Document Information

Date: 1868-03-23
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, Senate Debates, 1st Parl, 1st Sess, 1868 at 129-37.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

THE SENATE

—–o0o—–

Monday, March 23, 1868.

The Speaker took the chair at three o’clock.

After routine,

Hon. Mr. Dever was introduced by the Hon. Mr. Mitchell, and having duly qualified himself according to law, took his seat.

Hon. Mr. Sanborn presented a number of petitions, praying that the line for the Intercolonial Railway surveyed by Major Robinson be adopted.

Hon. Mr. Miller moved “that an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, praying that His Excellency will be pleased to cause to be laid before the Senate copies of the Annual Report of the Stipendiary Magistrate in charge of the Government schooner for the protection of the Fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; also for copies of any report made under the direction of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on the Fisheries of the Dominion, together with copies of any special reports made under the same direction on the subject of the failure of the Fisheries and the distress existing among the fishermen of Nova Scotia and parts of the coast of Labrador.”

Hon. Mr. Aikins would like to know whether those papers would be laid before the House by orders from the Department of Marine and Fisheries.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell said if it required to be done by his own Department he would have it done, but since his hon. friend made the motion and as those reports were very voluminous, and members would be glad to obtain information before the Fishery Bill was brought in, he would suggest that his hon. friend had better add to his motion that the papers be printed.

Hon. Mr. Bourinot asked whether it would not involve the expense of printing the papers now, and again in the report of the Department.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell said if the printing came in the ordinary course he would submit simply the report of the Department, but seeing the information asked for is more extensive than is given in the Report, and as there was an important question coming up, he would at once assent to it, and have it done by his Department, but if his hon. friend’s motion was sustained to have it done by the House he would equally agree with it.

Hon. Mr. Miller thought if the motion was allowed to pass 500 copies of these reports should be printed for the use of the members.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell observed that as head of a Department he might not consider he was justified in charging his Department for those special reports on those subjects. Some hon. member from Ontario may not appreciate the publication of these Reports with reference to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, although they are important from a Lower Province stand point. He did not think it necessary for the duties of his Department to publish them, but if the House desired it, he believed it would be a judicious expenditure for the interests of the public service to have them printed by the House.

Hon. Mr. McCully was not disposed to sanction the principle that the returns as a matter of necessity should be printed at the expense of the House, unless there was a great necessity, or one out of the ordinary course. The printing of a Department ought to be borne by that Department, so that the community would understand what are the expenses of the Legislature, and what are the expenses of the Government. At the early part of the previous session he had moved for returns from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but he had not yet seen those returns. Some of those returns would be very necessary before the subject is discussed, as he had understood him to say then, that it would be at an early period of the session.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell—What returns do you refer to?

Hon. Mr. McCully said he referred to returns of the harbours and ports of the Dominion, and the expenses connected with them.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell said it would be extremely difficult to get the information; indeed, he doubted whether it could be got at all.

Hon. Mr. McCully replied that this information ought to be got, and he felt certain it would be very gratifying to have those reports, if they could be obtained without any large amount of expense. They should have all the information which could be obtained.

Hon. Mr. Tessier doubted if it was addressing His Excellency with that courtesy with

[Page 130]

which he should be addressed, if before the return to the Address was made, the return was ordered to be printed. To adopt this suggestion to order the papers to be printed would be against the rules of the House, and would establish a precedent which would not result in the economy desired.

Hon. Mr. Simpson said that according to the contract made by the Committee on Printing, they must employ the contractors to do the printing. To do otherwise would be to overrule the action of the Committee and establish a bad precedent, and place them in an awkward position.

The motion was then carried.

Hon. Mr. Sanborn asked whether it was the intention of the Government to propose during the present session, a law for patents for inventions, involving the principle of reciprocity with all nations.

Hon. Mr. Chapais replied that it was the intention of the Government to do so.

