Province of Canada, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North America Provinces, 8th Parl, 3rd Sess, (3 February 1865)

Document Information

Date: 1865-02-03
By: Province of Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Province of Canada, Parliament, Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North America Provinces, 8th Parl, 3rd Sess, 1865 at 13-20.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
Note: All endnotes come from our recent publication, Charles Dumais & Michael Scott (ed.), The Confederation Debates in the Province of Canada (CCF, 2022).

Click here to view the rest of the Confederation Debates.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said the Speaker having desired that he should not go on with the Address about the union of the colonies, he proposed not to take it up till Monday next, but as the matter was one of the utmost importance, he thought it would be well now to settle the mode of conducting the discussion. He would propose that after the discussion commenced, it should continue day after day, and that for the purpose of greater regularity the Speaker should remain in the chair. At the same time he would propose that the rule which prevented members speaking more than one when the Speaker was in the chair should be suspended, in order that every member might have the same liberty of free discussion as he would have in Committee of the Whole.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] said the Attorney General’s [John A. Macdonald] proposition that discussion should continue day after day, was one which, in his opinion, ought not to be entertained by the House. This was a very grave question, and he thought the people of this country had a right to consider maturely the sentiments promulgated by their representatives with regard to it. He was sorry, therefore, to have heard it announced by the Attorney General [John A. Macdonald] that the Government were to hurry the measure through, to the exclusion of all other matters.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said he had not stated this. His idea was that after the debate commenced it should go on each day after half-past seven, leaving the afternoon sitting for other business. If the discussion was to be confined to government days, the debate of Tuesday would be forgotten by Friday, the same arguments would be gone over, and they would sit the whole year round to finish it.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] said other changes of no less importance than this, with reference to Clergy Reserves, Legislative Council, Seigniorial Tenure, &c, had been before the people for a quarter of a century, and fully discussed session after session before being finally disposed of. Public opinion in that way was fully matured on these questions, but here they were called on at a few days’ notice to change entirely the Constitution we lived under, and time was not to be allowed for public opinion to be expressed on it. He objected also to the suspension of the rules of Parliament, so as to make the discussion take

  • (p. 14)

place with the Speaker in the chair, instead of in Committee of the Whole. If there was any question on which the House should adhere to its forms, it was a question like this—when the Government was so strong, so outrageously strong—

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall]—the minority should be protected by the rules of the House being fully maintained. He observed the President of the Council [George Brown] laugh. He had learned a good deal from that gentleman in standing up for the rules of the House. But now, forsooth, the lion and lamb were lying together, and the Government, knowing that they had it in their power, were now to carry the measure through by brute force—the force of the majority.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said there was nothing irregular in his proposing that discussion should go on with the Speaker in the chair. The suspension of the rules he proposed was for the protection of the minority, by allowing each member to speak and state his objections as often as he pleased.

John Cameron [Peel] approved of the proposition that discussion be conducted with the Speaker in the chair. With reference to the other proposition that it should go on from day to day, he suggested that after Attorney General Macdonald [John A. Macdonald] had stated his views at length on Monday, the debate should be adjourned for at least one week, that people in the country might have the views of the Government fully before them, before the debate fairly commenced. After that it might go on day after day.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] said he had not regarded the Attorney General’s [John A. Macdonald] proposition in exactly the same light as the member for Cornwall [John Sandfield Macdonald], but was willing to accept it as indicating a desire on the part of the Government to afford facilities for a full and free discussion. He thought, however, it would be advantageous if, after the general discussion took place with the Speaker in the chair, the House went into Committee of the Whole, to consider the details. He thought three days in the week sufficient for the discussion.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council] said the member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton] had rightly apprehended the object of the Attorney General [John A. Macdonald] when he treated his proposition as dictated by a desire to afford the fullest opportunity of discussing this great question. Nothing could be further from their intention than to hurry the measure through by brute force, as charged by the member for Cornwall [John Sandfield Macdonald]. Although the Attorney General [John A. Macdonald] had proposed that the discussion should continue day after day, he had not suggested for a moment that the whole should be hurried on; the debate at any period might be adjourned, if deemed necessary, to allow time for the expression of public opinion. There were 130 members, and almost every member would desire to speak on the question, and he thought clearly the proper course was to devote every day after half-past seven to the discussion, to allow all the members on both sides to state their views, that they might go to the country and be fully considered.

He thought there was a good deal of force in the suggestion of the member for Peel [John Cameron], that after the views of the Government had been stated distinctly to the House the debate should be adjourned for a short time. Of course the Attorney General East [George-Étienne Cartier], as well as the Attorney General West [John A. Macdonald], would desire to explain the scheme from his point of view, so would the Minister of Finance [Alexander Galt]; and probably he also (Mr. Brown) from his own particular stand point would like to say something about the scheme. After the views of the Government had thus been put before the House, there could be no difficulty about adjourning the debate for a time, that the country might distinctly understand what they were about.

After some remarks by Joseph Cauchon [Montmorency] and Christopher Dunkin [Brome],[1]

William Powell [Carleton] asked whether the House was expected to adopt the scheme in its entirety, or would it be open to the House to adopt one portion of it and reject another portion of it?

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—That is not a fair question.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—Perfectly fair.

William Powell [Carleton] thought Mr. Holton’s regard for fair play excessive, when it even impelled him to interfere on behalf of the Administration.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—I think it would be unfair to answer such a question.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said he agreed that Mr. Cameron’s proposition was a reasonable one. The Government would, in the first place, lay their case before the House, and through the press before the country, and then allow a reasonable time for the country to judge of the case as presented by the Government. It would not, of course, be presented by himself alone, as the President of the Council [George Brown] had said. The subject was so large in itself and comprehended so great a variety of details, that he fancied all the members of the Government would find it necessary to express their views on particular portions of this great scheme.

