PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES. 221
WEDNESDAY, Apri1 12.
The house met at 3 o'clock.
Mr. TOBIN would like to know whether the
committee had considered a subject which had
been brought to their notice by petitions from
Margaret's Bay, relative to the practice
of
setting seines; and whether they had suggested any remedy for the grievance complained
of.
Mr. LEVESCONTE said the committee had
carefully considered the subject, but could not
arrive at any definite conclusion.
They found
it impossible to divise a law applicable to the
whole Province.
Mr. SHANNON enquired if any action, had
been taken as regards the trawl
fishery.
Mr. LEVESCONTE said that there was not
sufficient information before the committee to
warrant them to interfere.Â
Mr. TOBIN alluded to the want of attention-
this important branch of industry received
from the house. He saw a number of gentlemen around the benches who should take an
interest in the subject; and yet here was a report brought in by a committee
after two
months deliberation, and scarcely a remark
was elicited from them. The hon. gentleman
alluded to the abolition of the
office of Fish
Inspector, which he thought had rather depreciated the character of our fish in foreign
markets. He thought that something might be
done to improve the breed of fish. In France
they imported spawn for this purpose, and he
did not see why caplin could not be made to
breed upon our shores, so as to improve the
character of fish used for bait.
Mr. S. CAMPBELL thought that the hon.
member for Halifax instead of lecturing
the
committee ought to have addressed his remarks to another quarter. He should like to
know why the government ignored their
duties
in connection with the preservation of
the fisheries any more than in relation to agriculture
or any other branch of industry.
He thought
that there was a particular reason why the
remarks of Mr. Tobin upon the improvement
of bait should have been made to the government, for if there was a body
of gentlemen
who understood the use of
bait, it was the
Executive of Nova Scotia. (Laughter.) And
as they had taken charge of all the schools
of
the province, perhaps it would be just as well
if they also assumed the
protection of
schools
of fish. This subject of the trawl
fishery
should engage the earnest attention
of the
government, as if something was
not done
very soon, the
valuable cod fishery of our
coast would be completely destroyed.
Hon.
PRO. SEC. said that no doubt this subject was a most important one, and deserving
the serious attention of the house and the government, but he thought that if hon.
gentlemen
who represented fishing interests instead of
making it a subject of attack
upon the government of the day would devote a little attention
to the subject themselves, it would look
more
like a desire to benefit that branch of provincial industry. He had sat there
eight years, and
although the member
for Guysborough represented a constituency largely engaged in
the
fishing business, he never heard him open
his
mouth to give advice upon the subject.
He thought that if the constituencies of those
fishing counties, instead of
selecting gentlemen
of the legal profession as their representatives,
222
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
would send those who took a more real
interest in their welfare, it would be better for
them, and he could assure them, that they
would find no indisposition on the part of the
government to meet their views.
Mr. S. CAMPBELL had no doubt that the
Prov. Sec. was not pleased with his style of
opposition—he would probably prefer having
more loose fish about the house.
Mr. ARCHIBALD would suggest to the Chairman of the Fishery Committee that instead of
taking $150,000 to cut a hole at
this end of the
Bras d'Or Lake, he should take the money,
and stop up the other end and thus make it a
valuable reservoir for the preservation of fish.
Mr. TOBIN said perhaps the trouble with
the member for Guysborough was that he was
not sufficiently supplied with bait, and he had
been fishing with bare hooks.
Mr. LOCKE
said the subject had been so
often discussed that it was not worth while to
take up any more time. At the same time, it
was not right to treat it in a
scaly way. He
always felt that, while the subject of agriculture received a great deal of attention
from
the house, the fisheries, which were of as much
importance, scarcely received any attention at
all. As regards the trawl fisheries, the evil
complained of existed more in reference to the
deep sea than the shore fisheries, and it had
been established that we had no control
over
them.
Mr. PRYOR
thought that if the government
would give a grant for the improvement of the
fisheries, no money could be better expended.
Hon. ATTY.
GEN. asked whether the question of payment of supervisors of river fisheries had been
considered by the committee.
Hon. PROV. SEC. said that a bill had been
passed to carry out that idea,
and supervisors
had been appointed, but he believed their duties commenced and ended with
drawing their
salaries.
Mr. PRYOR said the sessions of Halifax
county had taken the matter up very warmly,
and had voted ÂŁ50 to pay the
river wardens.
After
some further remarks, the report was
received and adopted.
The adjourned debate on the Union of the
Colonies was then resumed.
UNION OF THE COLONIES.
Speech
of Mr. Archibald.
Mr. ARCHIBALD,
in rising to second the resolutions upon the table of the
house, said:—
I feel that after the great length at which
the hon. Pro. Sec'y has adverted to the scheme
of Union propounded at the Quebec Conference, it will be out of place for
me to go very
largely into detail, and I shall therefore content
myself with calling the
attention of the house to
some matters to which he did not refer at great
length. That hon. gentleman, in
order to convince the house that he and
those who acted
with him in the advocacy of this question of
the Union of the Colonies, had ample authority
for the course they pursued, had
referred to
the public meetings held from
time to time, in
this city, and to the recorded
opinions of the
public men of this country delivered
at different times in favor of the project. He might
have gone farther and stated
that, at no meeting of a public kind—at no public
gathering—
and upon no occasion, when a public man ad
dressed an audience in favor of Union,
had
there ever been found a dissenting voice against
it. If then this could be taken as any evidence
of the state of the public mind, I think that the
advocates of this measure had a right to assume that the feeling of the country was
largely in favor of Union.
But while the hon. Provincial Secretary
has
alluded to the public opinion of this country,
I will remind the house that
there is another
public opinion on this subject, which cannot
be ignored. A public opinion which must, and
has a right to exercise a powerful effect
upon
the decision of the question—I
allude to the
public opinion of the statemen and people
of
England. This opinion, too, hus undergone
a
great change. It must not be forgotten that
till the occurrence of recent events the circumstances of the past have not been such
as to induce British statesmen to look with much
favor upon any large or general Union of her
colonies. The last union that took place, and
to which the attention of British statesmen
has naturally turned had the effect of wresting
from her power thirteen of her most valuable
colonies, which formed the brightest gem in
the diadem of the British crown.
We can easily understand then how they
would be inclined at first to regard with doubt
and disfavor any projected combination of all
the British North American Colonies. It
was
not to be wondered at then, that when this subject has from time to time been brought
to the
notice of the Imperial authorities by colonial
statesmen it received little encouragement. So
late indeed as 1857 when delegates for this province pressed the subject upon the
attention of
Mr. Labouchere, the then colonial minister, it
was quite clear that the
smaller union of the
Maritime Colonies would have been preferred
by the Imperial authorities to a union
of the
whole. And it is very probable
that had the position of affairs on this continent remained
the
same as then, the feeling of
antagonism on the
part of the mother country to a general union
of the British North American
Colonies, would
have been continued to the present time. But
let me contrast for a moment the changed
aspect of affairs, and it will
be readily seen
why it is that such a revulsion
of feeling has
taken place in the public mind—across
the water—upon this question. Four year
ago, when
British statesmen looked to America, they saw
thirty millions of people engaged in the arts of
peace—the cultivation of the soil, the construction of railroads and
canals—the building of
cities—the creation of
manufactories, and development of every branch of art and
industry. In fact the reign of materialism appeared to be firmly established, and
the rule of theÂ
" almighty dollar" supreme. British statesmen then, in view of these circumstances,
had
a right to assume that in the absence of
any
great and unexpected
convulsion among these
people, they had no reason to
anticipate difficulties or complications with them. But now
how changed was the scene—that
great nation
once devoted to the arts of peace,
had suddenly been turned from a nation of farmers, artisans, and merchants into a
nation
of soldiers.
That nation now had in the field the largestÂ
armies the world ever saw, and had increased
their naval strength more rapidly than any
other nation in the world. And instead of the
spirit of peace—the war spirit pervaded the
whole country.
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES. 223
In view of this changed aspect of affairs,
then, was it much to be wondered at that
British statesmen should regard
these colonies
with very different feelings from those which
animated them at the period I referred to.
There is another reason, too, why Great Britain
should regard the British North American
Colonies in a different light than when she
lost the thirteen colonies in 1783. At that time
they formed almost the whole of her colonial
possessions. It was not until 5 years after the
peace of 1783 that the first colonist set
his foot
in Australia. Now we find in that country no
less than six distinct governments, with the
dimensions of European kingdoms, and with
the revenues of principalities. New Zealand,
was then untrodden by the foot of the white
man. It is now a confederacy of colonies.
The British possessions in South Africa have
swollen from a port and a town to an enormous colony. The 150 millions of British
India
(formerly governed by native princes, or a
commercial company,) are now under the direct
rule of the Queen of England. At
that time
Canada West was a wilderness, a
few trappers and fur traders being her
sole white population. Now we find scattered over the
globe, over thirty colonies of the British
Empire, all, more or less,
involving the
Parent Country in responsibilities ; all
draining, more or less, the national Exchequer. Is it to be wondered at then, that
in view of the altered
circumstances of the
times, Englishmen should begin to think that
the time had arrived when it was
the duty of
the colonies to assume some responsibility and
to relieve the mother country of, at all events,
some portion of the burden of their defence.
This feeling would be found to
pervade every
debate that had taken place on the subject
in
the British parliament. As long ago as 1858,
when Mr. Gladstone was examined
before a
committee of the House of
Commons, on the
subject of the colonial defences, he declared
that the time had come when the colonies,
with the privileges of freemen which
were
accorded to them, must be prepared to
bear a
large share of the burdens and responsibilities
of freemen. That declaration had
been repeated over and over again in his
public speeches
in and out of parliament, and
not only by Mr.
Gladstone, but by public men of all
shades of
politics, and by the press without
distinction.
Not only
had this opinion been expressed, but
it had to a large extent been acted upon, and
at this moment the entire military expenditure
af lndia has been thrown upon
her own resources, while the same policy was about
being applied to New Zealand. Not only is this
the case, but for several years despatch after
despatch has been sent from the colonial office
to Canada, informing her that the time had
arrived for the colonies to wake up
to the
necessity of relieving the
mother country
from at least a part of the
burden of their
defence. That while exercising the rights and
privileges of freeman, they must also assume
the responsibilities and duties which that
position involved. I
think, therefore, that
no one can question the fact
that the time
has arrived when a
change is about to take
place in the attitude of England
towards her
colonies; and that, whatever we
may think of
the matter, her statesmen had
arrived at the
conclusion, that it was necessary
we should
share,
to some extent, the military
expenditure which our connexion with her
entails.
I shall
refer, for a moment, to the observations made in a recent debate
in the British
parliament by a statesman of
the highest
character, and who occupies a position entirely independent of the government of the
day.