Hon. Mr. Wilmot moved that an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, praying that His Excellency will be pleased to cause to be laid before the Senate, copies of any correspondence between the Local Governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, or of any individuals or associations of individuals in those Provinces, with the Government of Canada, or any Heads of Departments, complaining of losses or grievances consequent upon the operation of any of the Acts passed by the Parliament of Canada during the early part of this Session, relative to customs, tariff, excise and banking, or relative to the policy of the Government, affecting the interests of those Provinces.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell said he would give an answer tomorrow, if the matter was allowed to stand over.

Hon. Mr. Wilmot said some of the hon. gentlemen would recollect that the Government had passed some of their most important measures at the close of the first part of the Session, when there were but two members from New Brunswick present—Mr. Wark and himself. (Mr. Mitchell—I was here). He took it for granted that the members of the Executive would be here. He then expressed his opinion in regard to the effect those measures would have on the people of New Brunswick. He regretted that upon the first commencement of this Confederation, he had not been able to go back to New Brunswick and congratulate the people upon the advantages which they had gained by Confederation, instead of having to say the prognostications of its enemies had been fulfilled. Ever since he had been in public life, he had always been in favor of union of British North America. He had always been opposed to the terms of the Quebec Scheme, and one of his principal objections was, that the allowance of eighty cents per head on the population to the Local Governments, was not a fair arrangement. He went upon the principle that a large community can be governed at a much less expense than a smaller community. The cost of making our roads and bridges is much greater than in Ontario, which is more densely populated, and which now has a considerable surplus over and above their wants. New Brunswick, as a commercial and maritime Province, pays a larger amount per capita, as custom dues, than an agricultural population. If the importations into the Province of New Brunswick were the same under the tariff passed last summer, as they were in 1866, New Brunswick would have to pay this year $463,933 more than she did then. This fully proves that a maritime commercial population pay a larger amount of custom duties than an agricultural people. This Senate, under the Act of Union, was supposed to be the guardian of the interests of minorities, as Ontario, with its large population, and the Maritime Provinces with only 500,000 have an equal representation in this body. Have the interests of the minority been regarded? Measures of importance which the members from the Maritime Provinces had almost unanimously voted against in the House of Commons, were deferred to the last moment, when nearly all the members from the Maritime Provinces had left, before being passed into this House. He had remained to the last to record his vote against those measures, so prejudicial to the interests of New Brunswick. If the people’s representatives were not to be consulted, and we were merely to be considered as annexed to Canada; then he would protest against this confederation. (A member—It is too late.) Whether it was too late or not, that was not the feeling that should be displayed by the Government. He believed the interests of the British North American Provinces were one, and though these might be varied, he could see no reasons for their clashing if any statesmanship existed. He thought his hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell) in leaving such measures as the tariff, bank regulations, stamp act, &c. till the

[Page 131]