In answer to the member for Carleton [William Powell], the Government desired to

  • (p. 15)

say that they presented the scheme as a whole, and would exert all the influence they could bring to bear in the way of argument to induce the House to adopt the scheme without alteration, and for the simple reason that the scheme was not one framed by the Government of Canada, or by the Government of Nova Scotia, but was in the nature of a treaty settled between the different colonies, each clause of which had been fully discussed, and which had been agreed to by a system of mutual compromise. Of course it was competent to the House to vote against the Address as a whole, or to adopt amendments to it, but if they did so, it would then be for the Government to consider whether they would press the scheme further on the attention of the House.

It was obvious that unless the scheme were adopted as it had been settled between the different provinces, if they prosecuted it further, they would have to commence de novo[2] and he had no hesitation in expressing his belief that if the scheme was not now adopted in all its principal details, as presented to the House, we could not expect to get it passed this century. It had been only in consequence of a very happy concurrence of circumstances, which might not easily arise again, that the different provinces had been enabled to arrive at the conclusion now presented, and he should exceedingly regret in the interests of Canada and of the future of British North America, if anything should delay beyond this year the completion and conclusion of this great scheme.

The resolutions on their face bore evidence of compromise; perhaps not one of the delegates from any of the provinces would have propounded this scheme as a whole, but being impressed with the conviction that it was highly desirable with a view to the maintenance of British power on this continent, that there should be Confederation and a junction of all the provinces, the consideration of the details was entered upon in a spirit of compromise. Not one member of the Canadian Government had his own views carried out in all the details, and it was the same with the other delegates.

But after a full discussion of sixteen days, and after the various details had been voted on, the resolutions as a whole were agreed to by a unanimous vote; every one of the delegates, whatever his view to any of the details being satisfied to adopt the whole scheme as adopted by a majority for each individual resolution, and to press it upon his own Legislature as the only practicable scheme that could be carried; such being the cage, he trusted the Government would have the support of a very large majority of the House in carrying the scheme just as it stood, members sacrificing their individual opinions as to particular details, if satisfied with the Government that the scheme as a whole was for the benefit and prosperity of the people of Canada.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] would like to inquire whether, according to the course of proceeding proposed by the Attorney General [John A. Macdonald], the several resolutions of the Conference would be submitted separately to the House as affirmative propositions?

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said “no.“ The proposition submitted to the House is that an Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that a bill should be passed based on these resolutions. All amendments might be moved to that one resolution. It would be the same thing, in fact, as to move them upon each resolution separately.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] held that the Government ought to ask for an affirmative vote from the House on each of those resolutions. They had been prepared and passed by a self-constituted body, without the House or the people ever having been consulted on the subject. Unless the House were a sham altogether, the least reference that could be paid to it would be to obtain a direct affirmation of each of the basis on which the projected Constitution which was hereafter to govern us wore to be founded.

Joseph Cauchon [Montmorency] wished information as to whether the scheme was to be discussed as a whole, or whether there would be an opportunity given to consider each part of it separately? There were part of the resolutions about which there might be some misunderstanding and difference of opinion, as for example those clauses by one of which it was stated that the civil laws of the country were to be under the control of the local governments, and by the other of which the law of marriage was placed under the control of the General Government. The law of marriage pervaded the whole civil code, and he wanted to know how it could be placed under a different legislature from that which was to regulate the rest of the civil law. He did not, however, see why an affirmative vote on each resolution would enable the House to pronounce with more freedom on these details than the course proposed by the Attorney General [John A. Macdonald].

Antoine-Aimé Dorion [Hochelaga] said the member for Montmorency [Joseph Cauchon] misapprehended the scope of the objection made by the member for Chateauguay [Luther Holton].

  • (p. 16)

That objection was that the freedom of Parliament would be better consulted, and more opportunity would be given to learn the sense of the House by the different clauses of the Address being moved seriatim[3], in the same way as supplies were voted. This was the manner in which the Irish Union Act[4] had been passed, as well as the bill to change the Government of India, the Canadian Union Act of 1840[5], Legislative Council Act[6], and other important measures. This was the uniform course of Parliament, and there was no precedent to be found for any contrary mode of proceeding.

He thought the course proposed on the Opposition side of the House the most reasonable—that there should be a general discussion on the scheme, in which Members of the Government should state their views; that then there should be an adjournment for a week to enable the public to consider these speeches, and that then the subject should be discussed three whole days each week till disposed of. This would, in fact, be devoting more time to it than the plan that was proposed by the President of the Council [George Brown], and would secure more fair, open and full opportunity for discussion.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] could understand the object of the hon. member for Hochelaga [Antoine-Aimé Dorion]. That hon. gentleman was opposed to Confederation, and the course he proposed was just that which was calculated to throw the scheme to another Parliament and till another conference was held, so that Confederation might not be effected till the day of judgment. These resolutions were in the nature of a treaty, and if not adopted in their entirety, the proceedings would have to be commenced de novo[7]. If each province undertook to change the details of the scheme, there would be no end to the discussions and the conferences which would have to be held.—Then, as to having a debate three days a week, it would extend the session beyond all bounds, especially as after the Confederation scheme was disposed of, there would be a measure for organizing the local governments under that scheme.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Why not bring that measure down with this?

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said that they were two different propositions, and they council be only dealt with separately. If the House declared, by its vote, that Confederation was desirable, then it would be proper to consider the nature of the local governments; but if it failed to accept the principle of Confederation, then it would be entirely useless to bring up the other measure. Besides, to bring down both measures at once would make confusion worse confounded, because members would, of necessity, introduce their views upon local governments into the consideration of the Confederation question.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] commented upon the declaration that the resolutions of the Conference were tantamount to a treaty, and asked by what authority the Government had undertaken to negotiate a treaty. He contended that all forms of the House should be strictly observed, so that there should be no infringement upon the rights of the minority.

Thomas Ferguson [Simcoe South] asked whether it was the intention of the Government to carry this measure into force without submitting it to the people?

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said he could answer his honorable friend at once. If this measure received the support of the House, there would be no necessity of going to the people. If, however, the measure were defeated, it, would be for the Government to consider whether there should not be an appeal to the country.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear, and laughter.

Thomas Scatcherd [Middlesex West] asked whether it was intended to make any amendments in the scheme to meet the suggestions contained in the despatch of the Colonial Secretary [Edward Cardwell][8].

