,
without their ever seeing it, or knowing its provisions. I have, in making these remarks,
had no selfish end in view, and as I have said I do not suppose they will have any
weight, but I have freed my conscience and myself before the country. I will now conclude
with the following amendment to the resolution :
" Provided that no Act or Measure for such Union shall have force or effect in New
Brunswick until it shall be approved by the Legislature or people of this Province."
Hon. MR. TILLEY.—The hon. ex- President of the Council in his opening remarks taunted the Attorney
General with not entering at length into the terms of the proposed Union, and with
the solemnity which the suqject demands. Mr. Speaker, if we had entered upon it with
the spirit of levity, the eloquent appeals and the deep sentiments which characterized
his remarks could not have failed in producing quite as solemn a feeling as even he
could desire, and I say, sir, that I can express the pleasure I have had in listening
to his stirring appeals with as much sincerity and with as much power as when the
hon. ex-President of the Council, fourteen months again, said he was sorry there were
none of the delegates to the Council held at Quebec then on the floors of the House
to whom he could put a few questions. His remarks produced almost as great an effect
on the House at that time as at the present. But to-day, sir, he stands here with
a less majority than the friends of Union did then. The hon. member says that if this
question were delayed, a great reaction would take place in the minds of the people.
Why, Mr. Speaker, the great reaction has taken place, and on my recent visit to St.
John, when the hon. member was also there, I found it hard to find a disunionist.
No, sir, there are few to-day who
oppose Union. He attributes the change in public opinion to Fenianism, and the "treachery
of His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor." I am not going into the question of dispute
between the Governor and his late advisers, but if any body was guilty of unconstitutionality
I say it was the late President of the Government. Talk of unconstitutionality, why
the acts of the late Government show who was guilty in this respect, and yet they
went back to the people with the constitutional plea, when they had violated every
principle of responsible Government whilst they were in power. There was the removals
from office of certain parties obnoxious to the then Government. I heard one of the
members of that Government (Mr. Hatheway) state openly in his place on the floors
of this House that he had advised His Excellency to make certain changes, and His
Excellency told him he would not do it, and further said, if the Government did not
like it they could resign, for Tilley could form a Government.
Mr. SMITH—I know nothing of what might have been said by His Excellency to any members of the
Government on the bank of the river, but this I do say that no recommendations were
made by the Government to the Governor with regard to removals from office, but he
complied with. There was no difference between us on that ground.
HON. Mr. TILLEY—I only state what
I heard an hon. member of the Government declare to his colleagues and the members
of the House. When the hon. ex-Attorney General rises here and declares that the change
in public opinion on this great question has been brought about by " the treachery
of the Governor," I should be recreant to my trust, my position to my duty if I did
not take it up. The hon. member says that no recommendation was made but was complied
with. That memorandum may never have been again presented to His Excellency, but it
is none the less true that the hon. member of the Government stated that the Governor
would not make the required changes. The hon. ex- President of the Council said that
these things could not be attended to because Confederation stood in the way. Mr.
Speaker, if there was " treachery" anywhere it lies at the door of the hon. ex- President
of the Council and his Government. I admit that we had an advantage in going to the
people with this question at the late elections, but it was an advantage given to
us by the late Government. I know something about the matter of " treachery," for
I was in communication with Mr. Mitchell at the time when he was in conjunction with
the late President, preparing for a change on the subject of Union. The hon. ex-Attorney
General
says he would like to see hon. members
rise above praty on this matter, but who stood up during the late House and claimed
for party and nothing but party ? The hon. ex-President. During the arrangements between
the Governor and Mr. Mitchell, I had nothing to say to His Excellency. Mr. Mitchell
came to me and told me what was being done, and I said if the then Government would
go for Union, I would, although not a member of the House, use all my interest and
influence to carry the proposed measure. I knew that Mr. Mitchell was working with and for
the government party. It was also the wish of His Excellency to carry the Union by
means of his then existing Government. Go to the Country on the Constitutional question
! Why the hon. member knows as well as any body that the matter was all prepared for,
and in perfect consonance with the Speech at the opening of the last Session, the
answer to which was prepared by the Government and put in Colonel Boyd's mouth, and
in favor of Union. The question of Fenianism may also have affected the late elections
in some measure, inasmuch as some the friends of the late government were supposed
to have some feelings of sympathy for them.