last of the Session, and not allowing them to stand over until after the adjournment, must have lost his head, or been advised by the spirit of evil. He had a right to complain, as he had helped to carry Confederation, which was carried in New Brunswick by the coalition of two parties. His hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell) belonged to a party he had never acted with, but he was prepared to give him his support, because he came here to support the Government, and so did every member in the House, who came from New Brunswick; yet they were compelled to record their votes against the Government in consequence of their measures. Though he had supported the Government, he had never asked anything from them, except that they should fill up the vacancies in the Senate, occasioned by the resignation of the Hon. Mr. Chandler, and the Hon. Mr. Todd, with representatives from both parties. He said if such bills as the excise bill were to be put through the Senate, merely by their titles, without any consideration being given them, then Confederation was a failure. As he passed through St. John, on his way here, gentlemen with great influence, both anti-confederates and confederates told him to take action and assist Nova Scotia in getting this Confederation Act repealed. He was as strong a believer in Union as he had been, but if the same policy with which this Union has been commenced, is to be carried out, he would hold up both hands to get out of it as soon as possible, and he believed four-fifths or nine-tenths of the people of New Brunswick would do so too. With regard to the tax of one per cent on the circulation of the banks: he was not in favour of taxing the borrowing banks when the public revenue is not to be benefitted by it. So far as our public wants were concerned the Government never paid more than six per cent, for any money they required. He saw in the return in answer to the motion of the Hon. Mr. Connell in the House of Commons, for a statement of the amount of taxes received on the circulation of the banking institutions in Ontario and Quebec, that the amount was $16,018.71, and the one per cent. additional charged to borrowers, $542,729. If this same proportion is paid in New Brunswick, it shows that the bill was not for the benefit of the public interest, but for the interest of the capitalist. With regard to the excise bill, he had told his hon. friend the Minister of Customs that it would have the effect of closing up a number of manufactories in St. John, and it has had the effect of closing the tobacco, cigar and vinegar manufactories. Then again the duties have been reduced on foreign alcohol, while an excise duty has been put upon our own breweries. If there was any policy in these measures, it is for the benefit of the rich, and for the encouragement of monopolies, and the discouragement of productive labor at home. Whether this policy was suitable to Ontario and Quebec, they could judge for themselves; but so far as the Province of New Brunswick was concerned, he was satisfied that eighteen out of twenty men would vote against it. It had been represented that the alterations in the tariff of 1866 were for the interest of the Maritime Provinces. He could say, that taking the duties off the superfluities, and putting them on the necessaries of life, was adverse to the views of the people of New Brunswick, and he believed of the people of Nova Scotia, toward whom, if a conciliatory policy had been pursued, they would be prepared to submit to the Union.

Hon. Mr. Locke—They were determined to be opposed from the beginning.

Hon. Mr. Wilmot—Whether they were right or wrong, the effect of those measures was to intensify the feeling of the opposition in Nova Scotia.

Hon. Mr. Locke—The feeling was so great it could not be made any stronger.

Hon. Mr. Wilmot said it would be best to have the returns asked for, even if it cost a large sum of money to get the required information, as he felt convinced that the members of the House of Commons now were willing to take such a course as would meet the just demands of the people of the Maritime Provinces. He complained that the representatives from New Brunswick, although they endeavoured to aid and support the Government, and to do everything to make Confederation a success, were never consulted in any measure the Government intended to bring forward. He thought from his experience in the affairs, and Legislature of New Brunswick, that they might have asked his opinion in regard to the tariff, then when he went back to New Brunswick he could have justified what had been done. His hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell) may think there is a different state of feeling in New Brunswick, but he (Mr. Wilmot) had expressed his own judgment, which was the result of conversations had with leading men throughout the Province.

Hon. Mr. Wier said he thought it was the intention of the Government to make amends

[Page 132]

to the Maritime Provinces in some way or other although he considered no great injury had been done. Having committed certain errors, they should have time given them to rectify those errors. With reference to the feeling in the Maritime Provinces concerning Confederation, it reminded him of an Indian who was persuaded to plant potatoes and sow wheat, with the expectation of receiving great returns. Unfortunately he commenced to dig up his potatoes in three weeks after they had been planted, because he had not the patience to wait until his crop became ripe. This is the way some of the friends of Confederation act. His hon. friend, (Mr. Wilmot), instead of attempting to remedy the errors committed, goes against Confederation.

Hon. Mr. Wilmot explained that he did not say he was against Confederation, but he said Confederation would be a failure if a certain policy was pursued.

