Document Information

Date: 1867-11-12
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1st Parl, 1st Sess, 1867 at 35-39.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

The Speaker took the chair at 3 o’clock.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] resumed the debate on the Address. He said that on rising to address the House on this occasion, he felt fully sensible of the responsibility resting upon him as a member of this great assemblage, as one belonging to the principal Province of the Dominion-superior in numbers and wealth, and possessing the Capital of the Confederation. He felt that it devolved particularly on the people of Ontario to act the part of hosts towards their Lower Province brethren, and to extend to them all a hearty welcome, and that candid and just consideration which was most likely to cement their future relations, and to produce that spirit of harmony which must prevail amongst them, if they were to live together and prosper as a nation. Looking upon the Confederation measure as the triumph of those principles for which, as a humble member of the Reform party, he had long contended, he could not but join in the congratulations on its achievement, and it was with emotions of deep regret that he was compelled to witness a cloud still hanging over the measure, as regarded the eastern portion of our Dominion. He trusted, however, that by their joint efforts they might yet be able to remove the causes of discontent and dissatisfaction in that Province. Mr. Mackenzie then referred to Mr. Howe’s statement last night, that he had felt it to be particularly unkind, that his Reform friends in the West should have been found arrayed in an attitude of oppression towards Nova Scotia. On their behalf, he repudiated both the intention and the act, and said that if there was blame anywhere, it rested with the legislature of that Province which had given a direct sanction to the course pursued in England by the delegates. He proceeded to advert to the present position of parties in the legislature. He contended that the conflict of parties was necessary to the success of representative institutions, and that there could be no more reasonable division of parties than that which divided them into Reformers and Conservatives. They were told now by gentlemen opposite, that there was no longer any need of party, that party ties ought to be obliterated and that all should be ready to take good measures from any Government, and support any Government that might happen for the time to be in power. If this arrangement were followed out to its legitimate conclusion, it would amount to this:-that the Government of the day should retain power in perpetuity. A Government would only have to yield occasionally, as the necessity arose, and retain its large majority indefinitely. He for one could not give his assent to a policy of this kind, the effect of which would not be to build up the national interests, but merely to hold a certain class of men in office for ever. During the election, it was assumed that all patriotism was on the side of the gentlemen who composed and supported the Government. He had thought that he had acted a patriot’s part in doing all that lay in his power to support the Government in carrying the Confederation measure; but when the elections came on, the Minister of Public Works and other Ministers crowded into his county so thick and fast that he could scarcely count them, branding him as a disunionist and as disloyal to the British crown, which, in their estimation, was the equivalent of being in opposition to the Minister of Justice, and his new follower, the Minister of Public Works. A charge of disloyalty against him was also founded on the assumption that he was to form an alliance with the member for Hants (Mr. Howe), who to the people of the West was painted as black as a demon. They were told that the member for Hants had declared he was ready to march to the frontier at the head of an army of Bluenoses, with bayonets fixed, to drive off the Canadians, and that he had openly avowed his preference for annex- ation. Fortunately, he had some familiarity with the speeches of the member for Hants, and had been able to repel the charge, brought against him by the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Public Works. Similar charges were made with equal un- truthfulness against his Liberal friends in the Province of Quebec. In this connection, he quoted a speech made some years ago by the Minister of Public Works on the loyalty cry raised against the Reformers of that day, and said the remarks of Mr. McDougall as to the course of the Tories then were singularly

[Page 36]