I believe with the hon. ex-President of
the Council that this subject should be discussed without abuse. I have used more
hard words in the last ten minutes than during the whole of the late campaign. I have
been very careful not to make use of any language that could be charged as personalities,
and I wish the ex-President of the Council had done the same thing. He has said that
the action of the Legislative Council was prompted by personal motives, but the late
elections have shown that they, six weeks ago, spoke the feelings of the people on
this question. The hon. member has striven to throw around the subject a veil of sophistry,
and to frighten the hon. members of this House, but, sir, they are on a platform that
cannot be shaken. Let us go back to the origin of the affairs in connection with Union,
and see how it arose. The hon. ex-President came down to Saint John, and told the
people that it arose out of the troubles and necessities of Canada, and asked them
not to speak too hastily, but to assist the other counties in the defeat of the Scheme.
But, sir, the question was not new to the Government of this country. As early as
1858, a proposition was made to us to go into a Union with the other Provinces. It
was not deemed advisable on certain grounds, and even though of late it may be that,
as the hon. member observes, the renewed proposal for Union grew out of the dead lock
which had taken place in the government of Canada, was the mere fact of her necessities
urg
30 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866
ing her to make the renewed offer any
ground why it should be rejected ? I say
a proposal was made to this Government
in 1858, and is recorded on the Journals
of this House for the Session of 1859.
The following is the Report of the Committee of the Council of Canada as laid
before the House that Session.
Copy of a Report of a Committee of
the Executive Council of Canada, dated
4th September, 1858, approved by His
Excellency the Governor General :
The Committee of Council are respectfully of opinion that it is expedient to
bring the subject of the Union of the
British North American Colonies under
the notice of Her Majesty's Government
with as little delay as possible, and to inform the Government of each such Colony
that the attention of Her Majesty has
been called to the subject by Your Excellency.
That Your Excellency should submit to
the Right Honorable the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, the propriety of
authorizing a meeting of Delegates on
behalf of each Colony, and of Upper and
Lower Canada respectively, for the purpose of considering the subject of such
Federative Union, and reporting on the
principles on which the same could properly be based.
That such Delegates should be appointed by the Executive Government of each
Colony, and meet with as little delay as
possible.
That the Report of such Delegates
should be addressed to the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, and that a copy
of it, as soon as it is prepared, should
be placed in the hands of the Governor
and Lieutenant Governor of each Colony, in order that he may lay the same
before the Provincial Parliament with as
little delay as possible.
Certified.
(Signed) W. H, LEE, C. E. C.
Here is a distinct proposal for a Federal Union of these Colonies, and it was
not new even then, for it has been before
the people and discussed by statesmen of
British North America for some twenty
years. The hon. ex-Attorney General
stated that Canada had interfered with
our legislation. Now the fact is, that an
arrangement was made with us that unless the measure of Union could be carried out
they would have to take some
other steps with regard to a change in
their constitution, and they delayed the
opening of the House there till late, to
a-e what changes would be made here.
The hon. member appealed to this House
in most glowing and eloquent terms in
favor of the Hon. Joseph Howe. But,
sir, I always had a great respect for that
gentleman's abilities, and I have sat at
the feet of that Gamaliel, hoping to hear
something from him, and from him I
learned some deep and profitable lessons
on the confederation of these Colonies.
But I remember a time, sir, when the hon.
member did not eulogise the Hon. Joseph
Howe. I remember that when that gentleman and others had concluded an ar
rangement with Canada to build the Inter-
Colonial Railway, he made a stirring
speech in opposition to that arrangement.
The hon. ex- Attorney General says that
Mr. Howe is opposed to this Union, and
that his voice will be heard at the bar of
the House of Commons against it, but
what have been the ideas and sentiments
expressed by that great man from time
to time ?