Hon. Mr. Wier said there was a certain class in Nova Scotia who are against any connection at all with Canada. His hon. friend was wrong in saying the feelings of the people of Nova Scotia would be intensified by the doings of the Government. He had every confidence in the Government and in the people of Ontario and Quebec, that they would do justice to all parts of the Dominion. He did not think it was proper, whatever our feelings may be, to run down the administration for committing acts, which they have every disposition to make right as soon as the information they require is obtained. He thought there was some force in the remark that the Government should have consulted the representatives of the people in regard to their measures, but he would make all possible allowance for their not listening to every communication, when they had so much business to do. With reference to this motion for correspondence, it takes an enormously wide range, requiring not only all communications of the different Legislatures of the Provinces, both public and private, but the correspondence of individuals. All that was asked for could not be supplied under two months, and then after it was obtained what would it amount to? The motion speaks of losses sustained by the operation of these Acts: he knew of persons, especially those engaged in the wine trade, who had made a great deal of money in consequence of the provisions of the new tariff, and he would ask whether it was intended they should disgorge it. He could not see that any practical good would follow if the papers were brought down.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell said his hon. friend (Mr. Wilmot) had thought fit to ask of this House, that the Government should be directed to furnish certain information contained in this notice to lay on the table of this House, and in the course of his remarks in reply to a casual observation made by me, he said the Government would not afford the information desired. The Government are prepared to give every information this House may desire. If the House desire the information asked for in this notice, it shall be given by the Government, as they are quite prepared to give it. The only objection the Government can have is, first, the expense which will be incurred, and next in regard to the policy of the Government. The expense involved would be very serious, as it would take a number of clerks four months to get this information, nine-tenths of which when got would be of no use to the country. He would suggest to his hon. friend to put his motion in a more concise shape, so that the information sought would be that which would subserve the public interest, or afford him the means to determine whether the Government had fallen into errors. If he would put it in that shape, the Government would at once assent to it. He had suggested that course to him, but his hon. friend had insisted upon having the “pound of flesh”. In reference to the first portion of that address down to the words “policy of the Government,” the Government can have no motive in refusing. They would only ask the House to hesitate on account of the expense, and the time taken up, the extent of which he could not realise. Did any of the hon. members consider the extent of this correspondence, in connection with one or the other of those branches referred to? If it was official correspondence alone, he would have no objection to it, but it includes the correspondence of every tobacco manufacturer, importer of dry goods, tailor, shoemaker and every individual, comprising this Dominion, with the Heads of Departments since the passage of these Acts. He would like to ask his hon. friend before he presses the matter, whether the object he has in view, and the necessity of obtaining these documents, is of such great importance as to justify the enormous cost of obtaining this information. If his hon. friend would point out any specific correspondence, despatch, or communication, to which he has reference, which can be got here in three weeks, the Government would be prepared to submit it; but to submit the whole would involve an enormous amount of copying, as it

[Page 133]

would include the copying of every letter received by every Head of a Department. This correspondence would only have the individual weight of the writer, and would not be considered by the country to warrant the expense incurred. If the Government did not call the attention of the House to this, they would fail in their duty. In reference to the latter portion of the Address concerning the policy of the Government affecting the interests of those Provinces, he would ask whether the Government would be justified, while their policy is undetermined, and their course is not announced, in giving correspondence on their policy before they have arrived at a conclusion as to what that policy shall be. It is unparliamentary to ask the Government to give that correspondence, before their policy is announced which is based upon it, and the Government cannot in justice to themselves, or to the interests of the country, lay upon the table of this House a correspondence upon a policy not yet settled upon by them. His hon. friend had referred to the policy of the Government during the first part of the Session, and from his mode of attacking the Government he intends to elicit an opinion from the House, as to whether they have confidence in the Administration or not.