applicable to his own course during the late election. As that gentleman then remarked, the cry of disloyalty against an Opposition simply meant the sweets of patronage and the beauty of place. He regretted to find the member for Cumberland (Dr. Tupper), bringing a charge of Fenianism and Annexation against those who had opposed him and his friends. The only attempt which had been made to prove the existence of a body of Fenians in any part of the Dominion was by the member for West Montreal (Mr. McGee), but the attempt of that honourable gentleman to cast an imputation on the loyalty of the people of Montreal had most signally failed. Mr. Mackenzie then referred to the appearance of the Premier of Ontario in his (Mr. Mackenzie’s) constituency. It was somewhat remarkable that his honourable friend should have considered it consistent with his party proclivities and past associations to have made such efforts to secure his (Mr. Mackenzie’s) defeat, and it was all the more remarkable, because, during this crusade, he still claimed to be a Reformer. Indeed, he told the people of Lambton that he had taken the member for London (Mr. Carling) and the member for East Toronto in the Local Legislature (Mr. M. C. Cameron), into his Cabinet, not as Tories, but as apprentices to learn the Reform business, and declared that if they did not learn it very quickly he would kick them out of his Cabinet. Mr. Mackenzie went on to express his fears that the existing Administrators were disposed to curtail, if they could, the powers of the Local Government, the maintenance of which he thought was essential to the success of the political experiment on which we had entered. He went on to express his dissent from the tone assumed by the member for Hants with reference to the ability of Canada to defend herself. In the war of 1812 we were able not only to maintain our own ground but to carry offensive operations into the enemy’s country. The population of the United States at that time was something under eight millions, while that of Canada was under four hundred thousand. Now the population of the U.S. was thirty millions, while that of the British Provinces was four millions, so that relatively we were stronger now as a people than we were in 1812. He (Mr. Mackenzie) would not consent to form part of a people that lived by sufferance. He preferred belonging to a people that could assert its own power and nationality—(Cheers)—and what- ever may be our future position, in the meantime we had the power of the British empire at our back. And though it might be true that the maintenance of these Colonies was, in one sense, a source of weakness to the Imperial authority, it was also a source of power in another sense. Every student of history knew that the fall of the Roman empire dated from the time at which it withdrew its arms from its distant possessions and left its Colonies to shift for themselves. He believed we had territory enough to build up a great nationality in connection with the British Empire. At the same time, he deeply regretted that there had been so much in the tone of a certain class of our public journals and our public men to give rise to an ill-feeling towards us in the United States. He was surprised to find no reference in the Speech to any attempt to obtain reciprocity of trade with the United States. He could scarcely have thought it possible that an Administration could have been in power four or five months without taking some steps to secure a free exchange of our products with the neighbouring country. He regretted also the omission of any reference to the necessity of taking steps for the protection of our shipping. He alluded to the hardships to which our shipping on the Western lakes was subjected under existing American regulations, and said it was a matter which deserved the very serious attention of the Minister of Marine. He proceeded to refer to the resignation of the Minister of Finance. He believed that gentleman had resigned because he knew that the deep feeling of dissatisfaction which prevailed through the Western Province, would soon find expression in this House, even from gentlemen on his own side. The member for Lennox (Mr. Cartwright), had stated that he had been unable to trace any connection between the policy of the late Finance Minister, and the failure of the Commercial Bank. Perhaps the directors of a bank were not the best parties to appeal to in order to assert the reasons of failure on their part, but he knew this, that when the honourable gentleman was passing the bank act of last session, he was warned of its consequences, and the member for Lennox himself pointed out that by giving so much power to one Bank (Montreal) its effect would be to weaken all the others. Very soon after the passage of the act, the Bank of Upper Canada succumbed under the blow, causing a loss to the people who held its bills, in his own constituency of as much as seventy or eighty thousand dollars. Then came the recent failure of the Commercial Bank. The honourable gentleman’s bank of issue scheme would be judged in the light of these events, and not of the fine spun theories with which it was

[Page 37]

introduced to the House, and which had failed to be realized. The member for Lennox congratulated the House the other night that the speech indicated that ministers contemplated giving some protection to native industry. He (Mr. Mackenzie) had not observed in the speech any such reference, and he believed that at this stage in our history it would be an exceedingly imprudent and wrong thing to introduce a protective tariff. It was true that last session we had taken ground against the removal of certain duties, but he did so simply because of the unfairness of such a course towards certain branches of trade which had been built up under the protective tariff of a few years before. He went on to say he would judge of the measures which emanated from the administration on their merits, although he must confess the mere introduction into the cabinet of the gentleman who had formerly acted with him, gave him no guarantee that these measures would be such as would command his confidence. He then contended that the list of measures promised in the speech did not bear out the argument made use of during the election that a Coalition was necessary to provide the machinery for fairly working Confederation. He considered there was no measure alluded to in the speech which required the existence of a Coalition to frame or carry. Having referred to some other points which had arisen in the course of the debate, Mr. Mackenzie concluded with an expression of the hope that the deliberations of this Legislature, whatever their effects on party politics, would result in building up this nationality, and that they might be able to adopt such measures as would promote the interests of the people of all portions of the Dominion. (Cheers).