Lord Derby, in alluding to the present position
occupied by the colonies, said:
I will ask hon. members to recall to themselves the
state of North America when we met in this house
four years ago. That portion of the world was then
divided among what we may call three great Powers —first, the United States of America;
secondly, Canada, and the settlements and dependencies belonging to our own Sovereign
; and,
thirdly, Mexico, a
country which certainly did not possess much political power, but which in extent,
resources, fertility of
soil, and mineral wealth was almost unequaled in the
world. In every one of these three divisions there
have been immense changes. In the United States a
civil war has raged for four years, and even if that
war should termina e, as the hon. member for Bradford suggests, I cannot believe
that we shall see the
same society and form of Government established, or
even, if the form be the same, certainly the spirit will
be altered, as existed before the civil war
commenced.
(Hear.)
It is
quite clear. then, it is impossible to know what
relations may exist between
the United States, this
country, and Her Majesty's dependencies on the
other
side of the Atlantic. Taking these large views, then,
we ought to consider that—not to morrow or next
year, but that we are on the eve of event of very great
importance.
In the opinion that we are on the eve of
great changes on this continent Lord Derby
agrees with the
general sentiment of England.
The very fact of large armies existing upon
our borders, which to all appearances will
soon be thrown idle upon the
hands of the
nation, is in itself
sufficient grounds to warrant apprehension for the future.
For however
peaceably, disposed the majority of the right
thinking portion of the American people might
be, everybody knew how difficult
it was, in a
country where the democratic
element ruled,
to control the impulses of the
masses. While,
therefore, I trust that the
day is far distant
when the present friendly relations between
the two countries is disturbed,
it is impossible
to ignore the fact that there are strong reasons
for fearing that if the present
contest should
be suddenly terminated, there would
be danger of an interruption of the peaceful relations
which now happily subsist.
There are some indications at the present
moment of the state of feeling which existed
in the United States towards Great Britain
which are pretty significant in their
character;
and I shall read to the house an article from
the New York World in which they are summarized. The writer, after
commenting upon
the anxious desire of Canada to preserve
neutrality, says:
But this just and amicable disposition is met, on our
side, by an intemperate and undignitied exhibition of
touchiness and spleen. The acts by which this waspish irascibility is manifested form
a long catalogue:—
1. The annoying
and expensive passport system,
ordered by Mr. Seward, which has
nearly destroyed
the business of the Canadian railways.
2.
The notice given by our
Government for the termination of the convention mutually limiting theÂ
naval force on the great lakes.
3. The
passage by Congress of a joint resolution for
abrogating the Reciprocity Treaty.
4. The reporting to the House of Representatives, by
the committee of Ways and Means (Jan. 18), of a bill
for putting the frontier
defences in the most eflicient
condition. Among other appropriations this bill
makes the following:—For Fort Wayne, at Detroit.
$125,000; Fort Ontario, at Oswego, $100,000; for Fort
212
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
Montgomery, at the outlet on Lake
Champlain, $100,000 ; for the forts at Portland and other places in
Maine, $700,000.
5. The resolution offered by the chairman
of foreign
relations of the Senate, looking to the abrogation of
the stipulation in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty for
the mutual surrender of fugitives from justice.
6. The bill introduced in the House of
Representatives by Mr. Littlejohn (January 19), for the construction of a ship canal
around the
Niagara Falls " of sufficient dimensions for the passage of gunboats and
vessels of war."
The house will perceive that every one of
these acts has taken place since the commencement of the year. It is impossible, then,
for
anybody to avoid seeing that, however unjust
and unfounded it may be, a feeling of hostility
and irritation has grown up in the minds of
the American people, and a desire exists,
whenever the fitting opportunity comes, to
revenge what they considered the humiliation
of the Trent affair, to retaliate for the offences
of the St. Alban raiders, and the depredations
committed upon northern commerce by ships
fitted out in English ports.
This
it was that induced British statesmen
to look with an anxious eye upon events that
were transpiring around us, and which called
forth this language from Lord
Derby :
"Of these two measures (referring to the
repeal of the lake armaments and the reciprocity treaties) it is impossible not to
say that
they are adopted in a spirit of hostility to this
country. [Hear, hear.] One of them throws open
questions of the most delicate and difficult character.
The American people have derived, as they do not
deny, great commercial advantages from the reciprocity treaty, and its termination
is advocated only on
the avowed ground that Canada derives still greater
advantages. One effect of the termination of that
treaty would be, if I am not mistaken, that the whole
of the complicated question of the fisheries, from the
settlement of which the United States have derived
incalculable advantage, would at once be thrown
open. [Hear, hear.] I am old enough to remember
what serious complications and difficult questions
connected with the fisheries occasioned, and how
near to the point of war, they led this country and the
United States ; and now all these questions are gratuiously, and apparently without
the slightest reason,
thrown open at the risk and danger of war—than
which, nothing could be more deplorable—between
this country and the United States. [Hear, hear.]
It is not a little signigcant. too, that at the same time,
when the abrogation of this commercial treaty lays
open all these points of danger and difficulty, there
is another step taken to abrogate another treaty. For
a long period the lakes have served as the means of
peaceful and profitable coirmerce between the two
countries lying alongside each other ; but I can recollect a period in the late American
war when there
was a race of ship-building on the two sides
of the
lakes, end when the party
obtaining the supremacy
in that
matter gained the control of the lakes. [Hear,
hear."]
When Lord Derby used these expressions
in reference to two of these measures
he did
not allude to the resolution which is the fifth
in the catalogue read, and which, in my opinion, exhibits a more determined feeling
of
hostilily than any of the
others. I allude to
the notice to abolish the
extradition treaty.
Could anything be more significant
of the extent to which these feelings had
grown than
the fact that a statesman like Sumner should,
in his place in Congress, coolly contend that
this treaty, the principle of which
is regarded
by all countries with any pretensions to civilization as a necesssary safeguard
for the punishment of crime, and which is
founded upon the
principles of common justice and humanity,
should be terminated. This declares, in effect,
that a man who committed murder in Canada
and fled to the United States, or who committed any similar crime there and fled
here, should enjoy immunity from punishment of his crime. Surely no stronger
evidence than this was needed to show how
far the feeling he had alluded to had gone in
the United States.
If then the fears to which I have alluded
should unhappily be realized, in what position
I would ask would we be in? On
this point I
shall call the attention of the house to the
opinion of Mr. Cardwell, than whom no man
is in a better position to judge, than whom no
man has greater responsibilities, or would be
more likely to weigh well the meaning of his
words before he uttered them.
He uses the following language :
"I cannot express the feelings of regret
with
which I should view any controversy between the
United States and the subjects of the Queen. I
should look upon it as a calamity unequalled by
anything the world has ever seen."
This then is the opinion of a responsible
minister of the crown, as to what is likely to be the
nature of that war if we should
be led into it.
Truly then if
those whose posit on and
opportunities entitle them to be the best judges
of the character of the war when it comes, entertain these views, it behoves us to
make some
preparation for so frightful a contingency whence
it shall arise.
What provision, I would ask, do
Englishmen
consider ought to be be made?Â
Hear the opinion of Mr. Foster who
introduced
the subject to the notice of the Parliament. He
says :—
" The principle was becoming every day
more
established that the relations between this country
and the colonies of British North America
were
very much on the basis of an offensive and
defensive alliance between two self-governing communities united together by allegiance
to one
legitimate Sovereign."
What attitude then ought we to assume in
reference to the new duties devolving on us.
Is it not natural for British statesmen
to look
upon the Union of the Colonies, as a means
of
defence? Do they not feel, have they not a right
to feel, that the effect of
Union would be largely
to improve the possibility of defence?
It is a favorite argument against it to say that
by Union, we will obtain no more money,
no more
men, and how is it possible then
for Union to improve our position ? It is
true we have no more
means, no more men, but what
we have is concentrated, there would be one heart, one soul, one
purpose, one controlling power, extending over
the whole Confederation, from Sarnia to Sydney.Â
Suppose this argument had been used at
the
time of the American rebellion,
that instead of
concentrating their forces, and their means, eachÂ
State had acted upon its own
responsibility, does
not everybody know, that instead of being able
to maintain a war for seven years, against theÂ
greatest Naval and Military power in the world
and then to establish their independence, the
result would have been very different.
I hold in my hand the observations of a distin
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES. 225
guished writer in the United States,
which are
exceedingly apposite to the
subject under discussion, and which, with the permission of the House,
I will read.
The writer is speaking of the necessity
of a
concentrated power, where offence or defence is
concerned and says :
" A Government authorized to declare war,
but
relying on independent States for the means of
prosecuting it—capable of
contracting debt and
of pledging the public faith for the payment, but
depending on thirteen distinct Sovereignties for
the preservation of that faith, could only be rescued from ignominy and contempt by
finding those
Sovereignties administered by men exempt frem
the passions incident to human nature."
I think that these observations made by the writer in the serenity of the
closet, not under the influence of the excitement of a partizan, are entitled to
great consideration and weight.
There is another point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, and
from which some valuable hints may be had from the same source. Many
persons have been frightened into ihe idea that a union would be injurious
to the best interests of the Province. They will perceive that
the same style of argument was used against the adoption of clauses in
the Constitution of the United States.
I read from
the same author :
" This feature of the Constitution gave
rise to
most animated discussion, in which reason was
employed to demonstrate the mischiefs of the system, and imagination to pourtray,
them in all the
the exaggerations which fear and prophecy could
invent. Looking back, indeed, to that period
with the calmness with which we naturally review
events and occurrences, which are now felt only as
matters of history, one is surprised at the puerility
of some of the objections, the absurdity of others,
and the overwrought coloring of almost all which
were urged on this head against
the Constitution.
That some of them had a just foundation need not
be denied or concealed, for the system was
human, and the result of compromise and conciliation in which something of the correctness
of
theory was yielded to the interests or prejudices
of particular States, and something of inequality
of benefit borne for the common good."
I would ask if that is not the same
ordeal that
we are passing through now, and precisely the
same as any country, that attempts any organic
change in its constitution must experience.
The objections to it were not more
exaggerated,
than that these which are urged against the
scheme, now before the people of this country.
If he had wished to describe what had taken
place in New Brunswick, and was now going on
in this province, it would have
been difficult to
have done so, in more graphic terms than that
used by the writer he had just quoted.
Now sir, I have said that British statesmen
look upon Union, as the best mode of
providing
for the defence of these Colonies, in time
of
danger, and from the remarks of Lord Derby, it
would be seen that he never contemplated
the
possibility of its being rejected by the Colonies,
but rather looked upon it as a thing already passed. But what says the press of England,
that
exponent of public opinion, what says the London
Times, which every Englishman reads, and which
however much it may be sneered at by some,
largely moulds the opinions, not only of the
British nation, but of the civilized world. What
do we find in its columns on the subject?
"But for war, and the forays,
raids, and other
outrages that lead to it there
is no reason why
every province should not be politically independent of its neighbor. We unite for
security, and
the greater the danger, or the more powerful the
possible aggressor, the larger the union
necessary
for self-defence. To England it is a matter of
very little importance whether she sends one
Governor or half-a-dozen to her American Colonies and the relations of those communities,
one
with another are only a matter of local convenience. But we are approaching a very different
state of things. The Government at Washington
sees, as it believes the beginning of the end, and
now announces, with more confidence than ever,
that this is the last campaign and that this very
summer will see Federal unity not only restored
but ready for Federal action. They make no
secret of their intentions to present an enormous
list of demands, which they are quite aware we,
shall not acknowledge, and which, indeed, they
do not wish us to acknowledge."