Hon. Mr. Wilmot—That was not my intention.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell was glad his hon. friend disavowed that intention. He had asked whether or not it was judicious, politic, or for the interest of New Brunswick, to have submitted a measure which enabled the Banks of New Brunswick to charge their customers one per cent extra. He said this tax realized but a small sum to the country while it was a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the customers of the Banks. He would call the attention of his hon. friend to the fact that the issue of one per cent stamp tax, and the charge of one per cent additional to the customers of the Banks were two distinct questions which did not affect each other, or affected each other only in an infinitessimal degree. Because the Legislature of the Dominion in the interests of the Dominion, assimilated the stamp tax which existed in Ontario and Quebec to the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and because the banks there now pay one per cent upon their issue, is it to be inferred that this necessarily involves the charge of one per cent more by the local banks, or as discount to their customers. It does not involve these consequences. One does not necessarily follow the other, because they charge one per cent more than they have been in the habit of charging before. No man knew better than his hon. friend (Mr. Wilmot) that in the Maritime Provinces the banking interests do not meet the requirements of the community. These institutions were under the control of Anti-Unionists, and they opposed Union because it was going to make them pay what they had a duty to pay, a tax upon their issues. It is because they are still opposed to it, that they endeavor to excite animosities through the length and breadth of the Provinces. They are responsible for the ill-feeling which has been aroused.

Hon. Mr. Hazen—I deny it.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell—He may deny it; but he would leave it to his hon. friend to say if he was not right in saying those banks were universally controlled by Anti-Confederates. Why should they now charge seven per cent instead of six? (Hon. Mr. Wilmot—they had not the power to charge seven per cent before.) His hon. friend had always advocated free trade in money, free trade in interest. He said it was necessary to abolish to some extent the limitation of interest, so that capital would be introduced into the Province. That was now taken advantage of by his hon. friend to make a charge against the Government, as one of the sins of which they had been guilty. If we permit the banks to get market values for their money it prevents the money of capitalists from passing our shores and being invested in New York and other places at a higher rate of interest. Has he not been for years endeavouring to convince us that it was for the benefit of the Province, not to limit the rate of interest, and now forsooth, when we remove a portion of that limitation he makes it a charge against the Government! In reference to the Excise Duties, his hon. friend said the Government had failed to meet the just expectations of the people of the Maritime Provinces. He complained that he was not consulted in regard to the measure, and that he (Mr. Mitchell) had promised to let him know before that bill was introduced. It may be the case that he had promised to let him know, but he knew already, and everybody knew, that the bill was going to be introduced. We may not have consulted him about the policy of the bill, but his hon. friend could not fail to perceive that it would be impolitic, very criminal for him having as a Privy Councillor taken the oath of secrecy, to mention the policy of his colleagues until that policy had been announced. Did not his hon.

[Page 134]

friend know that hundreds of applications were made to get information in advance in reference to the Customs and Excise Bills. It would have been unfair for him to have given information to any one in regard to them. If his hon. friend had got this information in advance he was not bound to conceal it, as he had taken no oath of secrecy. He might have communicated it to his friends, and fortunes might have been made in consequence of the information given regarding that bill. Therefore it is an unfair charge to bring against the Government that they failed to consult him concerning their policy. His hon. friend had said, he (Mr. Mitchell) must have lost his head. He referred, no doubt, to when we acted together, and he could bear testimony to the important part taken by his hon. friend in bringing about a Union of the Provinces, but he regretted very much the course his hon. friend had recently taken, which made him doubt the extent of the benefits his advocacy of Confederation has been to the cause. When a man has been opposed to Confederation as was his hon. friend Mr. Hazen, and has talked about the evils that would result from a Union of the Provinces, people would have said of him as they say of his hon. friend, “it is only Mr. Hazen, he has always been against Confederation, nobody minds him”. But if he has been in favour of Union, when he joins in with those who have opposed it, and says Ontario is overriding the interests of the Maritime Provinces.

Hon. Mr. Wilmot—I beg leave to deny that I said the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec were overruling the interests of the Maritime Provinces.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell said his hon. friend would notice that he did not say his hon. friend, but he had only put a supposition’s case. He would accept his explanation. When he stands up here and assails the Administration, and charges them with pursuing a policy adverse to the interests of the Maritime Provinces—