In a speech delivered in the year 1851
he said, after eloquently describing the
greatness of the back country (the cold
country) of Canada :
" With such a territory as this. to overrun, organize and improve, think you we
shall stop soon at the Western bounds of
Canada. or even at the shores of the Pacific ? Vancouver's island with its vast
coal fields lies beyond. The beautiful
islands of the Pacific and the growing
commerce of that ocean are beyond.
Populous China and the rich East are beyond, and the sails of our children's
children will reflect as familiarly the sunbeams of the South as they now brave the
angry tempests of the North. The Maritime Provinces which I now address, are
but the Atlantic frontage of this boundless and prolific region—the wharves upon
which the business will bet ransacted, and
and beside which its rich argosies lie. * *
* I am neither a prophet or the son of a prophet, yet I will venture to predict that
in five years we shall make the journey hence to Quebec and Montreal and home through
Portland and St. John by rail ; and I believe that many in this room will live to
hear the whistle of the steam engine in the passes of the Rocky Mountains, and to
make the journey from Halifax to the Pacific in five or six days."
Having sketched some of the public
men of New Brunswick, and brought out
in bold relief the proportions of that great
field of honorable ambition and exertion
upon which they would tread if Union of
the Provinces by iron roads had been
followed by the political organization
which would be the result, Mr. Howe
said :
" If the sphere were wide enough here
what would you do with such men ? You
would send Judge Wilmot to administer
justice. Where ? To a small Province ?
No, but to our American Empire."
And where did the hon. member place
him ?
Hon. Mr. TILLEY—Yes, and the people have left the late Government where
they ought to be. But Mr. Howe went
on : " You would place Mr. Chandler on
the Bench of the United Provinces. You
would hold out to the young men of your
country a sphere and a field for their exertions and ambition which none of them
have open to them now. How? With
the consent of the Sovereign and the acquiescence of the Imperial authorities, by
the united action and good sense of the
Provinces, you would seek by Union to
elevate them all to a higher status than any of them seperately can ever occupy."
This is the language of the friend of the hon. ex-President of the Council.
Again, at a dinner in Halifax in the summer of 1864, he made a most telling speech,
which is but imperfectly sketched by the reporter. He says : " In almost every city
of importance in British America his voice had been heard, and if ever occasion required
it would be heard again. He had never pursued a sectional policy. He had for many
years been looking at the important Provinces of British North America, and thinking
how they could be made strong, vigorous and great, with the old flag of England floating
over the inhabitants. A Union of the Provinces was the dream of his boyhood, and he
was now pleased to find Her Majesty's subjects of all creeds and professions anxiously
looking forward to the time when they could build up a new England—Monarchical and
not Republican—on this side of the Atlantic. He hoped the day was not far distant
when a railway would connect Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada. He wanted to see
Canada not every five years, but twice a year ; and he wanted the Canadians, when
fever and ague racked their bones, to come
down to the ocean to renew their energies and recruit their strength. After
referring to the agricultural capabilities
of Canada, the fisheries and mineral resources of Nova Scotia, and the importance
of New Brunswick, he asked if the
people would be content to remain divided and live and die in territorial insignificance
? He had always been in favor
of uniting two, three, or even four and
five of the Provinces, and he hoped it
would yet be accomplished. He observed
that there was a movement on foot, the
object of which was to divide Canada ;
but he would say to the Canadians that
if they did seperate, they would commit
an act of political suicide."
So says the Hon. Joseph Howe, the
friend of the hon. ex-President of the
Council. I happened to be in Nova
Scotia when Mr. McGee held a meeting
in Halilax to agitate the Union of the
Colonies. Dr. Tupper waited on Mr.