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke], in reply to the remark of Mr. Mackenzie, said the people of Ontario had shown in their vote at the last election that they did not agree with the sentiments of that gentleman and they approved of the policy of the Government of which he (Mr. Galt) was a member. The failure of the Bank of Upper Canada could not be attributed to the passing of the currency act, as that Bank failed before the currency act came into effect. (Hear, hear). With regard to the Commercial Bank they had the statement of the President of that Bank, to the effect that its circulation was greater at the time of its failure than when the currency act was passed. He could not accuse him of effecting in any degree the failure of the Commercial Bank, and had no doubt when the facts became known, it would be seen that he who had been represented as opposed to Upper Canada interests, and as sustaining Montreal interests, was as true to Upper Canada as any other member of the Government. He trusted the people of Nova Scotia would be treated in a conciliatory spirit and they would find nothing to complain of in the treatment received from the Government. He felt satisfied that means could be adopted to develop the resources of that portion of the Dominion as well as other portions, and trusted that the able men representing Nova Scotia, in this Parliament, would give their assistance in making the Union successful.

Charles Tupper [Cumberland], in reply to Mr. Howe’s speech, while admitting that the Union party in his Province had been handsomely beaten, said that the Union question, pure and simple, was not the issue at the election; but that a number of local questions had been mixed up in the contest. Before the election; a new representation and franchise bill had passed the Legislature. Had it not been for these acts, his friend, the Provincial Secretary, would have been elected, as he had a majority of those who had voted on previous occasions. At the election before the last, he was in a majority. At the last election, if the franchise had remained the same, he would have received a majority of between 200 and 300. He had received the support of men who had formerly been among his most influential opponents, simply because he supported Confederation. In Halifax, the commercial and political metropolis of the Province, a majority were in favour of Union. In Pictou, also, as it existed prior to the passage of the Representation Bill, a majority voted for the Union. In other places, too, the defeat of his friends was caused solely on account of the unpopularity of the Government on local questions. He had no reason to apprehend that there would be any bitter hostile sentiments prevailing among any large mass of the people with reference to union. The honourable gentleman then referred to Mr. Howe’s former advocacy of union, and quoted passages at length from that gentleman’s speeches. No man, he declared, had done more to educate people in the Lower Provinces in union principles than Mr. Howe.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke] rose to reply to the statement that he had at last given way before the widespread discontent on account of the financial policy of the Government. The people of Ontario had given proof of their confi-

[Page 38]

dence in the policy of both the late and present Governments, of which he had been a member, by giving them their support, and so far as the Banks are concerned the last election had given conclusive proof that there was no feeling then against the Government on their account. With respect to the Bank failure, it was a fact that the Bank of Upper Canada had gone down before the Currency Act came in question. With regard to the Commercial Bank we had the statement of its President that its currency, the only thing affected by the Government policy was actually larger when it failed than when the Act came into force. We had also evidence no less positive that the Bank had locked up nearly half its capital in one speculation; that other investments of a character not immediately convertible had reduced its means, but these transactions had nothing at all to do with the policy of the Government. It might also be acknowledged that the suspension of a large commercial house in Hamilton, the head of which was known and respected by all (hear, hear), who, as a politician, and a merchant, was one of the landmarks of his country, and for whose misfortune they all felt a great deal of sympathy (hear, hear), had contributed to shake the confidence of depositors in the Commercial Bank, because it was generally understood that the house in question had had large transactions with the Bank. With respect to the establishment of an agency of the Bank of Montreal in the Lower Provinces, it was perfectly true that this had been done, but to say that this had interfered in any way with the currency of the Province was utter nonsense. The Bank of Montreal did the Government business in the greater part of the Dominion, and it was natural that they should extend an agency of that institution, to do the public business in the Maritime Provinces. The Government made its disbursements in these provinces with drafts on the agency of the Bank of Montreal, payable in gold, or the equivalent of gold, and the money paid out had exceeded the amount received. The policy of the Government had been equally just to all parts of the Dominion; it had not operated to the injury of Ontario, nor would it prove injurious to the interests of the Maritime Provinces (hear, hear).