Hon. Mr. Wilmot—I said I thought the policy of the Government was adverse to the interest of the whole Dominion.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell said his hon. friend had been a friend of Union, and been responsible for bringing it about, and now before they had an opportunity of testing it, he had attacked it, thus doing more damage to the cause than the attacks of a dozen men who had always opposed it. He says the Government acted unwisely in passing such a Customs Bill as they did. What did he expect? Could the administration justify themselves in the public opinion of Ontario and Quebec if they allowed 25 per cent to be paid on certain articles, and 10 per cent to be paid on the same articles in the Maritime Provinces? Does he think they should not pay their share of the Excise Duties. His hon. friend charged the Government with not taking the advice of their friends. Was the advice which they wished the Government to adopt, to defer the imposition of the Excise, Postage, and Stamp Bills until this present Session? (Hon. Mr. Wilmot—Yes.) He would ask if the Government was wrong in extending the Excise Bill, the Custom Duties, the Bank Tax, and the Post Office Bill to the whole Dominion? If the Government had not brought down these measures, what position would they have been in as regards Ontario and Quebec? The people of those Provinces would say to them, are we to pay those Excise Duties into the general revenue, while New Brunswick and Nova Scotia go on manufacturing tobacco and alcohol, and bring it in here free? This policy would be indefensible on the part of the Government. His next ground of complaint is, that those taxes apply unfairly to the Maritime Provinces, as they consume imported articles more extensively than the people of Canada, which was more of an agricultural country than New Brunswick. He was not going to dispute that; he was not going to defend every act of the administration of which he was a member (laughter); don’t jump before you come to the stile. He might as a matter of policy, or as a matter of necessity, (hear, hear,) be cautious and wait until the sentence is finished. Very often measures have to be adopted as measures of policy. (A member “Right or wrong.”) We found it would not do to abolish postage upon newspapers simply for the benefit of New Brunswick which has to pay but one-thirteenth part of the tax. There has been a great, deal of odium attached to the Government on account of the passage of that Act. He was glad his hon. friend had brought the subject up for discussion, as there was a great deal of false thinking in the Maritime Provinces about it. He says we were wrong in bringing in that measure when we did, as we should have waited until this present part of the Session. This should be considered from a New Brunswick standpoint as well as a Dominion standpoint. If the Government had not brought in their measure, we would not have had the expression of public opinion upon them. In justice to

[Page 135]

Ontario and Quebec, the Government had either to relieve them of this tax, or impose a similar tax upon New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Then he would ask his hon. friend, if he would be prepared to advise the Government to relieve Ontario and Quebec of the postage on newspapers. It is true, we like to get our newspapers free, but that involves a charge upon the public treasury for carrying those newspapers. It is right, we should pay our portion of the expense involved in this carriage. He considered it just as right and fair to impose a tax upon newspapers, as to impose any other tax which is to go into the general revenue. The same principles apply to the Excise and Customs bills. The introduction of those Bills has elicited an expression of opinion throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion, especially in the Maritime Provinces, and has brought forth information which this House will see the benefit of. It is with a view of getting that information his hon. friend had put his motion on the table. If he had confined his motion to the production of the papers of Boards of Trade, public meetings of merchants, Chambers of Commerce, &c., they could have been given without any very great expense. When the Government introduced this tariff bill, it was with the distinct understanding that it was a temporary measure to assimilate the tariffs of the Dominion. If the Government introduced any measure, and there were good grounds for opposition to it, they would be liable to severe censure, having this information before them which has been given by Boards of Trade, &c. His hon. friend said many influential men expressed to him the wish that if this tariff continued, they would like to see Nova Scotia secede and New Brunswick get clear, too. He had no doubt, but some men said that, for there was not a time since the Union commenced that his hon. friend could not have found men, and influential men too, who did all they could against Union, and would like to see it repealed. These duties were imposed at a time when trade was dull, therefore, we should not be surprised that there should be some dissatisfaction expressed, but he had yet to learn that the sentiments of the people of New Brunswick were anything but in favour of Union. He could speak for a portion of the country, for he knew something about the Northern part of the province; he had not heard one disunion sentiment there. They have accepted the Union, and are willing to carry it out. He would say to his hon. friend that the Government intended to submit a measure, which though it might not suit him (Mr. Wilmot) it would do something to give satisfaction in the Maritime Provinces, and show the people of those sections that the statesmen of Ontario and Quebec are doing what they can for the interests of the whole Dominion, and especially for the interests of the Maritime Provinces. He thought his hon. friend was judicious in not making this a test question. He presumed he wanted information given by Boards of Trade, &c., concerning public matters, questions of trade, &c. If he would so shape his resolution as to comprise those subjects and those communications, the Government would be quite willing to give him that information, but he would warn them that the motion in its present shape would involve a large amount of expense, and much valuable time in getting this information for the House.