Howe to second a resolution of vote of
thanks to Mr. McGee, which was proposed by Mr. Johnson. The speech is
thus reported :
" Hon. Mr. Howe rose to second the
vote of thanks. In the course of a
brief but eloquent address, he paid a
high tribute to the excellent qualities of
Mr. McGee both in public and private
life. He was pleased to see him there,
because he was an admirable propagator of the opinions he entertained. He
hoped the time was not far distant
when local feeling and prejudice would
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 31
be obliterated, and sectional lines rubbed out in Canada. He agreed in what Mr. McGee
had said respecting the Confederation of the Colonies ; he was in favor of Union either
before or after the construction of the Intercolonial Railroad ; but in his opinion
the road ought to be first built and union come after. He wanted to see Nova Scotia
the frontage of a great country, of which it might almost be said that the sun never
set upon it. He was glad to see Mr. McGee here for many reasons ; the subject of Union
was now being generally discussed in the Provinces, and there was not a man on the
Continent more capable to take the lead in this question than that hon. gentleman.
Hon. Mr. How closed his remarks by stating he was glad an occasion had presented itself
which afforded him an opportunity of doing Mr. McGee justice in his (Mr. Howe's) native
Province."
These remarks were made by the friend
of the hon. ex-President of the Council.
In 1862 when Mr. Howe with others were
in Canada arranging about the Railroad,
there was a great political pic-nic just out
from Saint Catharines, near to Niagara
Falls, and at that meeting Mr. Howe made
a very eloquent and able speech in closing which he said, " He looked hopefully
forward to the time when this great Province of Canada would he connected with
the Province below, and when a man
would feel that to be a British American
was to be the citizen of a country which
included all these fertile lands, all these
inexhaustible fisheries, all this immense
marine, carrying to all seas the flag of old
England, if she would let us, and if she
will not let us, the flag of British America, bearing to foreign countries the lineaments,
the enterprise, and the spirit of Britons, and the civilization of British
America of which he trusted none of us
need be much ashamed."
I have all along felt great surprise,
knowing the opinions he held, that he
should now be found working with the
anti-Confederates against that for which
he has laboured all his life.
The hon. ex-Attorney General said it
was intended to push the Quebec Scheme
through fhe Legislature without appealing to the people. This was not the case.
The matter was talked over, and Canada
said she could pass the Scheme without
an appeal, but we said the House in New
Brunswick is near its last Session, and it
would not do. I appeal to the hon, Attorney General, and to the hon. Mr.
Chandler on this point; for the matter was
freely talked over, and we said we were
only two or three out of a Council of
nine, and could not decide. The first
time we returned I had a five miles walk
with His Excellency, and this matter was
talked over, and I then said to him that
the question must be submitted to the
people. When the question was laid before the Council there was not one who
was in favor of bringing the matter before
the House. We did intend to meet the Legislature, but did not intend to submit the
Scheme to them for action.
But when we found that Canada was
pressing the matter on, we decided to submit the question at once to the people, the
House was dissolved ; new writs were
issued, and the government fell. I feel as
much as the hon. ex-Attorney General
the responsibility which rests upon the Government in their present position, but
I
have never wavered on the subject. I know
that the consummation of the Union is an
object desired by the people. The hon.
member has no responsibility resting on
him, and when he says the delegates will
have no instructions, I say they will not
go home without instructions. My idea
is that our delegates should go home
and meet with delegates from the other
Provinces who in conjunction with the Imperial Government shall decide upon such
terms of Union as will best conserve the
interests of these Provinces. I do not for
many reasons think it would be right to
bind the delegates down to certain prescribed provisions, but l can assure the
hon. member that his suggestions as well
as those of all others will be most carefully
considered. The hon. ex-President of the
Council has said that he does not believe
that one-tenth of this House are in favor
of the Quebec Scheme. Now let us see.
There is Victoria, one member pledged
to Union and returned at the former contest, and two returned this time ; Carleton,
both members I think favorable to
the Scheme, and both returned at each
election. In York there are our friends
the Attorney General and Dr. Dow, candidates at the former election, who then
lost their seats, but who now are returned
with two others pledged to Union with
overwhelming majorities ; in Sunbury
we have two members again returned who
were elected when the Quebec Scheme
was submitted ; in Queen's we have one
member at least favorable to Union, and
one always in favor of the Scheme. In
Charlotte we have two able advocates of
the Scheme, supported by two others
strongly in favor of Union. In Saint
John, well, I suppose there is not much
doubt of us, we were in favour of the
Scheme.