"In the event of a war with the states
it is clear
that all our Provinces must be
placed under one
military command. Do what we
will, no unity
of administration that we can establish will be
equal to that of the invader. If this disadvantage
be urged as an argument against the very attempt, it is our duty to reply
that the Provinces
farthest outlaying from the colonial centre,
and
most obnoxious to the ottack of
the foe, are just
those which would most depend upon our aid.
That gives us a special voice in
their case. If
the Maritime Provinces seriously intend to adhere
to the British Crown, it is impossible to say
what fleets, what garrisons, what
ironclads, what
ordnance we shali have to pour into Halifax and
the other ports, all at our cost. Having, then,
an additional right to speak in
this case, we
venture to say that if Nova
Scotia and New
Brunswick seriously intend to be loyal they oughtÂ
to act accordingly, and declare for Confederation."
M. Foster in his address uses this language,
" Therefore we had a right to call upon the North
American colonies by organization and union to
assist in their own defence, and
to prove their patriotism
by a willing contribution of
money
and of men."
Now I would ask are we in the face of all this
prepared to tell the people of England that we
dispise their advice and reject their
counsel. That although it is the
opinion of British statesmen and
the British press, and the British
people, that
union is our only safety, we think differently.
We will be loyal only in our own way. We willÂ
accept the protection of the British
forces and
fleets, but this must be given on our
terms, not on
theirs. Is this the course we
should adopt?
226 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
It is clear that the moment the colonies
manifest a disposition to separate from the parent state, that moment will the connection
be
severed. There will be no disposition on the part of
England to force us to remain, while on the
other hand, the greatest statesmen of the parent
country have affirmed in unmistakable terms tnat
if the Colonies wish to be loyal, the power of old
England will be used to protect them from aggression, all they ask is to put ourselves
in a position to make our defence more easy.
I have heard it stated over and over
again
that England may forsake Canada and retain
Nova Scotia. This I consider a perfect fallacy,
and I defy anybody to produce proof in corroboration of such an idea, either from
documents emanating from any English statesman,
or from any speech delivered by
any public
man in Parliament. But even
supposing it
were true, what position, I would ask,
would
Nova Scotia be placed in? It
would not be
the first time that she has been the battle
ground of two great nations. When Canada
and Cape Breton were French, and the rest of
North America English, Nova
Scotia was the
arena upon which the struggles
of these great
powers in this contest too place—struggles
which were continued till the extinction of
French power in these Colonies.
Surely, no
one would desire to see that state of things
reenacted; and yet, if the idea of
the abandonment of Canada were realized, we would
be in even a worse position than we were in
during the contest I have alluded to. But such
an idea is absurd. The moment that the bond
of connection between Canada and
the Mother
Country is severed, that moment we also cease
to be a possession of the British Crown.
Whether united with Canada by Confederation or not, we are bound together by a common
fate and a common interest, and we must
stand or fall together. There is one point
that I intend to advert to for a moment,
and that is to shew the reason why Great
Britain has a right to dictate to us the method
of our defence. No other such frontier as that
which divides Canada from the United States
exists between two great countries. In
its
length it is unlike any other,—and there is another peculiarity about it, that whilst
the frontier of most other countries is defended by
those who live behind it—in the
case of Canada alone part of the forces which
defend it has
to be brought from some three or four
thousand
miles away—while the great centres of population of the assailing force are at our
doors.—
Therefore, I think, if Great
Britain is obliged
to defend a frontier so extensive as this, she
has a right to give some advice,
and we have a
right to listen to her advice as to the
course we
ought to take, and the attitude we ought to
adopt on the question of defence.
It has
been asserted by some that the temptation to the United States to
take possession of
Canada is greater than against
Nova Scotia.—
I am rather inclined to think that
the temptation is the other way. Let us
look for a moment
at the character of the twocountries. There is
no doubt that Canada in her agricultural resources, is a great country—that her
extent and
value are enormous; but the
Western States
are largely of the same
character. The prairies
of Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan,
afford ample room for the settlement of the
surplus population of the United States
for a
long time to come, and Canada could give her
nothing in this respect that she does not already possess.
But, when we
turn to Nova Scotia, we find
she possesses a source of
inexhaustible wealth
not to be found along the whole seaboard of
the United States. We find clustered
along the
coast large centres of population,
engaged in
arts and and manufactures, for whom warmth
and light have to be provided, while the material for warming and lighting them
has to be
sought for abroad. We find this material
supplied in in exhaustible quantities by a
country just, at their doors, separated from
them only by a political line.
We find
their comfort and their commerce dependent largely upon this little colony, and if
their public men look at it as their private me look at it, (who have
already come
down and peaceably acquired a large interest in our coal fields, with a shrewd eye
to
the future,) I think that so
far as temptations
for conquest are concerned, the coal fields of
Cape Breton are as likely to be coveted, as the
fields and the plains of Canada.Â
There is another matter too, which should
exercise some influence upon the public men
of the United States—we happen to possess a
population of some 20,000 men, engaged in the
fisheries and navigation. To a
country desirous of extending her naval power what
greater inducement could be held out than the prospect of adding 20,000 sailors to
her navy?
While, therefore, the
possession of that number of men in time of peace when engaged in
the prosecution of this valuable branch of industry, is most important to any
country. Any
one who knows how Northern commerce has
been swept off the sea by a few Southern vessels can understand how we should suffer
if
the dogs of war were let loose
upon the 8000
vessels which constitute our marine, and upon
whose safety and earnings depends so much ofÂ
the benefit and prosperity of our people. When
the calamity of war does come we need not
flatter ourselves either that it will not fall
upon us, or that if it does fall on us,
that we
shall be less sufferers than our neighbors.
The
hon. Pro. Sec. had referred to another subject
which had always largely entered into the
consideration of the question—the construction
of the Intercolonial Railroad. I
appeal to
those who have always attached great
importance to the completion of that
work whether
there ever was a time when its most sanguine
advocates could have anticipated that it would
be accomplished upon terms so advantageous
to the Province, as those
now within our reach.
Surely if there should be any
weakness in the
other arguments in favor of
Union, the prospect of the immediate realization
of this great
enterprise is one which ought
to have great
weight. The advantages that
Nova Scotia
would derive from the completion of this work
have been so often dilated upon that I do
not
consider it necessary to refer to them at
the
present moment further than to say that
with Nova Scotia, the great forefront
of the continent, behind us, with Halifax, the great entrepot of the markets of
the far West—with steamers running—not
fortnightly—but daily to Europe—with the
mail communication not only of our own colonies but of the United States passing over
ourÂ
soil—with all the commercial and material
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES. 227
prosperity that such a state of things
would
produce, who can estimate the position we
would occupy in a few years time should this
Union be accomplished?
Let
us look now at the United States before
the commencement of this war, and see if the
condition of affairs there does not
present a
powerful argument for Union. A
population
of three millions in 1773 grew into thirty millions by 1860. They presented a spectacle
of
progress in wealth, in arts, in
civilization, in
commercial prosperity, which
amazed the
people of Europe. Now it may be
asked what
produced the rapid and unprecedented
advancement of this country? What produced
such effects within the compass of a single
life? It was, no doubt, owing to
various
causes. Fertility of soil, variety of climate,
the education of the masses of
the people, each
and every one of these causes had its effect.
But they had had the same soil, the same climate, and the same means of
education for
some 80 years before 1780, and yet the population had only reached three millions.
What,
then, was the main cause of all
this? It was,
that before 1780 they were divided, just as
these Colonies are now. They had
separate
governments, separate tariffs, with hostile
armies of Customs officers on their borders,—
they had separate currencies, and were divided
by sectional differences just as
much as we are
now. But the moment they were united under
one government—the moment that
the armies
of officials which hampered and restricted
trade in every State were struck
off—the moment that the system was adopted by which an
article entering the Union at
one port could
pass free to any other—from
that moment a
stimulus was given to trade and commerce and
manufactures which has had no parallel in
the
world's history. Contrast this state
of things
with the system pursued by the States
of
Europe. There fifty different States have at
least five and twenty separate tariffs,
and are
obliged to maintain armies of Customs officials
—embarrassing trade, and injuring the commerce of the country.
I am not prepared to say—it would be absurd to suppose—that by a union with
Canada we will arrive at the same commercial prosperity as the United
States have attained, but I do say that just as the union of those States
has contributed to that result, so will our union produce
corresponding advantages on a smaller scale. In connection with
the opposition that this scheme has received, I would like to call
attention to the fact that not only was the same style of argument used by
the opponents of the union of the American States, but the objections
come from the same class. At the close of the American war, when the
pressure which had kept them together had nearly ceased to operate,
the question of Union by a more indissoluble and by a closer bond, was
brought before the American people for adoption or rejection, just as has
been done in these Provinces—and it is rather singular that in that
case as in this, the strongest objections were made by the smallest
province. We find that while the more populous States acquiesced in
the propriety of Union, little Rhode Island, with a population of 60,000,
took three years before she would accept it,—just as Prince Edward Island is now
the strongest in opposition to the present scheme. While
upon this subject, let me say, in reference to the relative size
of these Provinces as compared with that of the American Provinces,
before they went into Union, that there was not one of the thirteen
States as populous as Lower Canada now is— that no two of them had a
population equal to that of Upper Canada now—that two of them had a
smaller population than Prince Edward Island, the smallest of the British
Provinces, has now.
Well, the union
ultimately took place, and
what was the result? A degree
of prosperity
which has astonished the whole civilized
world.
And well do the people of the United States
appreciate it. What is it that now stirs the
heart of that great nation to its inmost
depths?
Is it not their attachment to union?—their
consciousness that upon union depends, to a
large extent, their character, their prestige in
the world, their national position? Is it not
this which has plunged them into the most
sanguinary war which history records? Is it,
then, all a chimera they are fighting for? I do
not suppose—I am not desirous of conveying
the absurd idea, that all that union has done
for them it will do for us; but what I do contend is, that it will largely improve
our trade,
our industry, our manufactures; that on a
small scale, to be sure, but, to a large extent,
it will develope
every resource we have, and
improve our
prosperity.
But it may be contended that the union I
am arguing for is not the one which is contemplated by the resolution before the house.
That is true; and yet it
is not the less true that
every argument in favor of the larger
union
is an argument in favor of the lesser. The
advantages may not be so great,
but they are
in the same line; and there is nobody who
argues for the larger union that does not feel
that if that is impracticable, the lesser.union is
a step in the right direction.
They might shrink from undertaking both at the same time—many might suppose
that it would be too great a shock to our social frame work, if at the
same moment we were to construct the Union of the Lower Provinces
by an amalgamation of our Legislature, and erect a central machinery at
the headquarters of the Federation. There is, therefore, much to be
said in favor of the smaller Union, when the action of New Brunswick has
rendered the discussion of the other question not a practical
discussion. In the Lower Provinces at all events there are no distinctions
of race, of creed, of commercial or territorial interest to separate
us—united, we should have a broader field a larger revenue, a less
proportionate burden in the maintenance of civil government.