Hon. Mr. Ross thought it would be very desirable to have the discussion postponed, in order that the hon. members of the Senate, who wished to do so, might take part in it. He would move that the debate be postponed until next Thursday, so that the members of the Government might all be present, as the discussion was of the utmost importance. Members would then be prepared to speak upon the subject, and much information might be derived from them.

Hon. Mr. Hazen said that it could not be a matter of much interest for the House to know that he had always opposed Confederation. He had stated in his place in the Legislative Council of New Brunswick, that the question of Confederation was a question for the people to decide, and the moment the people of New Brunswick accepted Union, his opposition was at an end. His hon. friend (Mr. Mitchell) was wrong in saying he was still opposed to Confederation. He never said a word in opposition to Confederation after it was accepted in New Brunswick. There is now in St. John a great feeling against Confederation, and this feeling has arisen from Confederation itself. The people who most favoured Confederation are now the people who most oppose it. The people accepted Union because they were misled and deceived by their leaders. He would not say they were wilfully misled, but if any one would take up the speeches made in 1865 and in 1866 in favour of Confederation, he would see that they were calculated to mislead the

[Page 136]

people. These speeches were then called unanswerable, but now they are read with astonishment. The people now turn on the Privy Council and blame them. This he thought was an unreasonable course. They complain now of the tariff, excise duties, &c.; did any man suppose New Brunswick would be exempt from them? He had pointed out over and over again that if they joined the Union the Stamp Act, and all these other duties, would be imposed upon New Brunswick, but the people were told that they would have men in the Government who would not allow these taxes to be imposed upon them. Now they have been imposed they should blame those men who led them into Confederation, and not the Government of the Dominion. In regard to the bankers, they have a right to their opinions; there were many men connected with the banks who opposed Confederation, and who oppose it yet. They now put seven per cent. on their money, which has to be paid by the borrower; for this the people turn round and blame the Dominion Government. The people of New Brunswick were led to believe they had nothing to do but to come to Canada, that great country, and share in all the blessings promised them, and make a great deal of money out of it. They were told that nine million dollars would be spent in the Province on a railway running from St. John to Riviere du Loup, the moment Confederation took place. The people in every county were told the Intercolonial Railway would run through their county, and they were induced to believe they would have such a representative in the Government that the tariff would be made in accordance with the wishes of the 250,000 people of New Brunswick. When in St. John he had been requested to join an anti-Confederate meeting; he went, and he told the people that as they had Confederation now they should endeavour to work it out. They say in St. John they will break up Confederation at once. Every person there wants a tariff to suit themselves and their own particular business, and finding they cannot have it they blame the Dominion government.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell could not quite agree with the motion to postpone the debate until Thursday, but as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hazen) had made some remarks he would then reply to him. His hon. friend did not mean to say he had any speeches of his (Mr. Mitchell’s) calculated to mislead the people. He would challenge any man to bring a speech of his here next Thursday, in which he had stated what has not been carried out, or what will not be carried out.

Hon. Mr. Sanborn did not see any reason why the debate should be adjourned. To do so would be to assume that there was a gravity and importance in this question which does not belong to it. The hon. gentleman who made this motion for adjournment implied that our existence as a Confederation was to be discussed.