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West], in reply, said of course he could not answer what the policy of the Imperial Government might be; all he could say was this, that the representatives of the various colonial governments, after this treaty had been made, agreed to go home and press upon the legislatures of their respective provinces this measure as a whole, and to present in all the colonial legislatures addresses identical in their nature to Her Majesty, asking Her to pass an Act based upon these resolutions, such address being an expression of the deliberate opinion of the colonies. It would then become the duty of the Imperial Government and Legislature to act as they pleased in the matter. He hoped and believed they would not make any alterations in the scheme adopted by the Conference. He was quite satisfied that if the local legislatures asked them to pass the scheme as it stood, they would leave us to be the best judges of our own affairs and carry the measure through.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] said he had given notice the other day of three questions he intended to put to the Government before going

  • (p. 17)

into Committee of Supply, but as the present was an equally favorable opportunity, he trusted there would be no objection to his putting them now.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—No, go on.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] said the first question had a reference to the subject to which the Attorney General [John A. Macdonald] had alluded in the course of his remarks just now. It was, whether it was the intention of the Government to bring down their projects for local constitutions for the two sections of Canada before inviting the House to proceed with the discussion of this question of Confederation. The honorable gentleman had already answered that question by saying it was not the intention of the Government to introduce this measure, and had given reasons for this course. Upon these reasons he (Hon. Mr. Holton) desired to say one word. He maintained that the question now before the House was, should they revolutionize the country, should they revolutionize the government of the country?

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—That was undoubtedly the question, and he would like to know distinctly whether the form of the proposed new government, local as well as general, formed part of the same scheme? He felt that the House could not be in a position to consider the proposed forms of the Constitution until they had before them, at least in a general way, the forms of government which were to obtain between the two sections of the province, of the union of which a dissolution was to be wrought by the measure before the House.

Then another question which he had proposed to put had reference to the educational system of Lower Canada. The Minister of Finance [Alexander Galt], in a speech at Sherbrooke, had promised that the Government would introduce a bill to amend the school laws of Lower Canada[9]. The honorable gentleman must be aware that this was a question on which there was a great deal of feeling in this section of the province amongst the English-speaking, or the Protestant class, of the population.

He did not like to introduce anything of a religious character into discussions of this House, but in debating the great changes which it was proposed to effect in our system of government, the effect of them upon that class to which he referred must be considered. Among that class there was no phase or feature of these threatened changes which excited so much alarm as this very question of education. Well, the Minister of Finance [Alexander Galt] had said, with great solemnity, as having the authority of his colleagues for it, that this session the Government would bring down amendments to the school laws of Lower Canada, which they proposed enacting into law before a change of government should take place, and which would become a permanent settlement of that question.

The question he then desired to put was whether they intended to submit these amendments before they asked the House to pass finally upon the other scheme of Confederation, and if so, to state when the House might look for that measure, as it would undoubtedly exercise very considerable influence upon the discussion of the Confederation scheme, and probably in the last resort from several members from Lower Canada.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Then the third question of which he had given notice had reference to the Intercolonial Railway. It was a novelty that, perhaps, might not be found in the constitution of any country, to introduce a provision for the construction of a railroad, canals, turnpike roads or other public works.

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—But the novelty existed in this case, and we are told that a part of the proposed Constitution was to build the Intercolonial Railway, as to the usefulness of which there had been a great difference of opinion amongst members of the House and in the country.

The Legislative Assembly adjourned for dinner recess.

After the dinner recess,

Luther Holton [Chateauguay], continuing his remarks, said it appeared now to be proposed to make the construction of a railway part of the Constitution of the country. The President of the Council [George Brown], who had formerly strongly opposed the Intercolonial Railway, had now become so enamoured of it and its adjuncts that he was reported to have declared in a speech at Toronto, that rather than not have those adjuncts, to wit, the union of all the provinces, which he had also previously opposed as vigorously as the railway itself, he would consent to building six intercolonial railways.

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—He thought the House was entitled to know what was to be done with reference to that railway before they were asked to consider the great question of which it formed a part. He desired also some information as to the position of the North-West question on which the President of the Council [George Brown] had always taken strong grounds, maintaining that Canada had a territorial right extending over all that region. He took it for granted the President of the Council [George Brown] still maintained his position, but he wished to know from him authoritatively the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with the question. He desired, also, some information on the subject of the defences, and what was to be the measure of our contributions

  • (p. 18)

under the proposed scheme for that important object.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said the Government would cheerfully give an answer to Hon. Mr. Holton’s questions. As to the local constitutions of Upper and Lower Canada, when subordinate provinces of the Confederation, Government proposed to submit to the House a scheme or schemes to be considered by members of Upper and Lower Canada, respecting the constitutions, of their respective governments.

But the action with regard to them must be the action of Parliament. That action would only be asked after the Confederation scheme was adopted, for until it was settled that there was to be Confederation, it was idle to discuss what should be the constitutions of the several provinces.

As to the school question, it had been announced by Hon. Mr. Galt, at Sherbrooke, that before Confederation took place, this Parliament would be asked to consider a measure which he hoped would be satisfactory to all classes of the community[10]. There was a good deal of apprehension in Lower Canada on the part of the minority there as to the possible effect of Confederation on their rights on the subject of education, and it was the intention of the Government, if Parliament approved the scheme of Confederation, to lay before the House this session, certain amendments to the school law, to operate as a sort of guarantee against any infringement by the majority of the rights of the minority in this matter.

Antoine-Aimé Dorion [Hochelaga]—Will it apply to both Upper and Lower Canada?

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said he believed, as regarded Upper Canada, the matter would remain in statu quo, as the present law there was quite satisfactory to the minority. As regarded the Intercolonial Railroad, the resolutions showed precisely what was the intention of the Government in that matter. The railroad was not, as stated by Hon. Mr. Holton, a portion of the Constitution, but was one of the conditions on which the Lower Provinces agreed to enter into the constitutional agreement with us. The North-West question he would leave in the hands of the President of the Council [George Brown], who understood it thoroughly, and could, no doubt, give Hon. Mr. Holton a satisfactory answer.