If the time should come when we enter into Confederation, the Maritime
Colonies, united, will form a more solid phalanx in the United
Legislature—would be governed by a more united sentiment—would wield
powerful influence. Therefore, whether this Union should
end with the Lower Colonies or should expand to Confederation, it will be
alike useful to us—and I have great pleasure, therefore, in
seconding the resolution introduced by the Provincial Secretary.
Reply of Mr. Annand.
Mr. ANNAND then rose and addressed the
house as follows:
Mr. Speaker—It is now about a year since
a resolution was laid on the table of this house
requesting his Excellency to appoint delegates
228 Parliamentary Debates.
to consider with others from New
Brunswick
and Prince Edward Island the subject of a
Union of the Maritime Provinces. That delegation was appointed, and a conference took
place at Charlottetown, and somehow or other
the gentlemen who went thither were spirited
away to Canada. Now, I hold that these gentlemen had no authority from this house
to
proceed to Canada to deliberate upon any
other scheme than that contained in the resolution laid upon the table last session
by the
Provincial Secretary. We may be
told they
were invited by the Governor-General, and
that permission was accorded them by the
home authorities. But what did they do in
P. E. Island? Any one taking up the papers
laid upon the table of the house, will see that
the question of the Union of the Maritime
Provinces was scarcely taken into consideration at all. And I have it upon the best
authority—from one of the delegates themselves—from a speech delivered at
Toronto by
Mr. McCully—that the question of Union was
not even approached in a spirit to assure success. That gentleman said:
"I suppose you will hardly believe me
when I tell
you that the representatives of
the maritime provinces,
who had been convened for the purpose of securing a
particular constitution for
themselves, having heard
your delegates, actually adjourned with their work
unfinished, if I perhaps may coin a word, unbegun.—
(Cheers.)"
That is the way in which these gentlemen
discharged their duty to this house and the
country.
PLEDGE TO SUBMIT THE SCHEME.
Let me turn your attention, for a few moments, to another view of this question.
Those
gentlemen have come here with a resolution,
re-affirming the desirability of a Union of the
Maritime Provinces. They held a Conference
at Quebec—entered into certain arrangements
there—adopted the larger scheme. I admit at
once they were at liberty to confer on the subject, but I deny their right on behalf
of the
people to adopt any scheme compromising this
country. What had we at the commencement
of the session? We are all familiar with the
agitation that took place immediately after
these gentlemen returned from Canada—with
the public meetings that came off in Halifax
and in several of the rural districts. We all
know the language that was put in the mouth
of His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor,
when he opened the present session. Was not
one-third of his speech devoted to the particular topic of Union? The gentlemen who
now
surround him put into his mouth a pledge that
the matter would be brought to the notice of
the house at the present session. Why is it
not here? Did not these gentlemen promise
to bring this question of a
Confederation of the
whole of the Provinces before us. It is unnecessary that I should read from the speech
of
the Lieutenant Governor, because we are all
familiar with it. But let me give an extract
from a speech of the Attorney General of
Upper Canada (Hon. J. A. M'Donald,) who
made use of these words in introducing this
subject of Confederation to the notice of the
people of Canada.
" Every one of these governments (the governments
represented at this conference) was pledged to submit
the scheme of Confederation, as prepared by the Conference, to the Legislatures of their respective Provinces."
Could there be language more explicit
than
that? Why, then, is not that scheme here?
Hon. E. Tache, President of the Legislative
Council and Premier of Canada, also said after
the result of the elections in New Brunswick
was known:
" Notwithstanding the expression of
opinion given
at the hustings in one of the provinces concerned, the
government of Canada had determined to go on with
the project by all the means they had in their power,
(hear, hear), and although it might be painful to them
to see their fellow delegates
and friends of the measure defeated ; it did not follow that the new men entering
Parliament in New Brunswick or in any of the
other Colonies would be adverse
to the scheme, which
the Executives of those Provinces were bound to submit to their respective Legislatures.
Here again we have it from the lips of
the
venerable Premier of Canada that
these gentlemen were pledged to submit the question to
this house—that even in New Brunswick the
Executive, formed since the elections, were
bound to submit it to the people of that country. And have we not from the mouth of
the
Provincial Secretary himself a distinct pledge
that the measure would have been submitted
here. Let me here draw your attention to a
report of his speech delivered at Truro, in
which he pledged himself to submit this matter to the people if the house, and if
they did
not agree to it, that he would not remain a
single hour a minister of the crown, without
an appeal to the people. Let me read from
the Colonist:
" Upon the subject of dissolution the
Provincial
Secretary declared that the duty of the government
was too plain to admit of any doubt or dispute. They
had deferred calling Parliament for a full month later
than they intended, on purpose to give time, till the
latest possible period, for agitating and discussing the
subject in every possible way and manner. The dispatch of the Secretary of Stat3 for the Colonies commended them to submit the
measure immediately
to
Parliament, and he could say frankly that if those
who could deal with it, after hearing all that could be
heard or said on both sides, reject it, as at present advised, he should not remain Minister of the Crown a
single hour without dissolving
the House, and referring the subject to the country."
In the face of these declarations, I ask
how it is that these gentlemen dared
to
come down and present any other scheme
than that which, through the Lieutenant
Governor, by the leaders in both branches
of the Legislature in Canada, and the solemn
pledge of the Provincial Secretary himself
they promised to submit to this house and
this people. How does the matter stand?
In virtue of the pledge made by the respective
governments,—even after the result
of the
elections in New Brunswick was made known
—the government of Canada brought the question up, and passed it in their Legislature
by
large majorities. In the little province of P.
E. Island, where confederation has but few
friends, the government, with a manliness that
did them credit, brought down the scheme
and were defeated upon it. What more? In
New Brunswick, the gallant Premier, leading
the government, went to the hustings and fell
under the force of public opinion. And it is
only in Nova Scotia that the administration,
ignoring their functions as a
government,
shrank from the responsibilities
of the position, and violated their solemn pledges and
recorded engagements.
GENERAL REMARKS.
Passing now away from this matter,
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES. 229
let me
say a few words to my honorable
friend, the learned member for Colchester—
generally termed the leader of the opposition.
Certainly not the leader of the opposition on
this question. And sometimes we put the
query to ourselves, whether he should be recognized as the leader of the
opposition at all?
I do not say this offensively,
but I feel that
that hon. gentleman, on a question of such
large importance as this, has ill
discharged his
duty to the gentlemen with whom he has long
been associated, when he ignored the functions
of the party that introduced responsible government into this country, and ventured
to
agree in Canada to adopt a scheme without
reference to the people—contrary, as I believe,
to the principles under which our government
is formed. That hon. gentleman stated no
opinion had been expressed against Union.
But it must not be supposed in
this case that
silence gives consent. If the question of immediate union with Canada had been submitted
to the house last winter, I believe it would not
have been entertained at all. The sentiment
of this country has not come up to union with
Canada. It is true we have had delegates from
time to time, and eminent leadin men have
proceeded to Canada and England authorized
to discuss the question in connexion with other
matters, but you never had any measure submitted. You never had the question of federal
union. Union in any form never was brought
up in a practical shape. But,
says the learned
gentleman, the public opinion of England,
previous to 1857, was opposed to a union of
these colonies. So it was. There was a party
in England at that time who thought if these
colonies were united they would become powerful and antagonistic to the mother country.
I admit a different feeling has come over the
British people in that respect. But let us look
at the motive. England is governed largely by
the mercantile interests; and
the men of the
Manchester school, looking at the enormous
taxes imposed by Canada upon British manufactures and that in 1862 a proposition to
grant
a considerable sum of money towards the
maintenance of the militia was thrown out,
naturally look favorably upon a confederation
or any scheme which, in their opinion, would
not only have the effect of reducing the duties
upon manufactures, but of throwing the burthen
of the defence of the provinces
upon
themselves. Such is the belief of the British
people. Will they believe it now when the
views of all parties are better known? When
the perceive that the duties cannot be reduced
under confederation? When they
hear that
the conference only proposed to
give $1,000,000
for defences? Will they believe it when they
learn that, even in Canada, there
is a large
party—including, it is said, even some of the
members of the government themselves—who
are not much disposed to keep up the connection with the imperial
government unless they
guarantee a war loan. We have been told
about allegiance and loyalty, but what do we
find in the Toronto Globe, the organ
of the hon.
George Brown, a personal friend of my own.
In his correspondence from Quebec, we are
told that there is a large party in Canada in
favor of annexation—a sentiment
which has
been repeated in the editorial columns of the
same journal. And the
apprehension was wide
spread, that unless the imperial government
bleed freely, they will look for more intimate
relations with the neighboring States. That
is said to be the feeling of a large party in
Canada.
WHAT THEY SAY IN ENGLAND.
We have been referred to opinions
expressed
in England. Lord Derby, we are told, expressed a strong opinion on the Reciprocity
Treaty,
and alarm in consequence of the notice that
was given of its repeal; but when we have a
government in England, we do not look to the
opposition for the sentiments of the people of
that country. We look to the government
as
the gentlemen representing public opinion.—
Lord Derby's observations, I may say, however, with regard to these colonies, were
of the
most friendly character—he was ready to defend these provinces at all hazards, and
he
blamed the government for their want of foresight; but I do not take his opinions
as those
of the people of England. Let me refer you to
an authority equally as eminent as
Mr. Foster,
Right Hon. Mr. Fitzgerald, a distinguished
member of the House of Commons who said :
" I differ widely from the hon. member
for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh), who seemed to consider that the
course lately taken by the American goverment in order to effect the termination of
the convention relating to the limitation of the naval force
of the two countries on the lakes was conceived,
by the American government in a spirit of hostility to England, and that
the termination of the
reciprocity treaty marked a clear
spirit of hostility to this country. I have never held
such language, nor do I think it is justified. As to
the limitation of the naval force on the lakes, the American government are perfectly
justified in proposing
it. What are the circumstances under which notice
to terminate the convention is good? By a party
of
sympathiers making a descent from
Canada, an American vessel was seized on one of the great lakes, it
was only by accident that a second vessel was not seized ; and the object might have
been carried out for
the liberation of a large number
of Confederate prisoners on Johnson's island. Under such circumstances, seeing that
there was nearly 2000 prisoners there
—that an attack had been made on American property in American waters, I think the
American govern-
were justified in having recourse
to this measure."
There is the justification, and I consider it
ample. Suppose the position of
affairs were reversed, and that we were American
citizens,
and vessels were to be fitted out from the ports
of our enemy—would we not resent it, and it
there was a treaty in existence
which prevented us arming boats on the lakes, would
we not
give notice immediately of our intention to
bring it to a termination. I
shall now produce
a much higher authority—no one else than Mr.