Hon. Mr. Ross—I said it was a matter of great importance.

Hon. Mr. Sanborn—What is a matter of great importance? The motion is to bring down certain papers which the hon. Minister of Marine has assented to with certain modifications. He has accepted the motion with reference to all contained in it, except in regard to communications from individuals which were not supposed to be official, and the production of which would entail a great expense without our deriving any benefit from them. He stated he was prepared to send down all correspondence from Boards of Trade and commercial associations. They had only to strike out of the motion the words “or of any individuals” and what was left would cover the whole ground.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell said he had objected to the last part of the motion which refers to the policy of the Government. That did not refer to the documents which his hon. friend wanted brought down. He declares he has no intention of conveying any censure upon the future policy of the Government. He wishes to bring up his own views, and to show the effects of the legislation of the first part of the Session upon the Maritime Provinces. He (Mr. Mitchell) could not see why the debate could not now be concluded. It would give the question a degree of weight to which it was not entitled, if they adjourned the debate for three days, in order to be prepared to discuss whether these papers are to be brought down or not.

Hon. Mr. McCully quite agreed with his hon. friend, especially as he was prepared to submit to the House those documents which were the object of the motion. They should wait until they got the papers before they had a discussion upon them. The only question before the Senate to-day was, shall we have those papers or not, and what papers ought we reasonably to ask for? The Minister of Marine has promised to bring them down; shall we then have three days’ delay for the purpose of knowing whether the papers ought to be brought down or not? The subject of Confederation was not before the House, and

[Page 137]

we would have nothing to discuss except whether it would be wise to increase the expense, and wait for certain papers to be produced; and whether it would be politic for us to ask the Government to submit any part of their policy until that policy is in a state to submit to both branches of the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Locke observed that the question of Confederation had been brought up in the debate, and he believed the object of the mover of the motion was, to give us time to understand the facts and figures of the subject.

Hon Mr. Ritchie said that was a reason why we should not bring it up, as it was not a debate we should raise upon this motion. It looked as though the mover had an idea of moving a vote of want of confidence in the Government. It was very unsuitable to have this debate proceeding while the papers are not here. The idea is that something will appear from those papers which will indicate the sentiments that exist in the Maritime Provinces in regard to the measures of the Dominion Government.

Hon. Mr. Allan said his hon. friend from New Brunswick had asked for certain returns. When those returns were brought in, then would be the proper time to discuss them. It was not the proper time now to discuss the subject of Confederation.

Hon. Mr. Miller was decidedly opposed to the motion for adjourning the debate. When the papers which may be brought down, are on the table, then would be the time to discuss any question which may grow out of them.

Hon. Mr. Ross remarked that he was not bound to defend the Government, but he thought it was fair that the members of the Government should be present when a motion of this kind is brought forward. His hon. friend (Mr. Wilmot) had said that every step taken by this Government and this Legislature, had been to exasperate the people of the Maritime Provinces, and to make them stronger in their opposition to the Union. It was vain for gentlemen from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to conceal the fact that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in those Provinces. Both Houses of Parliament should discuss the subject in a fair way, and every means should be taken to remove the cause of dissatisfaction. The country should know what the difficulties are, and the judgment of the people should be appealed to. Having said this much he would withdraw his motion.

The motion for the production of the papers was then agreed to, with certain changes which had been suggested during the debate.

Hon. Mr. Simpson brought up the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Printing. He said the report simply told that they could get 2,500 copies of the debates in English during a session of sixty days, and 800 copies in French, reported and printed, for $12,019. The edition was supposed to contain daily about as much matter as fourteen columns of the Toronto Globe, to be printed in pamphlet form. It is proposed that the debates will be slightly condensed. His impression was that $12,019 will not cover the amount required to complete the work, and that they would not get value for the expense. He was not very anxious to have his speeches reported, but in order that the report may have due consideration, he would move that it be taken into consideration on Thursday next.

The motion was then carried and the House adjourned.