With respect to the defences of the province, they were now the subject of negotiations with the Imperial Government, and the fullest information would be given to the House on that subject. He might mention that the Maritime Provinces, recognizing the peculiar position of Canada geographically, and its danger in case of hostilities, had most cordially agreed that any sum this Parliament might vote for the defence of Canada, they would undertake their share of.

Thomas Wallbridge [Hastings North] asked if he was to understand that a guarantee was to be given in the Constitution of the Federal Government to Roman Catholic separate schools?

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—I only said this, that before Confederation is adopted, the Government would bring down a measure to amend the school law of Lower Canada, protecting the rights of the minority, and which, at the same time, I believe, would be satisfactory to the majority, who have always hitherto shown respect for the rights of the minority, and, no doubt, will continue to do so.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council] said Hon. Mr. Holton had done no injustice to him in supposing he held now precisely the same sentiments on the North-West question he formerly did. He believed it of vast importance that that region should be brought within the limits of civilization, and vigorous measures had been taken to ascertain what could be done with that view. It was not long since he returned from England, where the matter was very fully discussed, and he had not as yet had an opportunity of submitting the thing so fully to the Council that a decision could be had upon it, but he had no doubt that in a very short time they would be able to communicate to the House ample information as to their intentions.

[The discussion was then made regular by Attorney General Macdonald formally proposing that an Address be presented to Her Majesty.]

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] moved, seconded by George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East], and the Question being proposed,[11]

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be submitted to the Imperial Parliament, for the purpose of uniting the Colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, in one Government, with provisions based on the following Resolutions, which were adopted at a Conference of Delegates from the said Colonies, held at the City of Quebec, on the 10th October, 1864:—

1. The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal Union under the Crown of Great Britain, provided such Union can be effected on principles just to the several Provinces.

2. In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of Government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interest of the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the Union, would be a General Government, charged with matters of common interest to the whole country: and Local Governments for each of the Canadas, and for the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections. Provision being made for the admission into the Union, on equitable terms, of Newfoundland, the North-West Territory, British Columbia and Vancouver.

3. In framing a Constitution for the General Government, the Conference, with a view to the perpetuation of our connection with the Mother Country, and the promotion of the best interest of the people of these Provinces, desire to follow the model of the British Constitution, so far as our circumstances will permit.

4. The Executive Authority or Government shall be vested in the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the well-understood principles of the British Constitution, by the Sovereign personally, or by the Representative of the Sovereign duly authorized.

5. The Sovereign or Representative of the Sovereign shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia Forces.

6. There shall be a General Legislature or Parliament for the Federated Provinces, composed of a Legislative Council and a House of Commons.

7. For the purpose of forming the Legislative Council, the Federated Provinces shall be considered as consisting of three divisions: 1st, Upper Canada; 2nd, Lower Canada; 3rd, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island; each division with an equal representation in the Legislative Council.

8. Upper Canada shall be represented in the Legislative Council by 24 Members, Lower Canada by 24 Members, and the three Maritime Provinces by 24 Members, of which Nova Scotia shall have 10, New Brunswick 10, and Prince Edward Island 4 Members.

9. The Colony of Newfoundland shall be entitled to enter the proposed Union, with a representation in the Legislative Council of 4 Members.

10. The North-West Territory, British Columbia and Vancouver shall be admitted into the Union on such terms and conditions as the Parliament of the Federated Provinces shall deem equitable, and as shall receive the assent of Her Majesty; and in the case of the Province of British Columbia or Vancouver, as shall be agreed to by the Legislature of such Province.

11. The Members of the Legislative Council shall be appointed by the Crown under the Great Seal of the General Government, and shall hold office during life: if any Legislative Councillor shall, for two consecutive sessions of Parliament, fail to give his attendance in the said Council, his seat shall thereby become vacant.

12. The Members of the Legislative Council shall be British subjects by birth or naturalization, of the full age of thirty years, shall possess a continuous real property qualification of four thousand dollars over and above all encumbrances, and shall be and continue worth that sum over and above their debts and liabilities, but in the case of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, the property may be either real or personal.

13. If any question shall arise as to the qualification of a Legislative Councillor, the same shall be determined by the Council.

14. The first selection of the Members of the Legislative Council shall be made, except as regards Prince Edward Island, from the Legislative Councils of the various Provinces so far as a sufficient number be found qualified and willing to serve; such Members shall be appointed by the Crown at the recommendation of the General Executive Government, upon the nomination of the respective Local Governments, and in such nomination due regard shall be had to the claims of the Members of the Legislative Council of the opposition in each Province, so that all political parties may, as nearly as possible, be fairly represented.

15. The Speaker of the Legislative Council (unless otherwise provided by Parliament), shall be appointed by the Crown from among the Members of the Legislative Council, and shall hold office during pleasure, and shall only be entitled to a casting vote on an equality of votes.

16. Each of the twenty-four Legislative Councillors representing Lower Canada in the Legislative Council of the General Legislature shall be appointed to represent one of the twenty-four Electoral Divisions mentioned in Schedule A of Chapter first of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, and such Councillor shall reside or possess his qualification in the Division he is appointed to represent.

17. The basis of Representation in the House of Commons shall be Population, as determined by the Official Census every ten years; and the number of Members at first shall be 194, distributed as follows:

Upper Canada 82
Lower Canada 65
Nova Scotia 19
New Brunswick 15
Newfoundland 8
Prince Edward Island 5

18. Until the Official Census of 1871 has been made up, there shall be no change in the number of Representatives from the several sections.

19. Immediately after the completion of the Census of 1871, and immediately after every decennial census thereafter, the Representation from each section in the House of Commons shall be readjusted on the basis of Population.

20. For the purpose of such readjustments, Lower Canada shall always be assigned sixty-five Members, and each of the other sections shall, at each readjustment, receive, for the ten years then next succeeding, the number of Members to which it will be entitled on the same ratio of Representation to Population as Lower Canada will enjoy according to the Census last taken by having sixty-five Members.