Cardwell himself, the
Secretary of State for the
Colonies. The Provincial Secretary, on a previous evening, spoke in the tone of
the alarmist, as did also this afternoon,
my hon. friend
from Colchester—held out the bug bear of the
notices given for the
termination of the Reciprocity Treaty—for the abrogation
of the treaty
in reference to gunboats on the lakes, and
for
bringing the labours of the Fishery Commissioner to an end. All these
facts were mentioned
with the usual great emphasis of that hon. gentleman as illustrations of the
spirit of hostility that
influences the United States in respect to these
provinces. Now I do not think that
gentleman,
as a Minister of
the Crown in this country, was
warranted in indulging in
that strain. My
hon. friend from Colchester who
does not bearÂ
the responsibilities of government.
might say
this, but it did not become the Provincial Secre
230
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
tary to
use the language he did in
respect to a
country with which we are peace,
and with
which we should ever remain so. What does
Mr. Cardwell say in reference to the relations
between the U States and the
mother country?
"The hon. member for Bradford in the
course of his
eloquent speech wished me to answer two questions—
viz. Whether we can truly state that our relations
with the United States continue to be, as they have
hitherto been, perfectly friendly. I can without reserve give him such an assurance
(hear, hear.) The
hon. member also asks whether in that correspondence which has not been given to the
house there
are not some documents bearing
on the question of
theAlabama. With equal confidence and with equal
pleasure I can assure the house
that I can give the
hon. member the answer he desires. There are no
papers in that correspondence
such as he describes as
bearing on the question as it stands
between the two
countries."
Now with an assurance of that kind from
so
distinguished an authority as the Colonial Secretary why should we be startled with
their alarm
cries that we are to be overrun by the hordes of
the States. But what does Lord Palmerston
say?
" I am persuaded that the tone of
moderation which
has prevailed in this debate will be useful in Canada
and the United States. * * *
I can only confirm the
statement of my right hon. friend that the relations
of the two government at the present
moment are perfectly friendly and satisfactory
(hear, hear). We
have no complaint to make against the government
of the United States. They have acted in a fair and
honorable manner towards us in all matters which
have arisen between us."
With these opinions expressed by the
leader
of the government in the house of Commons,
why should our attention be directed to the London Times which is given here as an authority
upon a matter of public opinion in England. I
hold, sir, that the house of commons is the place
to look for illustrations of
public opinion in England, and for accurate information respecting the
relations between Great Britain and the United
States. We all know the character of the London Times. On the 7th March, a fire eating article was issued in the columns of that paper
redolent with abuse of the British North America
Colonies, a few days before this
debate from
which I have quoted took place. On the 17th
the debate on the Defences came off,
and on
the following day the Times
changed its tone,
and was perfectly lamb-like.
DEFENCE.
My hon. friend from Colchester referred
to-
the question of defence. He said, "See the
advantage that we will in that respect derive
from Union. You will have a concentration of
men and money." I contend that Confederation
will give you no more money, no
more men,
and as to concentration you have now just as
much as you would have then. We are told in
the language of the Times that under Confederation we would be all under one military
command. Let me ask, Who commands the
torces in British America now? Is it not Gen.
Williams at Montreal or Quebec? It is true
that the Militia may not be marched
out of the
Province in the event of war, and I admit that
it is our duty in the case of
hostilities to assist
our brethren in Canada and New
Brunswick,
but under the
existing state of our law you can
not move a single regiment of
militia across the
frontier. But does it require
Confederation to
do that? Cannot you, by a simple
act of the
Legislature, give the Governor the
power toÂ
march out as many militiamen as
you choose?
So, really isolated as we are said to be, the Commander-in-chief, at any moment, by
agreement
made between the several Provinces, can have
the militia marched to the assistance of our fellow countrymen, and they in turn can
be
brought to us in the time of peril. Then we are
told that British statesmen look forward to Confederation as a means of defence. Had
they
been told, as we were three months ago, that this
Confederation was only going to give a million
of dollars, what would the people of England
have said ? What did they say in the debate
to which I have referred ? The report of Col.
Jervois was read, and it was suggested that Canada would contribute, not for defence
alone,
but for fortifications, the enormous sum of
$6,000,000. A million has been granted by
Canada during the late session
towards fortifications, not to be expended until the delegation
learn whether they can obtain from England
the guarantee for the war loan they wish.
During the late session a million
and a half—the
half million for frontier defences—was given by
Canada alone—or half a million more than we
were told the entire
Confederation would give.
The gentleman who went to Canada, among
other startling things, agreed to do this—to
bind,
as far as they could, these several provinces to
contribute their share towards
any sum of mo
ney that Canada might raise or borrow towards
the defences of the country.
That was denied
by the delegates at one of the public meetings,
but I hold in my hand an extract from a speech
delivered since that time by
Hon. J . A. Macdonald,
and what do he say
?
" With respect to the defences they were now the
subject negotiations with the Imperial
Government, and the fullest information would be given to the
house on that subject. He might mention that the Maratime [sic] Provinces, recognizing
the peculiar position of Canada geographically, and its danger in case
of hostilities, had most cordially agreed that an sum this
Parliamen [sic] might vote for the defence of Canada they would
undertake their share of."
Mark! That Nova Scotia would undertake
to pay a share of "any sum" the Canadian Parliament might vote for the defence
of Canada.
Then our loyalty has been questioned by the
Times, by that well informed organ of public
opinion that changes tone from
day to day,
whose correspondent was down here,
and whose
knowledge of geography
was so extensive that
he found himself in Toronto when
he came to
this province to meet the Prince of Wales.
That
individual characterized our women as
"splay
footed" and spoke of our
country generally in the most contemptuous manner—who could
see nothing in Nova Scotia worthy of notice,
though
he visited the fine towns
of Windsor,
Pictou
and Truro. It has been long remarked
that the sympathies of that journal are entirely
with
the Australian Colonies, and that its desire
has been to shake us off. But we
are not to be
brow beaten and bullied into
Confederation by
telling us that our allegiance,
which was never
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 231
questioned before, is to be tested by the fact
whether we unite or refuse to unite with Canada.
WILL THE B. N. A. COLONIES BEÂ GIVEN UP
Then we are told if Canada was given up,
could we be retained—that _ when Canada falls,
we share the same fate. I ask the plain question, Would Confederation save us? Would
any union of the people of these Provinces-
would any union of our means, unaided by the
British Government, save us in the event of the
Americans being determined to invade our country and possess it? I say no ; but what
is the
idea implied but not expressed by these gentlemen? The idea implied is this: the Home
Government will not assist you unless you confederate. Now I challenge both of these
hon.
men to shew me a single passage from a
despatch or a speech from a Minister of the
Crown that will warrant them in using such
language on behalf of the Home Government.
I contend that if Canada was given up tomorrow or fell by force of arms, this Province
would
still be retained. I believe that England feels,
and has felt for along time, that Canada is the
weak point on this side of the Atlantic, and that
it is the opinion of many British statesmen that if
Canada were separated from England tomorrow
it would be a great gain to the mother country,
and imperil her far less. But there are interests peculiar to Nova Scotia—and in some
respects to New Brunswick also, which must influence England to  keep them in her
possession.
When these provinces are gone, what hope can
England have of retaining her possessions in
the West Indies? Does any gentleman suppose that England, whose greatness is  made
up
to a large extent-by colonies scattered in different
ent parts of the globe, is going to part with
these sources of her power and prestige? Â With
our inexhaustible coal fields and unrivalled harbors in the possession of an enemy,
it must be only a question of time when the West India
Islands would suffer the same fate. But I have
no belief that the Americans have any design
either upon Canada or the maritime colonies.
I think that at a time not very far back, when
this harbor was the resort of blockaders—when
raids were made from Canada across the frontier—when there was much excitement in
consequence of the fact that Canada was filled with Southern sympathisers, _Â
and the impression was rife that that Province had not done
justice in respect to the raiders,—that then a
feeling of hostility existed which is fast passing away. The Canadian Government
have made ample reparation, and by their recent.
conduct have succeeded in establishing a better
feeling on both sides of the border. There will be
no disposition, I think, when, this war is brought
to a close, to invade these provinces; In the
first place, the American government have already accumulated a debt of, ÂŁ500,000,000
sterling charged with an extravagant rate of interest, that involves an enormous taxation.
Their
resources have been taxed to the utmost, and
the time has come when they require peace. Â
After, all, what would they gain by these provinces. Supposethey became possessed
of Canada
to-morrow, what would they have? a disaffected
people on their hands, who at any time should
renewal of hostilities with the South arise,
would combine with them and cause them to
lose their recently acquired possessions.
FREE TRADE AND CURRENCY.
Then the hon. gentleman has referred to Canada
as being our true back country. I have never
thought so. What is Canada to us ? Examine
the Trade Returns. We are told that under Confederation trade would grow up to an
enormous
extent. I doubt it. But first let me say that our
proper back country is New Brunswick, especially
that part of it through which Mr. Flemming has Â
been exploring for the Inter-colonial Railway. Â
Although I know that her debt per head is larger
than ours, and her tariff— is higher, still, looking
at the future, a connection with New Brunswick
would probably be attended with advantageous
results. The hon. member has turned attention
to the United States, and shown how much they
have gained in late years. How much has Canada
grown since Responsible Government was granted?
Is it not a common remark, even with Americans,
that Canada has increased more rapidly than any
State of the Union? And see how we have grown
ourselves, under self-government. We are told
that American prosperity is the result of free
trade. I admit at once that free intercourse
amongst the different States has been immensely
conducive to the advancement of that remarkable
people; but there are other causes that have
tended to make her a great country. First of all,
there is a great diversity of climate and production. In the south they produce cotton,
tobacco,
rice and sugar, and in the North they have manufactures; wheat and commerce; and,
in addition
to all this, there is free trade between thirty millions of people. Suppose you had
a Union with
Canada to-morrow, have you all these elements of
wealth? This question of free trade with Canada
can be settled without a political Union; it is a
delusion to say otherwise. You might, have had
free trade years ago; it was offered to the people
of Nova Scotia, as it was to those of New Brunswick. It has been refused by' both
Provinces, for Â
very obvious reasons. In view of the building of Â
the Inter-colonial Railway, it was thought it would Â
largely affect their revenues. Manufactures are
much more deveIoped in Canada than either in
New Brunswick or Nova Scotia; and under these
circumstances,  it was  thought that a large amount
of manufactures would flow into these Provinces, Â
and thereby largely affect our revenue. Therefore
it was wisely concluded that, until the Inter-
colonial Railway was obtained, we would postpone
the consideration of the question of free trade. Â
To those gentlemen who are urging a political
Union, for defence and free trade, for the purpose
of assimilating our currency and our postal arrangements, I say that all these things
can be
obtained without Confederation. Â They know that
canadian statesmen to-morrow would be only, too
happy to meet you on that platform, and give you Â
a free exchangeof manufuctures. The question of Â
currency might be, adjusted by the  Financial Â
Secretaries of the several Provinces in an after
232
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
noon; and, in reference to defence, the Legislatures of the several Provinces could
pass laws
similar to each other's, under which the militia
of each might be called out at any time, without
a political Union. We are told of one heart, and
one soul, and one mind, in respect to the defence
of the Provinces. Now I hold that the British
Government, as long as this Province remains a
dependency, is the party to be charged with our
defences; and I would draw out of our treasury a
sum of money to be given by each Province every
year, under an Imperial act, if you please, with
the consent of our own Legislature, notwithstanding the strong language which the
hon. Provincial
Secretary made use of in respect to this matter on
a previous evening. I would hand over this question of defence to the Imperial Government
who
possess the material of war, combined with the
skill and science required in naval and military
operations. Now you grant considerable sums for
the militia, but how are they expended? Do they
do a large amount of good? Would not any
money you would give be expended much more
satisfactorily by officers under the control of the
Imperial authorities? Let each Province contribute liberally, according to its ability—and,
so
far, I have yet to learn that there has been any
complaint made in regard to the sum of money
contributed by this Province towards its militia
and defences.