Mr. SMITH.—Didn't you promise your
constituents to make modifications in
that Scheme?
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—Yes, Mr. Speaker, and we should have been recreant to
our duty and unfit for the trust reposed
in us had we not, when we found that
certain sections of that Scheme were obnoxious, promised to see that the very
best terms possible should be obtained.
Well, then, there were Mr Wilmot and
Mr. Wetmore, who were returned at first
by the Anti-Confederates and how for
Union, Messrs. Skinner and Quinton were
at first rejected, but now have been elected. In King's, we have now one formerly
rejected with at least one who worked
with us, and all for Union. In Albert
both the members were returned at each
election. We have very little opposed to
Union yet, and even Westmorland does
not altogether oppose Union, for they
have returned the hon. ex-Attorney General, who was willing to go for Union, and
even to take the Quebec Scheme " with
certain checks." In Northumberland we
have four men, unmistakably in favor of
the Scheme; Kent is Anti, Restigouche is
Union, and Gloucester Anti again. But
in Kent Mr. Caie was not opposed to
Union last session, and in fact it will be
hard to find an anti-Unionist on the floors
of the House to-day. But where are
Boyd, Thompson, Otty, Needham, who
said if they had Confederation it would be
over his dead carcass? The majority of
the House are for Union, some perhaps
committed to obtain new and more advantageous terms of Union, and the rest
though not committed are all favorable.
Now let us look at some of the advantages of the Quebec Scheme. It is impossible to
satisfy some of the opponents
of Union. Previous to the former election the cry was, you are going to force
the question through the House and not
appeal to the people ; then when we did
appeal to the people they said it was very
wrong to dissolve the House at such an
inclement season of the year ; how very
delicate the people got all at once. The
hon. ex-Attorney General is very difficult
to please ; he raised many objections and
made many statements, but he did not
tell this intelligent House what he told
his constituents over in Westmorland,
that in Confederation we should only get
$360,000, whilst we should pay into the
general revenues about a million of dollars. Oh no, he did not tell us that,
neither did he tell us a good many other
things he said then.
It is scarcely necessary to go into the.
matter and position of trade and commerce, although it has been said that we
could have free trade out of the Union as
well as in it. Now in 1853 this was
tried. We drew up a memorandum of
Council, asking the then Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Manners Sutton, to send a
despatch to the Colonial Office to obtain
for us free trade between the Colonies,
and the British Government returned
answer that the variation of the tariffs in
the different Provinces prevented this being done. Some persons may labor
under wrong impressions with regard to
the financial arrangements. Some are
opposed to the Quebec Scheme who have
never read it. It reminds me of a circumstance which occurred in a school
down the river in my native place.
The boys have got hold of the question
and are either Confeds. or Antis, and one
32 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
little fellow of some nine years was heard
to say, in conversation with some other boys, "I'm in favor of Union, but opposed
to the Quebec Scheme. So some of the people heard the story about the $300,000 and
believed it, but when their eyes were opened they saw the fallacy of the whole thing.
The able speeches delivered in the Upper Branch by such men as the Hon. Mr. Chandler
and others, whose arguments are indisputable, were printed and scattered over the
country by the thousand, and the result has been the people's minds have been enlightened.