21. No reduction shall be made in the number of Members returned by any section, unless its population shall have decreased, relatively to the population of the whole Union, to the extent of five per centum.

22. In computing at each decennial period the number of Members to which each section is entitled, no fractional parts shall be considered, unless when exceeding one-half the number entitling to a Member, in which case a Member shall be given for each such fractional part.

23. The Legislature of each Province shall divide such Province into the proper number of constituencies, and define the boundaries of each of them.

24. The Local Legislature of each Province may, from time to time, alter the Electoral Districts for the purposes of Representation in such Local Legislature, and distribute the Representatives to which the Province is entitled in such Local Legislature, in any manner such Legislature may see fit.

25. The number of Members may at any time be increased by the General Parliament,—regard being had to the proportionate rights then existing.

26. Until provisions are made by the General Parliament, all the laws which, at that date of the Proclamation constituting the Union, are in force in the Provinces respectively, relating to the qualification and disqualification of any person to be elected, or to sit or vote as a Member of the Assembly in the said Provinces respectively; and relating to the qualification or disqualification of voters and to the oaths to be taken by voters, and to Returning Officers and their powers and duties,—and relating to the proceeding’s at Elections,—and to the period during which such elections may be continued—and relating to the Trial of Controverted Elections and the proceedings incident thereto,—and relating to the vacating of seats of Members, and to the issuing and execution of new Writs, in case of any seat being vacated otherwise than by a dissolution—shall respectively apply to elections of Members to serve in the House of Commons, for places situate in those Provinces respectively.

27. Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from the day of the return of the writs choosing the same, and no longer; subject, nevertheless, to be sooner prorogued or dissolved by the Governor.

28. There shall be a Session of the General Parliament once, at least, in every year, so that a period of twelve calendar months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the General Parliament in one Session, and the first sitting thereof in the next Session.

29. The General Parliament shall have power to make Laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the Federated Provinces (saving the sovereignty of England), and especially laws respecting the following subjects:—

1. The Public Debt and Property.
2. The regulation of Trade and Commerce.
3. The imposition or regulation of Duties of Customs on Imports and Exports,—except in Exports of Timber, Logs, Masts, Spars, Deals and Sawn Lumber from New Brunswick, and of Coal and other minerals from Nova Scotia.
4. The imposition or regulation of Excise Duties.
5. The raising of money by all or any other modes or systems of Taxation.
6. The borrowing of money on the Public Credit.
7. Postal Service.
8. Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals and other works, connecting any two or more of the Provinces together, or extending beyond the limits of any Province.
9. Lines of Steamships between the Federated Provinces and other Countries.
10. Telegraph Communication and the Incorporation of Telegraph Companies.
11. All such works as shall, although lying wholly within any Province, be specially declared by the Acts authorizing them to be for the general advantage.
12. The Census.
13. Militia—Military and Naval Service and Defence.
14. Beacons, Buoys and Light Houses.
15. Navigation and Shipping.
16. Quarantine.
17. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
18. Ferries between any Province and a Foreign country, or between any two Provinces.
19. Currency and Coinage.
20. Banking—Incorporation of Banks, and the issue of paper money.
21. Savings Banks.
22. Weights and Measures.
23. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.
24. Interest.
25. Legal Tender.
26. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
27. Patents of Invention and Discovery.
28. Copy Rights.
29. Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians.
30. Naturalization and Aliens.
31. Marriage and Divorce.
32. The Criminal Law, excepting the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the procedure in Criminal matters.
33. Rendering uniform all or any of the laws relative to property and civil rights in Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, and rendering uniform the procedure of all or any of the Courts in these Provinces; but any statute for this purpose shall have no force or authority in any Province until sanctioned by the Legislature thereof.
34. The establishment of a General Court of Appeal for the Federated Provinces.
35. Immigration.
36. Agriculture.
37. And generally respecting all matters of a general character, not specially and exclusively reserved for the Local Governments and Legislatures.

30. The General Government and Parliament shall bare all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of the Federated Provinces, as part of the British Empire, to foreign countries arising under Treaties between Great Britain and such countries.

31. The General Parliament may also, from time to time, establish additional Courts, and the General Government may appoint Judges and officers thereof, when the same shall appear necessary or for the public advantage, in order to the due execution of the laws of Parliament.

32. All Courts, Judges, and officers of the several Provinces shall aid, assist and obey the General Government in the exercise of its rights and powers, and for such purposes shall be held to be Courts, Judges and officers of the General Government.

33. The General Government shall appoint and pay the Judges of the Superior Courts in each Province, and of the County Courts in Upper Canada, and Parliament shall fix their salaries.

34. Until the Consolidation of the Laws of Upper Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, the Judges of these Provinces appointed by the General Government, shall be selected from their respective Bars.

35. The Judges of the Courts of Lower Canada shall be selected from the Bar of Lower Canada.

36. The Judges of the Court of Admiralty now receiving salaries shall be paid by the General Government.

37. The Judges of the Superior Courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall be removable only on the Address of both Houses of Parliament.

38. For each of the Provinces there shall be an Executive Officer, styled tie Lieutenant Governor, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council, under the Great Seal of the Federated Provinces, during pleasure: such pleasure not to be exercised before the expiration of the first five years, except for cause: such cause to be communicated in writing to the Lieutenant Governor immediately after the exercise of the pleasure as aforesaid, and also by Message to both Houses of Parliament, within the first week of the first session afterwards.

39. The Lieutenant Governor of each Province shall be paid by the General Government.

40. In undertaking to pay the salaries of the Lieutenant Governors, the Conference does not desire to prejudice the claim of Prince Edward Island upon the Imperial Government for the amount now paid for the salary of the Lieutenant Governor thereof.

41. The Local Government and Legislature of each Province shall be constructed in such manner, as the existing Legislature of each such Province shall provide.