REPLY TO PROVINCIAL SECRETARY.
The hon. Provincial Secretary defended his
action in reference to the Union question on the
ground of the opinions held in this House, and
elaborated from time to time by Mr. Howe, Mr.
Young and Mr. Johnston, and also by a lecture
delivered at Temperance Hall by Mr. McGee,
which was most enthusiastically received, and on
the conclusion of which a vote of thanks was
moved by two of the gentlemen I have just named,
to the lecturer. I would remind the Provincial
Secretary that no action was ever taken practically
upon this question. We have been told that a
resolution was passed in the session of 1861. I
was one of the delegates in 1862, and although
the question of Union was supposed to be before
us, the subjects that were really considered were
Free Trade and the Inter-colonial Railway. I
may state frankly that there was no formal discussion at that convention on the question
of
Union. It was looked upon as a matter in the
distance, to be consummated after an Inter-
colonial Railway and Free Trade had been
enjoyed for years by the separate Provinces. Then, I say, the hon. gentleman had
no right to assume from anything that occurred
there, that the people of this country, were in
favour of Union, particularly such an one, as has
been propounded for our acceptance. The city of
Halifax is not the Province of Nova Scotia, and
the expression of opinion that we hear there—
which will be heard to-morrow night—is not that
of the people. It can only be gathered by the
votes of the several counties, and whenever the
opportunity is given for the people to speak out
on the question, they will do so, in a manner that
will not be agreeable to the feelings of those
gentlemen, who have attempted to strike down
our liberties, and change our constitution. Then
we have been told Mr. Cardwell, the Colonial
Secretary, is in favour of this scheme. Of course
he is—as well as the people of England. The
Colonies have been a heavy burden upon them,
and any scheme that holds out a prospect of relief
from taxation, is naturally acceptable to them.
Now there are five British North American colonies, with which the Colonial Secretary
must keep
up a correspondence; and a Union of these would
doubtless largely decrease the labors of the office
But we are told that the 83 gentlemen, who
went to Quebec, were unanimously in favour of
the scheme. They may have been very unanimous there, but, somehow or other, some of
them
changed their minds very quickly, when they returned to their respective homes, and
were brought
face to face with their constituents. We are t old
too that the Press of England are in favour of the
scheme. I respect much more the public opinion
of our own country. We are the parties who are
to be affected for weal or for woe by any change
in our condition. How has New Brunswick
acted? How is it that three-fourths of the recently elected representatives of the
people in that
Province have been returned to oppose the Union
with Canada?
REPRESENTATION.
The Hon. Provincial Secretary has alluded to
Representation by population, and defended it as
a sound principle, and quoted Lord Durham as a
high authority on the subject. If this system
is right as applied to a colony, why is it not
equally so, in respect to the mother country? Is
it in operation in Nova Scotia at the present
moment, or in any of the colonies, I ask the hon.
member for Cape Breton opposite how it is, if
this principle is right, that he sits here with only
one colleague, when the small county of Queen's,
small in extent, as well as population, has three
representatives. Is it right?
Mr. ANNAND—Cape Breton has a right to additional
representation by other considerations than those of population ; look at
her coal fields, and the vast amount of capital that is now developing
the resources of that fine county. It is a round principle that property and
clauses, should be represented as well as numbers. That principle
was recognized as long ago as the time of the Union of England with
Scotland. Some of the most convincing arguments that I ever read
was delivered by Mr. Seton, one of the Commissioners for arranging that
Union, on the very point that property and classes should be represented as
well as numbers, and that the smaller number of representatives was
given to Scotland in proportion to her numbers, was justified on the
ground that England was a wealthier and more heavily taxed country, whilst
the former had to bear smaller burthens of taxation. Lord Durham, it
should be remembered, highly respectable an authority as he may
be, was considered a radical reformer, as the radical nobleman, and
holding opinions opposed both to the Whigs and Conservatives of England.
Is Earl Russell, the author of the Reform Bill, in
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
233 favor of the principle. On the contrary, he has over
and over again declared against it, asinconsistent with the rights and
privileges of large classes and interests in contradistinction to mere
numbers. But Representation by population, says the
Provincial Secretary, is a sound principle as applied to the Confederation of
the British American Provinces He has said—and he argued the
question at considerable length—that 19 members were as many as Nova
Scotia, and 47 as many as all the Maritime Provinces were entitled to,
in a House of 194. It must be recollected, however, that
under Confederation you have separate interests if you retain separate
Provinces, and whilst this is the case, you must expect difficulties to arise.
CONFLICTS APPREHENDED.
A difficulty applicable to this Confederation
that might arise, was suggested not very long
ago in one of the most celebrated organs of opinion
in England. It was supposed to arise between
the local Governor, appointed by the central
Government at Ottawa, and his House or Assembly in Newfoundland. The matter is referred
up
to Ottawa, and as it is supposed to be a question that
all the Maritime Provinces are interested in their
representatives combine and sustain Newfoundland. Parties are close in the Central
Parliament, and the result is, that with the aid of the
47 representatives of the Lower Provinces, the
local, and supposed to be subordinate Legislature,
triumphs over the central Parliament.
The matter is then finally referred to the
Colonial Secetary, who if he interferes is sure to
offend one or other party, a conflict of authority
follows, the issue of which it is not improbable
would be the destruction of the entire Confederacy. If the Confederation was formed
to-morrow,
I don't believe it would last 10 years. It has not
the elements of strength. At one extremity you
have Vancouver's Island and British Columbia,
and at the other, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick—inhabited by people of the Anglo-Saxon
race with their, indomitable spirit. Then between
these, in the very heart of the Confederacy, we
find the French population, cherishing opinions
adverse to those of the Anglo-Saxon, and it is out
of such discordant materials as these that you
propose to found a powerful and united Confederation.  Â
WHO WOULD RULE.
The Provincial secretary stated that these 47
Representatives would hold the balance of power
in the General Parliament just as the Irish members do in the British House of Commons. It
is true, they might. if they would agree, and
pulled together ; but, as experience shows,
only once, in the time of Dan. O'Connell, did they
successfully unite in making a demand of justice
for their country. They have since been divided, as
we have been here, and as our Representatives
would be at Ottawa. Do you suppose parties
would cease under Confederation ? Would' you
not have gentlemen supporting the Opposition,
and others, the Government ; and then what becomes of the argument of the 47 Representatives
from the Maritime Provinces, holding the
balance of power ? Those who happen to have
the ear of the Government will rule Nova Scotia.
Who will make the appointments in each Province? and the dismissals too? Why, parties
who support the Government at Ottawa. You
will not be able to appoint a single officer in the
Revenue Department, in the Post Office, or to a
Light House. At present the member for the
County, who has the ear of the Government, can
get his friend appointed ; but transfer the
power to Ottawa, and the appointment will be
made by the men who sit there.
THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
Now, a few words with respect to the Legislative Council, which, we are told, is to
be composed
of three divisions. Upper Canada has 24, Lower
Canada 24, and the Maritime Provinces 24, or
72 in all. It has been said that it was a great
concession to give us 24. What the Maritime
Provinces require in the central Parliament is
protection, and how are they going to get it, when
they have but 24 Representatives to 48 Canadians in
the Legislative Council. Suppose the Reciprocity
Treaty were repealed, although I don't believe it
will be actually repealed, but that it will be continued with some modification ;
but supposing it
is, might not the Confederate Parliament impose
a duty upon American flour, would it not be for
the interests of both sections of Canada to impose
that duty, and is it not probable it would be
done? Then, I ask, who will have to pay that
duty. Every person knows that nine-tenths of
the flour consumed here, comes from the United
States. In such an event, as I have stated, it
would come from Canada under this boasted system of free trade. Then every consumer
of flour
in the Maritime Provinces would he called upon
to pay an extra price upon that indispensable article of food. With a Canadian majority
of 147
in the Lower House, and a majority of 48 to 24
in the Upper Branch, what could we do but submit or rebel?
If we are to have protection in the Legislative
Council, the only way we can get it, is to imitate
the example of the United States. Under their system, the smallest State has the same
number of
Representatives in the Senate as the largest. Little
Rhode Island has as many voices as the Empire State
New York. But suppose in the event of Union,
Canada had 12, and each of the Maritime Provinces the same number of members—Prince
Edward Island as many as Canada, then, if any
injustice was attempted to be done to these Provinces in the Lower House, their Representatives
in the Legislative Council, by combining together,
could prevent it.
TRADE AND MANUFACTURES.
The Provincial Secretary says, if our trade is
ever expanded, it must be with British America.
I would be much obliged to the hon. gentleman if
he would show how that is to arrive under Con
federation.We have now free trade with all
British America in everything except manufactures. Have we not a right to exchange
every
article we produce—the products of the soil, the
forest, the mine, the sea—free of duty. Would
Confederation make one more customer than you
234
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
have now without it. I admit, that with a population of four millions, there would
be much
greater temptation to embark in manufactures
than there is ; but I challenge hon. gentlemen to show me how we could compete with
Canada. Can you show the place where the coal,
iron, and limestone are found together in the
position to be manufactured on the seaboard.
Mr. ANNAND—I know that in the Financial Secretary's
county the manufacture of iron was attempted by his friend, Mr. Davis, and
it failed. He found he could import the pig iron from Scotland more cheaply than
he could manufacture the inferior iron ore in the
neighborhood of the Albion Mines. Although they have no coal in
Canada, yet at the present day coal can be obtained at a cheaper
rate in Montreal than in Halifax. Perhaps at some future time iron
works may be established at Sydney, where there are large deposits of
coal ; but I fear, the period is yet far off. But if you think you can
compete with the manufactures of Canada, who have so much the start of
us, you can make arrangements for free trade now just as well as under
Confederation. All that the Government has to do, is to introduce a
resolution for a Conference at Quebec, and I will guarantee that the
Canadians will be only too happy to second your wishes.