A conversation here took place between the late Finance Minister and the member for Hamilton in reference to the opinion of Ontario.

Charles Tupper [Cumberland] said it would not be respectful to his friends opposite if he did not say a few words in reference to the position which they assumed, that Nova Scotia was really opposed to Confederation. He had stated that his opponents had not polled half the votes of the Province, and that remained uncontradicted. He (Dr. T.) had stated that his honourable friend had done more to educate the people of B.N.A. up to Union than any other. His honourable friend knew that the sentiment of Union had always been favoured by the public sentiment of Nova Scotia. The Union party had been thoroughly beaten, but they would have been beaten had that question had no existence. His honourable friend had not come forward to oppose the measure at its inception, but only when his position as an officer of the British Government was lost. The attitude of Halifax, the metropolitan city, containing the wealth and influence, was used to send broadcast the warning that if Confederation was carried, the usury laws would be swept away, and every borrower would suffer. His friend opposite had held up Canada and Canadians to the execration of Nova Scotians. He was sorry to find that the spectacle of 100,000 men in arms in the United States had completely changed the patriotic sentiments of his honourable friend. The movement in Nova Scotia, against Union was not spontaneous, but was manufactured in Halifax. He (Dr. T.) was prepared to prove that the late change of the franchise disfranchised 1,000 voters, two-thirds of whom were his own, and still he was returned; many of his political opponents coming to his aid for the purpose of carrying Union. He deprecated the manner in which local affairs had been introduced into this House by the honourable member of Hants. The learned gentleman instanced the manner in which the uniformity of a postal system would be a great benefit to Nova Scotians, as well as Canadians. He regretted the absence of the Secretary for the Provinces, and went on to describe the manner in which constituencies were carried against Union by small majorities, and showed that a reaction had already been begun. His honourable friend had stated last night that he had never advocated a political move with Canada, but he (Dr. T.) would read extracts from the honourable gentleman’s own paper, edited by himself, which thoroughly disproved the position taken by the honourable gentleman. If the sentiments he had read were not those of his honourable friend, he had certainly been most remiss in repudiating them. They were the outline of the present Constitution, and from 1838 until very recently the member for Hants had not disclaimed his responsibility

[Page 39]

for recommending it. The honourable gentleman in 1849 had again made recommendations that did great credit to his sagacity, seeing that they had been taken up and now formed the Constitution of the Dominion. His speech then would remain when the honourable gentleman was gone. He did not object to a statesman changing his opinions, but he should give a clear and concise reason for such change, which his honourable friend had utterly failed to do. When that gentleman had said that next to representation in the Imperial Parliament a Federal Union was best, and nothing had been done towards securing the former, we were fairly entitled to ask the honourable gentleman to come forward, and assist in working out the system which he had himself recommended. Had the honourable gentleman merely advised the change, and a disturbance of the old Constitution, from a whim? A number of further extracts from speeches and letters were quoted, showing the inconsistency of the honourable member for Hants, and the speaker said that it was a poor compliment to the intelligence of the House, to suppose that they could not see insincerity in his former position, and that which he now occupied. The speaker paid a high compliment to the Hon. Mr. McGee for his efforts in promoting Confederation, and at one time in moving thanks to that honourable gentleman. The member for Hants said he was in favour of the Intercolonial railroad first, which would bring Union and make Nova Scotia the frontage of a mighty nation, and yet he now endeavoured to show that the strength of Nova Scotia was in isolation. When he (Dr. T.) advocated a union of the Maritime Provinces, he at the same time advocated the union of British North America. A resolution was passed in the Legislature of Nova Scotia in favour of the smaller union, which would have been even a greater change of the constitution of that Province than the present; and yet it was never proposed that that question should be submitted to the people, but should become law as soon as it passed the Provincial Legislatures and received the Royal sanction.

It being six o’clock the learned gentleman said he would like to finish his reply while the honourable member for Hants was present, as he understood he would not be in the House in the evening, but he would not infringe upon a rule of the House.

The Speaker then left the Chair.