42. The Local Legislature shall have power to alter or amend their constitution from time to time.

43. The Local Legislatures shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects:

1. Direct taxation, and in New Brunswick the imposition of Duties on the Export of Timber, Logs, Masts, Spars, Deals, and Sawn Lumber; and in Nova Scotia, of Coals and other minerals.
2. Borrowing money on the credit of the Province.
3. The establishment and tenure of local offices, and the appointment and payment of local officers.
4. Agriculture.
5. Immigration.
6. Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their Denominational Schools at the time when the Union goes into operation.
7. The sale and management of Public Lands excepting Lands belonging to the General Government.
8. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
9. The establishment, maintenance and management of Penitentiaries, and Public and Reformatory Prisons.
10. The establishment, maintenance and management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions.
11. Municipal Institutions.
12. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer and other Licenses.
13. Local Works.
14. The Incorporation of Private or Local Companies, except such as relate to matters assigned to the General Parliament.
15. Property and Civil Rights, excepting those portions thereof assigned to the General Parliament.
16. Inflicting punishment by fine, penalties, imprisonment or otherwise, for the breach of laws passed in relation to any subject within their jurisdiction.
17. The Administration of Justice, including the Constitution, maintenance and organization of the Courts,—both of Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction, and including also the Procedure in Civil matters.
18. And generally all matters of a private or local nature, not assigned to the General Parliament.

44. The power of respiting, reprieving, and pardoning Prisoners convicted of crimes, and of commuting and remitting of sentences in whole or in part, which belongs of right to the Crown, shall be administered by the Lieutenant Governor of each Province in Council, subject to any instructions he may, from time to time, receive from the General Government, and subject to any provisions that may be made in this behalf by the General Parliament

45. In regard to all subjects over which jurisdiction belongs to both the General and Local Legislatures, the laws of the General Parliament shall control and supersede those made by the Local Legislature, and the latter shall be void so far as they are repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the former.

46. Both the English and French languages may be employed in the General Parliament and in its proceedings, and in the Local Legislature of Lower Canada, and also in the Federal Courts and in the Courts of Lower Canada.

47. No lands or property belonging to the General or Local Governments shall be liable to taxation.

48. All Bills for appropriating any part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any new Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons or House of Assembly, as the case may be.

49. The House of Commons or House of Assembly shall not originate or pass any Vote, Resolution. Address or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost to any purpose, not first recommended by Message of the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor, as the case may be, during the session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill is passed

50. Any Bill of the General Parliament may be reserved in the usual manner for Her Majesty’s Assent, and any Bill of the Local Legislatures may, in like manner, be reserved for the consideration of the Governor General.

51. Any Bill passed by the General Parliament shall be subject to disallowance by Her Majesty within two years, as in the case of Bills passed by the Legislatures of the said Provinces hitherto; and, in like manner, any Bill passed by a Local Legislature shall be subject to disallowance by the Governor General within one year after the passing thereof.

52. The Seat of Government of the Federated Provinces shall be Ottawa, subject to the Royal Prerogative.

53. Subject to any future action of the respective Local Governments, the Seat of the Local Government in Upper Canada shall be Toronto; of Lower Canada. Quebec; and the Seats of the Local Governments in the other Provinces shall be as at present.

54. All Stocks, Cash, Bankers’ Balances and Securities for money belonging to each Province at the time of the Union, except as hereinafter mentioned, shall belong to the General Government.

55. The following Public Works and Property of each Province shall belong to the General Government, to wit:—

1. Canals.
2. Public Harbours.
3. Light Houses and Piers.
4. Steamboats, Dredges and Public Vessels.
5. River and Lake Improvements.
6. Railway and Railway Stocks, Mortgages and other debts due by Railway Companies.
7. Military Roads.
8. Custom Houses, Post Offices and other Public Buildings, except such as may be set aside by the General Government for the use of the Local Legislatures and Governments.
9. Property transferred by the Imperial Government and known as Ordnance Property.
10. Armouries, Drill Sheds, Military Clothing and Munitions of War, and
11. Lands set apart for public purposes.

56. All lands, mines, minerals and royalties vested in Her Majesty in the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, for the use of such Provinces, shall belong to the Local Government of the territory in which the same are so situate; subject to any trusts that may exist in respect to any of such lands or to any interest of other persons in respect of the same.

57. All sums due from purchases or lessees of such lands, mines or minerals at the time of the Union, shall also belong to the Local Governments.

58. All assets connected with such portions of the public debt of any Province as are assumed by the Local Governments shall also belong to those Governments respectively.

59. The several Provinces shall retain all other Public Property therein, subject to the right of the General Government to assume any Lands or Public Property required for Fortifications or the Defence of the Country

60. The General Government shall assume all the Debts and Liabilities of each Province.

61. The Debt of Canada, not specially assumed by Upper and Lower Canada respectively, shall not exceed, at the time of the Union, $62,500,000; Nova Scotia shall enter the Union with a debt not exceeding $8,000,000; and New Brunswick with a debt not exceeding $7,000,000.

62. In case Nova Scotia or New Brunswick do not incur liabilities beyond those for which their Governments are now bound, and which shall make their debts at the date of Union less than $8,000,000 and $7,000,000 respectively, they shall be entitled to interest at five per cent, on the amount not so incurred, in like manner as is hereinafter provided for Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island; the foregoing resolution being in no respect intended to limit the powers given to the respective Governments of those Provinces, by Legislative authority, but only to lint it the maximum amount of charge to be assumed by the General Government; provided always, that the powers so conferred by the respective Legislatures shall be exercised within five years from this date, or the same shall then lapse.

63. Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, not having incurred Debts equal to those of the other Provinces, shall be entitled to receive, by half-yearly payments, in advance, from the General Government, the Interest at five per cent, on the difference between the actual amount of their respective Debts at the time of the Union, and the average amount of indebtedness per head of the Population of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

64. In consideration of the transfer to the General Parliament of the powers of Taxation, an annual grant in aid of each Province shall be made, equal to eighty cents per head of the population, as established by the census of 1861; the population of Newfoundland being estimated at 130,000. Such aid shall be in full settlement of all future demands upon the General Government for local purposes, and shall be paid half-yearly in advance to each Province.