We have had free trade to a large extent with
the States and Canada, and what have been the
results. In 1864 our total imports were 12,600,—
000. Of this large amount Canada sent us but
$403,000, about the three hundredth part of the
whole, and we exported to that country but
$330,000 worth. We took from the United
States four millions worth, or 100 times our imports from Canada. We sent to them
$ 2,445,770,
or 80 times our exports to Canada. Yet these gentlemen tell you that we are to have
a great expan
sion of trade with Canada in the event of Confederation. I maintain, then, that it
is the true policy of
Nova Scotia, as of all of the Provinces to cultivate
friendly relations with the United States. They
are our near neighbors and natural customers.
OUR DEBENTURES.
Then the Provincial Secretary referred to our Debentures and said they went up
at once, when the results of the Quebec Conference were known in
England. But look at the facts of the case as they really exist. They did
rise suddenly, not, however, in consequence of the news of
Confederation, but because the bank of England reduced its rate of interest.
Did not the securities of all the colonies, in every part of the world,
go up at the same time ? Our debentures were quoted at 94 @ 97 on the
13th October, and on the 7th November, when money was plenty, confidence
was inspired, and they went up to 100 @ 102. On the 5th January
following they fell to 97 1/2, at which price business was done ; the
difference in price in these two quotations, arising entirely from the
fact that the half year's interest was in- And if it is true
that, in view of Confederation, our securities ; why were they as low as 88 @
92 on the 16th March, when Confederation was treated as an accomplished
fact in England. What, but the civil war in America, which, it was
assumed, might lead to conflict in these colonies?
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
The hon. Prov. Secretary has referred to the
Intercolonial Railway, and I must admit that
has always been the strong card in the hands
of the Confederate party. Every person is
desirous of getting that railroad, although I am
not one of those who believe that the Inter-
colonial Railroad, as a commercial speculation,
is a very desirable undertaking. I think, however, looking upon it in the light of
a great
highway—as a connecting link between the
Provinces, and for purposes of defence, that
its construction is really necessary. Such is
the view of hon. George Brown, and I refer
you on this point to his speech delivered in
the House of Assembly at Quebec. But, says
the Provincial Secretary, we have secured its
construction at only one-tenth of its cost, instead of the 3 1/2-12ths, which we would
have to
pay under the former arrangement. One reason why I have a strong feeling against this
Union with Canada is, because I have no faith
in Canadian statesmen. I remember the way
we were treated with respect to the Intercolonial Railway—how the Canadian government
agreed to the scheme, and put it in the
form of a treaty engagement—how they went
to England and. violated the promises they
made to the delegates from the Maritime Provinces—how they attempted to persuade the
British government to look upon their share in
the cost of the Intercolonial Railway as a contribution towards local defences. Mr.
Gladstone made every effort he could to meet their
views in reference to the sinking fund—promising to invest the amount, if they wished
it, in
their own securities ; but even then they refused
to ratify the solemn agreement which had been
made between the Provinces in 1862. We are
told that this Railroad is to be procured only
under Confederation. But let it be remembered that that work is far more necessary
to
Canada than to ourselves. We have lived
and prospered without it, and we can continue
to do so; but its construction is to Canada a
necessity. Some of their most eminent men
have said, they must have the Intercolomal
Railway at any cost—they must either have
a Federal Union or annexation to the States.
Are they obliged to have annexation with the
United States? Cannot they now enter into
commercial relations with us? Cannot all of
the advantages they desire be obtained without the political union into which it is
attempted to drag us What was said by some of the
most eminent statesmen of Canada on this
subiect in the debate on Confederation.
Hon. Mr. Cartier, Attorney General, East, said :—
He had stated before audiences in the Lower Provinces that, as far as territory, population,
and wealth
are concerned Canada was stronger than any other
Province, but at the same time was wanting in one element necessary to national greatness—the
Maritime
one ; and that, owing to the large trade and commerce
of Canada, extensive communication with Great Britain at all seasons was absolutely
necessary. Twenty years ago our commerce for the year could be managed by communication
with Great Britain in the summer months only. At present, however, this system
was insufficient, and for winter communication with
the sea-board we were left to the caprice of our American neighbors, through whose
territory we must pass.
Col. Haultain, a prominent supporter of the
Canadian government, expressed himself in
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES. 235
the clearest terms on this point, Canada must
have it, " political union or no " :
into prominence in this scheme
" Recounting the recent
unfriendly act of the United States, he said it must be manifest that we needed a new
outlet to the ocean—new channels for trade when the old one was taken
away. It seemed astonishing to him that any one desirous of
seeing an independent Power here, separate from the United States, could
oppose this scheme. With reference to the Intercolonial Railway he thought it was brought
unneceessarily into prominence in this scheme. We must have that, and pay for it whether we
have political union or no. It was needed for commercial, social, and
defensive purposes."
Then we have the testimony of Mr. Rose,
who sits for Montreal, and was formerly a
a member of the government :
" We were now almost commercially dependent on
the United States, and were dependent for access to
the ocean on them. If they do away with the bonding system or increase the difficulties of the passport
system we would be practically shut out. Give us a
railroad to St John's and Halifax and we would become commercially independent and
free. If the
know we have those avenues they will not shut us out.
* * * We were told to remain as we are. We could
not. How could we remain for ever commercially
dependent upon the United States and their fiscal
legislation, so that the Upper Canada farmer could
not send a bushel of grain or a barrel of flour to Europe except by the permission
or at the whims of the
States. They were piling up vexations on the transit trade by consular certifications,
passports, &c.
The Senate was recently considering the bonding system. If abolished before the International railway is
built the merchants of Canada would be ruined. They
would have to import six months supply of goods, and
farmers must keep their grain and lose their winter
markets. The railway would cost a good deal of money
but it was one of the unfortunate incidents of our position and a necessity for us."
And last, but not least, the veneral Premier,
Hon. E. P. Tache, said that Canada could not
hope to maintain " a separate national existence " without the intercolonial railway.
Hear him :
" There never was a great nation without any maritime element, and Canada shut out for
five months, by
icy barriers, from the sea, could not develop so long as
she had not ports accessible in winter, nor hope to
maintain a separate national existence, but must be
at the mercy of other powers. Canada was now like
the man with excellent farms, but without access of
his own to the highway, depending on the good hu
mour of a neighbour for it. If the neighbor grew angry he might shut up the road and
the gate. They
had threatened the repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty,
and had established the passport system, which almost
amounted to non-intercourse. The gate being almost
shut we must secure another way to reach the highway."
So I maintain now, as I have always maintained—as I did in Canada three years ago—
that the Intercolonial Railway is more a necessity to her than to us. And I am glad
to
perceive that during the past year the Government of Canada, awakening at last to
the importance of the work, at their own expense appointed Mr. Fleming to make a
survey of the
route for the Intercolonial line, and I have no
doubt, Confederation or no, we will get the
road ere long completed,—unless indeed the
British Government require Canada to contribute too much for fortifications. It is
quite
clear that Canada cannot maintain a separate
existence, unless she has access to the sea
through friendly territory.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
The hon. Provincial Secretary has referred
to the local governments, and declared that
they will not be insignificant in character—
that the Houses will still be a place where men
of as great ability will aspire as those who sat
here in former times. At that time there was
only one place of political preferment that
those gentlemen could aspire to, that was this
House. Now there will be two—one at Ottawa, where the salaries will be large, and
the
government liberal to a degree unknown in
this country. I would like to hear the Provincial Secretary tell us what kind of local
government we are to have—is there to be one
House or two?—and if only one Chamber how
many members are to sit there? Are we to have
responsible government as now with Heads of
Departments? These are matters of great
importance to the people of this country in
connection with this subject—they are interesting to those gentlemen who do not expect
to go to Ottawa, but aspire to come here again.
They wish to learn whether this body is to be
only a little more important than a Court of
Sessions or a City Council. I pause for a
reply from the Provincial Secretary, but I
know in vain.
TAXATION UNDER CONFEDERATION.
The hon. Provincial Secretary referred to
the large majority by which this scheme has
been adopted in Canada. That country understands her own interests too well not to
receive the scheme favorably. She knows that we
have a surplus revenue, that we are a largely
consuming people, and would be a valuable
acquisition as contributors to the central treasury. I am not going into the financial
argument, I will leave that in the hands of a friend
perhaps more familiar with the subject than
myself, but 1 cannot refrain from quoting one
or two authorities on the subject of taxation.
Mr. Galt, in that celebrated speech of his,
which has so often been referred to, says:
" In the case of the Lower Provinces, the average
tariff was about 12 1/2 per cent, and where now collect
2 1/2 millions dollars, under a higher tariff like that of
Canada at least three millions dollars would there
be raised."
Now mark you, our taxation is to be increase from two and a half millions to three.
Our advalorem duties are ten per cent. New
Brunswick has an average tariff fifteen and
a half per cent.:
It is proposed by Mr. Galt to reduce the
advalorem duties from 20 to 15, but my firm
belief is that they will have to be advanced
to 25, or resort had to direct taxation in order
to enable them to meet the increased expenditure that confederation will bring. He
says
the maritime provinces, under confederation
will have to contribute half a million more
than now. New Brunswick is nearly as
heavily taxed already as Canada, and Prince
Edward Island being a small colony, we
would have to bear the larger proportion or
the half million. On this subject the Toronto
Globe, government organ, not very long ago
said :
" There can be no doubt that (under Confederation)
the Lower Provinces would be heavy tax-payers."
And the Leader, then supporting Confederation, remarked :
" The tariff of Canada is higher than that of any of
the other Provinces. There can be no doubt that Confederation will involve an increase of expenditure,
and perhaps a very large increase.
I will now turn your attention for a short
time to another branch of the subject, having
236
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
no reference to the hon. gentleman's speech—
to the position we occupy as a free people.
We all remember the struggle that took place
in this country to obtain departmental and
responsible government; it was the work of
years. The complaint then was that our
affairs were managed in Downing Street—that
you could not make a single appointment or
control your revenues without reference to
that quarter.
SELF GOVERNMENT.
I contend that you are going to establish a
second Downing Street at Ottawa under the
scheme of Confederation—that you will hand
over the control of the most valuable institutions that we now possess. There is your
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
from which you derive the reater portion of the money which you expend for the
improvement of your roads, your schools, your breakwaters, and other local services.
That great source of power
it is proposed to hand over to a body of gentlemen sitting at Ottawa, where
you will have 19 out of 194 members. You have at this moment 75 ports
of entry and clearance. If I remember aright, they have but 84 in all
Canada. It has been the policy of this country, since it has had the control
of this department, to afford every possible convenience to
the people of the country ; so that whenever an application is made for a
Custom House, it is granted as almost a matter of course. And so rapid
has been the extension of the system, that while 20 years ago there
were but 15 ports of entry and clearance in the Province, there are now five
times that number. Suppose, now, that you were confederated, and the attention of
the Finance Minister at
Ottawa was drawn to the fact that this little Province had 75 ports of
entry, and some of them collecting no revenue at all ; and suppose that an application
was made by the people of some one of the
counties that another be added to the number, what would be
the answer? They would be told, " Your Province has already more than she is
entitled to ;—although we have eight times your population,
yet we hardly have a greater number than you have ; and we believe your
number ought to be reduced." And how could you help yourselves? Again,
suppose a vacancy took place here to-morrow, who would fill it up?