Now let us see. Our revenue in 1864
| amounted to - - - |
$971,998 85 |
| in 1865 it was - - |
758,661 95 |
| this gives us - - - |
1, 730,600 00 |
| Divide this by 2, and we have an average of - - |
865,330 00 |
| Add to this the earnings of the Railroad - - |
40,000 00 |
| and we have - - - |
$905,330 00 |
as the amount we received in the years 1864 and 1865 out of Union. Now let us see
what our position would have been in Union in these years. Two or three years ago
when the hon. ex-Attorney General went out of the Government on the Intercolonial
Railway question, he said that, for the road we then had, our engagements in England
were then taking
ÂŁ200 a day out of the country to pay interest. He also said that that road cost
ÂŁ5 for every passenger that passed
over it, and further that it would never
pay running expenses. But to-day he
regards that road as good property, and
about to pay a debt of six per cent. We
go into the Union with a debt of $7,000,000, not that our debt amounts to
that, but $1,300,000 of that amount is
allowed us to secure Western Extension and branches, which the hon. member voted against
at the time in this
House, but now expresses a deep sympathy for it, and fears it will not be built, and
how anxious, earnest and solicitous he is that Government should build it. Our debt
is not in proportion to the debt in which Canada comes in, for while she comes in
with a debt of sixty-two and a half millions, with ten times our population, we come
in with only $7,000,000. The debt of Canada is, indeed, more than this, but the balance
is assumed by the respective Legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada, and this concession
is made to us above the difference which really exists between our debt and the sum
on which we go in. The interest on our debt this year is $354,000, but in the Union
they take this off our shoulders, and pay $420,000 on the debt of $7,000,000. For
the Intercolonial Railroad, assuming the three and a half-twelfths of the cost as
was proposed, out of the Union, we should have to pay $175,000
a year, but in the Union, instead of this,
the General Government will assume the whole cost of the line. We also have assured
for us the salaries of the Judges, Governor, &c., $23,000. The hon member stated that
it was probable our Local Legislature would be left without any powers, and dwindle
down so low that its action would be a mere farce. Now, whatever may be the opinion
of the hon. member with regard to this Legislature, or of Mr. Brown in reference to
the Local Government of Upper Canada, I believe that our Constitution will remain
just as it is. It is a fact that out of the whole number of Bills passed by this Legislature
in 1864, all but seven would have come before us in Confederation, and all but three
during the last Session. No, the work to be performed will not dwindle down to insignificance.
Another objection raised was in reference to the Judges of the County Courts. Now
in Lower Canada the arrangement is different from that in Upper Canada. In Lower Canada
they have no County Courts, but in Upper Canada much of the business in done in these
Courts, and it is therefore right they should be provided for, and they only receive
the same as the other Provinces. The next item we get taken off our hands is the Protection
and Collection of the Revenues, some $41,000 or $42,000 ; then there is the Post Office
deficiency, $22,500. But it is objected that this will amount to nothing, inasmuch
as there will be a tax on newspapers, that with us now go free. The amount will be
insignificant compared with our deficiency, but let that go, strike it out altogether
if you like, it will make little difference with regard to the result. Then for Militia
purposes, $1,000,000 have to be provided. Our portion of that will be $75,000 ; then
Steamboat Communication, Improvement of Rivers, Geological Surveys and Harbors, say
$12,000. The ex-Attorney General seems to imagine that the harbors are not provided
for, but there is a special arrangement for our benefit. He says there will be an
enormous expenditure for improvement of Canadian rivers and lakes. Now the Saint Lawrence
can hardly be improved much, for ships can now pass as far as Montreal, and for the
lakes, I should like to know what improvements they can put upon them. No, this arrangement
was entered into with a special regard to the interests of New Brunswick. I put down
for Steam Communication and other items $12,000, although it would doubtless be much
more. Then there is the Subsidy at 80 cents a head, $201,000. Exception has been taken
to this, that the proportion will be less in ten years. True, but where do we get
it ? Does it not come out of the chest into
which the people of British North America contribute ? And then the increase
of expenditure is not, as has been put
forward, in the same raito as the increase
of population. In this arrangement all
the other Provinces get the same as we.
Then there is our Casual and Territorial
Revenue $78,000. and beside all this, the
bonus for ten years of $63,000. The
hon. ex-President said nothing about that.
But he did take exception to buying up
the Crown Lands, Mines and Minerals of
Newfoundland, and I beg to say that it is
clear in this matter he is not read up.
In the Exhibition in 1862 in London, I
saw specimens of minerals, chiefly copper, which came from Newfoundland,
which fairly astonished nie, for at that
time I had no idea of the richness of
that Province in this respect. Now,
add the whole of these amounts together, and we have $1,130,000 assured for
us by the General Government, against
$905,000, including the earnings of our
Railways out of Union, which is $225,000 to our advantage, or $162,000 better, leaving
out the subsidy. Why, sir,
it would take us twenty years to arrive
at such a position as we commence the
Union with. " Oh ! but we shall have
to give up our Railway, and get nothing
for it." " Our debt is in our Railway,
but the Canadian debt is for rebel losses."
But, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to
prove that while our public works do
not pay three quarters per cent., the
works and assets of Canada pay one and
a quarter per cent. on the debt with
which they come in. There is another
point that needs to be touched on, and
that is the amount of revenue which
would have been collected if the Canadian tariff had been applied to our receipts
for 1864 and 1865. Collector
Smith says if we had been in Union, and
our revenues had been collected on their
tariff, we should have paid $480,000 more
than we did. Should we ? Nothing of
the kind. I am not going to deny the
statements of Mr. Smith. I will assume
them to be correct, but I deny that the
arguments based upon them are worthy
of any consideration. He says we collected in those years on Spirits $54,000, and
it is said if the Canadian tariff
had been applied we should have paid
$200,000. But it must he remembered
that in Canada in 1863 they adopted a
protective policy. Finding the grain
going out of the country at a low price
and the spirits manufactured from returning and paying a duty, they said :
We will keep the grain, make our own
whiskey, &c., and so they put on an excise duty of thirty cents per gallon, and
on imported spirits a duty of one dollar
per gallon and 15 per cent. ad valorem.
This stopped the importation, and only
280 gallons of spirits were brought in.
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 33
And so it is said that we should have paid
$140,000 more on the. article of Spirits
alone, but the truth is we should only
have paid the thirty cents a gallon, instead of the thirty-five centa as we did.
In Newfoundland they pay a higher rate
than we do, with a lower tariff, but in
Canada they paid a lower rate with a
higher tariff. In 1864, in Union, we
should not have paid as much, for they
only paid $2.60 to our $3.10. The tariff
there is higher, but the rate lower, and
why ? Because manufactures have increased, and importations decreased.
" No," it is objected, " it is because they
are a poorer country." But the fact is
they consume much more in proportion
to the population than we do. Of all the
articles upon which they have a specific
tariff there are only two that we use in
larger quantities than they. The consumption of tea and molasses is much
greater here than in Canada ? Why ?
We know that during the late war in the
United States the Government put a high
rate upon tea, and the consequence was
that much of the tea that paid duty here
was consumed out of the country. Then
in Canada they have Sugar Refineries, and
they use the golden syrup instead of molasses, because they can get it at a dollar
a gallon, the same price they have to give
for molasses ln Upper Canada, on account of the expense of moving. The
several rates for the Provinces in 1864
was as follows :
| In Canada they paid |
$2.56 per head |
| " Nova Scotia they paid |
2.69 " |
| " New Brunswîck they paid |
3.10 " |
| " Newfoundland they paid |
3.65 " |
| " Prince Edward Island
they paid |
1.98 " |
The whole amount of the revenues
raised in these Provinces in that year
was $9,580,000. Apply to this the tariff
of $3.10, and we get $1,670,000 more
than was raised by all British North America out of the Union.
With regard to the North-West Territory and its admission into the Union,
that will be a matter for discussion for
the General Government. The surplus
revenue will not be taken to purchase that
territory, but go to meet the cost of the
Intercolonial Railroad and the improvements in Canada for purposes of the General
Government. In Prince Edward Island it is said they are opposed to the Railroad, because
they will not be directly benefitted by it. But such an argument cannot be used in
this Province. The Railroads now profided for under the Subsidy Act are :
| Western Extension, |
88 miles. |
| St. Stephen Branch, |
18 " |
| Woodstock " |
12 " |
| Fredericton " |
21 " |
| Eastward Extension, |
30 " |
| Albert Branch, |
20 " |
| Total say, |
190 ' |
For the same rate which we paid per
head in 1864 we can have the Intercolonial Road and all these Branches without the
expenditure of a penny more than we did.
On motion of
Mr. SUTTON the debate and House here adjourned till tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.
J. M.
Fisher,
Charles
Wellington