65. The position of New Brunswick being such as to entail large immediate charges upon her local revenues, it is agreed that for the period of ten years, from the time when the Union takes effect, an additional allowance of $63,000 per annum shall be made to that Province. But that so long as the liability of that Province remains under $7,000,000, a deduction equal to the interest on such deficiency shall be made from the $63,000.

66. In consideration of the surrender to the General Government by Newfoundland of all its rights in Mines and Minerals, and of all the ungranted and unoccupied Lands of the Crown, it is agreed that the sum of $150,000 shall each year be paid to that Province, by semi-annual payments; provided that that Colony shall retain the right of opening, constructing and controlling Roads and Bridges through any of the said Lands subject to any Laws which the General Parliament may pass in respect of the same.

67. All engagements that may before the Union be entered into with the Imperial Government for the defence of the Country, shall be assumed by the General Government.

68. The General Government shall secure, without delay, the completion of the Intercolonial Railway from Rivière du Loup, through New Brunswick, to Truro in Nova Scotia.

69. The communications with the North-Western Territory, and the improvements required for the development of the Trade of the Great West with the Seaboard, are regarded by this Conference as subjects of the highest importance to the Federated Provinces, and shall be prosecuted at the earliest possible period that the state of the Finances will permit.

70. The sanction of the Imperial and Local Parliaments shall be sought for the Union of the Provinces, on the principles adopted by the Conference.

71. That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Federated Provinces.

72. The proceedings of the Conference shall be authenticated by the signatures of the Delegates, and submitted by each Delegation to its own Government, and the Chairman is authorized to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.[12]

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] said that the universal law of Parliament with respect either to bills or addresses looking to the disposal of public property or funds, or additions to the burdens of the country, was that the measure must originate in Committee of the Whole. This Confederation scheme disposed of the whole assets of the country, and established burdens which were to be applied to the purposes of the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland, besides paying eighty cents per head of population to all the various provinces. This appropriation of property indeed ran throughout the scheme.

Not only so, but the usage on all similar occasions was to introduce the measure in Committee of the Whole. The act of union between England and Ireland[13] was originated in this way, and so was our own act of union in the legislature of Upper Canada under the management of Mr. Poulet Thompson, who was well known to be an able English parliamentarian. The

  • (p. 19)

same course was taken on our own Reform Bill under the Hincks Government.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said that any measure appropriating money must originate in Committee of the Whole, but it was otherwise with an Address to the Crown, asking to recommend a grant of money. This was an address asking the Crown to make a great constitutional change. Now, supposing that it was asking to have the Constitution done away with altogether, must such an address originate in committee? Clearly not. The money to be appropriated was to be granted by legislatures which did not yet exist.

Antoine-Aimé Dorion [Hochelaga]—There is nothing more plain than that, according to the standing order of the House of Commons, any measure appropriating money or any Address to the Crown asking for a grant of money, or that expenses may be incurred, must originate in Committee of the Whole. Our own 80th rule[14] was in a similar sense, setting forth that motions tending to grant an aid or to make any charge upon the people must originate in committee. Now, surely these resolutions tended to create a charge upon the people. Among other things they bound the country to make a railway.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—That will be made by the Confederate Government, not by this Government. We are not granting any money.

Antoine-Aimé Dorion [Hochelaga]—Nor do you ever grant money when you ask the Crown to recommend the grant, since the Crown may refuse; surely if a matter involving $5 or $50 must originate in committee, so large a matter as this must do so.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East] spoke of Hon. Mr. Dorion’s remarks as absurd, as not a farthing of money was being appropriated. It was quite true the rule of the Imperial Parliament might seem to go as far as Hon. Mr. Dorion said, but we had no such rule. Ours was founded on the Union Act[15], which merely said that no appropriation could be made[16], except after a Message from His Excellency, which must be referred to a committee. The Union Act was our law, and to-morrow the British Parliament, with the sanction of the Queen, might abolish the Constitution.

Christopher Dunkin [Brome]—The Attorney General  [John A. Macdonald] was the very Bayard of defenders of every little corporation which had received its charter from that legislature; that was of every corporation or company which enjoyed his favor, from none of which he would take away the smallest part of the privileges ever conferred upon them, and yet he asserted that the whole privileges and rights of this great colony could be taken away to-morrow by the Imperial Parliament.

He (Mr. Dunkin) denied that all our rights were held at pleasure, but, if they were, that had nothing to do with the matter. If we were precluded from giving away small sums of money, except in a particular way, surely we were debarred from giving away all our rights. The British Parliament could declare that a man is a woman, and he must thereafter legally be called a woman, but that did not make him one.

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] said clearly no charge was put on the people by this Address; not a penny could be taken out of the public chest in consequence of it. He thought also the spirit of the rules was no more infringed than their letter, by taking the course proposed by the Attorney General West [John A. Macdonald]; because, if the Address passed, the Imperial Act would refer again to the people the power of disposing of this property by their votes.

Mr. Speaker decided as follows:—

The honorable member for Chateauguay has submitted that the motion is not in order, “inasmuch as the proposed Address prays the Crown to recommend to the Imperial Parliament the passage of an Act laying new burdens on the people of this Province, and making dispositions as to the public property and money of this Province, the law of Parliament requires that it should be founded on Resolutions originated in Committee of the whole House.”

Now, the 4th clause of the 14th section of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada,

“The Legislative Assembly shall not originate or pass any Vote, Resolution or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the said Consolidated Revenue Fund”, or of any other tax or impost, to any purpose which has not been first recommended by a Message of the Governor to the Legislative Assembly, during the Session in which such Vote, Resolution or Bill is passed;”[17] and the 88th Rule of this House, “If any motion be made in the House for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a Committee of the whole House before any Resolution or Vote of the House do pass thereupon,”[18] which seems to be based thereon, refer to Resolutions or to an Address upon which some future action of this House is to be based. I fail to see in this motion that the action of this House is to be involved any further after passing this Resolution.