Some one at Ottawa who had the ear of the Government—a Nova Scotian,
perhaps, if any of them were supporting the Administration,
and if not, some Canadian, who knows nothing of your country or its people.
And so with dismissals. Now you can arraign the Government here,
create a public agitation on the subject, and so affect public opinion as to
disturb their tenure of office.
The same state of things would exist in respect to your
POST OFFICE AND LIGHT HOUSES.
There is no country in the world that possesses more postal accommodation than Nova
Scotia. We had on the; 30th Sept., 1863, 493
Post and Way Offices, 4568 miles of mail route,
971,688 miles of annual travel. Canada at the
same period had 1,974; post and way offices,
15,327 miles mail route, and 6,110,000 annual
travel. So it will be perceived that while the
population of Canada is eight times as great as
ours, our post offices have been multiplied
until they are one-fourth as numerous as those
of Canada, and the miles of mail route nearly
one-sixth. It is clear, then, that the advantage
is largely in our favor—so large that if, under
Confederation, an attempt was made to increase the number of offices and rides in
this
Province, the applicants would probably be
met with a sharp rebuff—told that they had
more than their share already, some of which
might very well be dispensed with. I took the
liberty of asking the Postmaster General, the
other day, how many newspapers passed
through the post office prior to the contro of
that department being transferred to this
country ; and, largely as I knew the increase
in the circulation of letters, under cheap postage, and free newspapers, had grown,
I was
startled at the figures. In 1849, when the change
took place, the number of letters passed
| through the |
post office was ........... . |
201,000 |
| and in 1864 |
the number had grown to... |
1,534,000 |
|
Increase ................. |
1 ,333,000 |
| The number |
of newspapers passed |
through |
| the post office in 1840 |
was. . . . . . . . . ..... |
258,000 |
| 1n 1864 there were |
................... .. |
3,941,000 |
|
Increase. . . . . . .» ...... . . . |
3,688,000 |
Pretty satisfactory evidence, Ithink, of the
value of the power to regulate and manage
our local affairs.
We have in this country, I may add, the
privilege of having our papers pass through
the post office free, but in case of Confederation they would be taxed just as they
are in
Canada now.
And what I have said in respect to the Post
Office and Customs departments, applies equally to the Light Houses. Now you have
48
Light Houses—27 west, and 21 east, and you
are building three more this year. Suppose you
were to be confederated to-morrow, how many
would you be allowed to build in addition to
that number. They would tell you, you must
wait, if you wanted more, until the canalswere
enlarged, and the north-west territory was
opened up.
FINANCIAL POSITION UNDER CONFEDERATION.
I will now call attention to another view of
this subject, and not the least important. Let
us glance for one moment at what our financial
condition would be under Confederation._ Under the arrangements made by the Delegates,
we are to have 80 cents a head upon the population exhibited by the census of. lame-that
subsidy is not to be changed, but continued for
all time to come-that we are to have $264,000
a year. It is assumed, I presume, that the wants
of this country are to remain stationary—that
our education, roads and bridges, and our public works are all completed—that our
country,
in fact, is finished—and that in the, future all
the additional revenues collected in this country will flow into the treasury at Ottawa.
Now
we get a subsidy of $204,000 a year. .The Provincial Secretary in his estimate for
1865 puts
down, the   Â
| Casual Revenae at.. . . . . . . . . . |
$50,000 |
| Crown Lands. ..... . ..... |
35,000 |
| Gold Fields. . . . .......... .. . . . .. |
20,000 |
| Hospital for Insane. . . . ......... |
20,000 |
| Board Revenue. . . .. . . . .. . ...... |
1,427 |
| Total ............. . : .. . . . |
$126, 427 |
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 237
which under Confederation would be termed
Local Revenue. Add the subsidy and local
revenue together and you have $390,427 as the
total revenue of NovaScotia if we were to be
Confederated. Let us now look at the appropriations. The gross sum proposed to be
expended this year is $1,395,871. I deduct from
that amount all those departments and services
that would be chargeable upon the general government in the event of Confedcration,-the
civil list, revenue department, post office, lighthouse, public debt, defence, railway,
and a few
other matters. amounting in all to $731,565. Deduct this from the gross amount of
appropriations, and you have left $664,306. The subsidy
and local revenue amount to $390,427. Deduct
the two sums which you would have this
year under Confederation from the amount
you have appropriated for strictly local purposes, and you would hand over to Canada
$273,879. Then there is to be a supplemental
estimate,—a grant for Colchester has been
omitted, additional grants to the colleges have
to be provided for, and other sums, I hear, are
to be expended. In addition to these the Advances made during the recess must be taken
into account, about $15,000. Altogether three
hundred thousand dollars loss the first year under Confederatibn—handed over to the Ottawa
Parliament—taken away from the local improvements of our country, to be spent in
meeting the "necessities of Canada."
LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
You have been told that the subsidy from the Central Government, with the
local revenue which you are allowed to retain, will be sufficient to meet the annual
requirements of the country. To accurately
determine this point, we should be in possession of the views of the
Delegates as to the composition of the local Government, the number of
members who are to sit in the Legislature, and the cost; the number,
functions, and salaries of the chief officers of the Government, - because
without this information it is impossible to know the amount
applicable to the local improvements of the country. And as we cannot
get the required information from the Government, who here, as in Canada,
are singularly reticent on the subject, I have ventured to sketch a
programme, for the benefit of gentlemen opposite, which I hold in
my hand, and will place in the hands of the ter for publication:
|
Estimated cost 1865 |
Future cost |
| Provincial Secretary's Office. . . . |
$5600 |
$4050 |
| Receiver General's Office ........ |
4600 |
3100 |
| Attorney General .......... |
2000 |
1000 |
| Crown Land Office ........... |
19,480 |
19,480 |
| Pensions.. . . . . . . .......... |
6000 |
6000 |
|
$37,680 |
$34,230 |
| Legislative Expenses ........... |
38,414 |
20,000 |
| Board of Works, including Hospital Insane, Province Building and Penitentiary . .....
|
73,050 |
41,200 |
| Navigation Securities... .. . . . . . |
49,040 |
19,040 |
| Steamboats, Packets, Ferries..... |
11,45l |
4,451 |
| Education ............ . . .. |
127,915 |
127,915 |
| Roadsand Bridges. . .. ., ..... |
262,400 |
262,400 |
| Gold Fields...... .. .. .. .. .. . |
12,000 |
12,000 |
| Agriculture .. .. . |
16,000 |
6,000 |
| Statistics. .. . ... |
3,000 |
3,000 |
| Relief and Poor Asylum. . .. . . |
16,721 |
16,721 |
| Printing… ..... ..... |
8,000 |
6,000 |
| Immigration . ............ . . |
2,000 |
2,000 |
| Clerk of Crown.... ........ . ...... |
400 |
400 |
| Inquests. . . . . . . . ....... .......... |
1,400 |
1,400 |
| Criminal Prosecutions ........... |
1,600 |
1,600 |
| Distressed Seaman. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . |
200 |
200 |
| Rations Troops. . .................. |
100 |
100 |
| Miscellaneous ................... |
15,520 |
8,000 |
| Indians .......................... |
1,373 |
1,373 |
| Road Damages. .. . . . . . ........... |
800 |
800 |
|
$689,064 |
$568,830 |
I have assumed that under the local Government which it is proposed to give us, the
office of Financial Secretary will not be required, and that the Provincial Secretary,
with
the aid of an additional clerk, may discharge
the duties of both offices, at a cost of $4050, instead of $5600, which we pay now.
The Receiver General's office to be reduced from $4600, to
$3100. I presume that we are to have an Attorney General, and as he will not be of
such
large proportions as the gentleman who tills
the office at present, I may venture to cut him
down from $2000 to $1600; the Solicitor General
I would dispense with altogether. The Crown
Land Office, to be efficient, must cost as much
under Confederation as now. The charge for
Staff of the Board of Works, I reduce from
$4400 to $3000, and I have deducted $30,000 this
year for construction at the Lunatic Àsylum.
Navigation Securities I have out down from
$49,040 to $19,040, omitting the grant of $30,000
to St. Peter's Canal. Packets and ferries from
$11,451 to $4,451, deducting the sea-going steamers. The grants for our roads and
bridges I
leave as at present; for although the sums given last year and this year were large
and have led the people to believe that they
will be continued, yet I think that the necessities of some of the counties, my own
for instance, require even more than has hitherto been
given them. Would the members for Lunenburg, or Pictou, or Queens, be content to give
up their special grants in view of the benefits of
Confederation? I think they would not, although the Provincial Secretary might, because
it would probably bring larger advantages to him of another kind than to almost any
one else. And if our public works are to be
extended, as I should like to see them carried
on, I think it is quite clear that we cannot expect to be able to appropriate so large
a sum
for the road and bridge service in future. I
have put down the legislative expenses at
$20,000, instead of $48,000, which they cost last
year, and the sum total of the calculation, after
reducing our expenditure to the lowest possible figure consistent with the public
service,
| shows that you will require at least |
$568,830 |
| Deduct subsidy and local revenue .. |
390,427 |
| Deficit under Confederation. . . ..... - |
$178,403 |
Now, I put it to gentlemen opposite-can you
reduce any of these expenditures? Will they
not all be required? And, as the country continues to grow, will not the wants of
the country grow with it? And if to this amount you
add increased taxation under a Canadian tariff,
say 50 per cent., which will also be ahsorbed by
the Central Government, you will have some
idea of the sacrifices we are called upon to
make.
I may be told that the grants for roads and
bridges are extravagant, but who made them
so? You have raised the amount now to the
enormous sum of $262,000. If the system is
238 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
wrong the government who have educated the
people up to it—who have taught them that, in
order to carry certain objects, the will receive
such large sums are alone to blame. I consider, however, all the money is required
for the
roads and bridges. You will see by the figures
I have given that the sum required for the roads
and bridges would nearly swallow up the subsidy. Can you reduce the grants for education,
to the hospital for the insane, for relief,
the penitentiary, and other services? You
know you cannot without emperilling the public service. Therefore the inevitable result
is,
as Mr. Galt has told you, in his speech, if the
local revenues are not sufiicient, you must resort to direct taxation. There is no doubt whatever that this must be the case if this
scheme is carried out. When I feel that the
institutions of our country are to be swept
away, and that the control of our resources
is to be handed over to a people with whom
we have no sympathy, am I not right in
asking this House to pause? What chance
would there be, in such an event, of our
being able to push forward those public improvements that are now being carried on?
All our surplus revenue, as I have said, will go
to Ottawa; and I ask gentlemen who look forward to the time when railway communication
will extend from Pictou to Antigonishe, to
Guysboro, aye, even through the Island of
Cape Breton, and again westward to Annapolis and Digby and Yarmouth, what chance
will there be of having their anticipations realized? Only those who are to be elevated
from
this country to Ottawa can be satisfied with a
state of things so disastrous to the Province of
Nova Scotia.
Cet individu a participé aux :