As this matter was discussed before I left the chair, at six o’clock, I took occasion to put in writing my opinion upon the subject. I will read:

“The motion is for an Address to Her Majesty, in which

  • (p. 20)

the Resolutions on Confederation of the Provinces are set out. How does this differ from an Address moved to His Excellency, which always comes on motion upon a two days’ notice given as in this case? I cannot see how, as a point of Order, I can treat the matter other than as in the ordinary case of an Address. The argument is that it will be inconvenient so to discuss it. That is not addressed to a question of Order, but to one of convenience.

The case cited by the honorable member for Chateauguay of Resolutions upon the question of a Bill for the Government of India was not one of Resolutions for an Address, but of Resolutions simply, containing the proposed principles of the Bill intended to be introduced. It is not pretended here that this House has any right to pass such a Bill, or that it is intended to present one on that subject here. The reasons why it is convenient to discuss matters in the form of a Resolution on which a Bill is afterwards to be introduced, is that Resolutions more easily admit of alteration. The Government have expressed their determination not to admit of any alterations in these Resolutions.

Thus it is obvious that the same reasons for going into Committee do not hold. The member who moves an Address can force the vote on his motion in the manner he has put it, unless the form of it be changed by amendment, and this appears to be the only course open here. In truth the word ‘Resolutions’ might very well have been omitted altogether from this motion. Whatever might have been the result on a mere question of convenience, it is certain that the Speaker does not decide that matter. His duties are to preserve order and decorum, and to decide questions of Order.”

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] moved

 That the debate be adjourned and made the first order for Monday after half-past seven o’clock, P.M.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] raised the objection that this motion could not be put without two days’ notice

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said if this was the sort of tactics to be pursued, and an attempt made to embarrass the Government at every step, he must withdraw the concession made to the member for Peel [John Cameron], and would give notice that he would move on Tuesday, that the debate be continued from day to day until the Address was finally adopted or rejected by the House.

After some discussion, Luther Holton [Chateauguay] withdrew his objection, and John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] Macdonald his notice.[19]

 Then, on motion of John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West], seconded by George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council],

The House adjourned until Monday next.[20]


[1]      As aforementioned in the Feb. 3, 1865 debate for the Legislative Council (p. 11), there is much evidence that the opening week of ministerial speeches on the confederation scheme were in fact not reported by Hunter & Rose but by reporters from various newspapers in attendance, and compiled afterward with the assistance of members who spoke. On Feb. 6, 1865, the Member for Peel, Mr. Cameron, inquired “whether the Government had made any arrangement for reporting the debate on the Confederation Question,” and to which the Attorney-General Mr. John A. Macdonald responded that “the Government had made no arrangement, but he was informed that an arrangement had been made by the members of the press…”.  George Brown reassured both members that “a verbatim report would be taken to-night, and the members of the House might talk over any arrangement that might be suggested tomorrow.” See “Provincial Assembly,” The Globe (Feb. 7, 1865). In fact, a parliamentary Printing Committee was only formed on Feb. 7, 1865, and it did not present its report nor tendered a contract for reporting the legislative proceedings on the confederation scheme until Feb. 8, 1865. See “Provincial Assembly,” The Globe (Feb. 8, 1865). In numerous instances, the reporting of the first week of speeches and questions closely follows word-for-word, and format, of those reported in The Globe, The Montreal Gazette, La Minerve, etc. For a transcript of select newspaper reporting of the Confederation Debates, including those mentioned, see Appendix B. For the discussions surrounding the printing of the debates, see Appendix C.

[2]      i.e. “anew”.

[3]      i.e. “point by point”

[4]      An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, 1800 (U.K.).

[5]      The Union Act, 1840 (U.K).

[6]      An Act to change the Constitution of the Legislative Council by rendering the same Elective (Province of Canada, 1856).

[7]      i.e. “anew”.

[8]      Despatch from Right Hon. Edward Cardwell to Viscount Monck (Dec. 3, 1864). Correspondence presented to the Legislative Council on Jan. 27, 1865, p. A:4.

[9]      Alexander Galt, Speech at Sherbrooke (Nov. 23, 1864) in Speech on the Proposed Union of the British North American Provinces (1864), p. 14.

[10]    Alexander Galt, Speech at Sherbrooke (Nov. 23, 1864). Supra footnote 7, pp. 14-15.

[11]     Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada (1865), p. 67. The Hunter & Rose debates have Macdonald presenting the resolutions on Feb. 6. However, this is inaccurate. As the Journals report, the Quebec Resolutions were moved on Feb. 3, the same day they were moved in the Legislative Council. As a result, Macdonald’s motion is inserted here, on the correct date.

[12]    Journals, pp. 67-73. Added for completeness.

[13]    Union with Ireland Act 1800 (U.K.) & Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 (Ireland).

[14]    Dorion means Rule 88, which reads in full, “If any Motion be made in the House for any Public Aid or Charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as The House shall think fit to appoint,; and then it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, before any Resolution or Vote of The House do pass thereupon.” Rules, Orders, and Forms of Proceeding of the Legislative Assembly of Canada (1866), p. 62.

[15]    The Union Act, 1840 (U.K).

[16]    Article LVII, which reads in full, “And be it enacted, That, subject to the several Payments hereby charged on the said Consolidated Revenue Fund, the same shall be appropriated by the Legislature of the Province of Canada for the Public Service, in such Manner as they shall think proper: Provided always, that all Bills for appropriating any Part of the Surplus of the said Consolidated Revenue Fund, or for imposing any new Tax or Impost, shall originate in the Legislative Assembly of the said Province of Canada: Provided also, that it shall not be lawful for the said Legislative Assembly to originate or pass any Vote, Resolution, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Surplus of the said Consolidated Revenue Fund, or of any other Tax or Impost, to any Purpose which shall not have been first recommended by a Message of the Governor to the said Legislative Assembly during the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, or Bill shall be passed.”

[17]    An Act respecting the Public Moneys, Debt and Accounts (Province of Canada, 1859).

[18]    Rules, Orders, and Forms of Proceeding of the Legislative Assembly of Canada (1866), p. 62.

[19]    A debate then ensues on Supply and the Civil Code, unrelated to the Confederation scheme. Journals, pp. 74-75.

[20]    Journals, p. 75. Added for completeness.


Leave a Reply