Document Information

Date: 1864-03-16
By: Province of Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Province of Canada, Parliament, Scrapbook Debates, 8th Parl, 2nd Sess, 1864 at 100-103.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1864

 The Easter Recess

Wilson Conger [Peterborough] moved

That “when this House adjourn on the evening of Wednesday, the 23^rd inst., it do stand adjourned until Tuesday the 29^th inst.”

The hon. gentleman said he thought his motion was one that would meet with the entire approbation of the House. He believed that when hon. members reflected for one moment upon the inconvenience of proceeding at this season with the business of the House, and on the large amount of cost which any delay, at this time, would entail upon the country, and how contrary such would be to all the professions of economy on the part of the Ministry—that there would not be, in regard to the motion, one dissenting voice.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

Wilson Conger [Peterborough]—It was already admitted that the large expense of legislation was annually increasing; and it would be seen from the accounts that there was a very considerable addition for last year. This might be in some measure accounted for—he was not going to say it would not. But the cost of legislation had certainly arrived at that figure, that there was no one, taking the slightest interest in the condition of the country, but must feel it would be imposing on the people of this country a heavy additional burden, should a longer adjournment be granted than this motion asked for. The expenses of legislation for 1861 amounted to $462,424; for 1862, to $132,048; and for 1863, to the enormous sum of $627,377. Look at the great expense to the country of each day’s sitting or this Legislature. Allowing the session to extend over a period of 100 days, we found our daily expenses amounting, in round numbers, to $5,000 per diem. Should this House adjourn for 15 days, at this rate the expenses would reach the modest total of $75,000, and this spent without the country receiving any legislation during the period in question. By adjourning for the short period only, we should effect a saving of $60,000.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Wilson Conger [Peterborough]—Only fancy that while this heavy daily expense is running on members should be allowed to absent themselves for a fortnight, merely for the purpose of seeing their families. Why the thing was so preposterous that he wondered how any one having the slightest regard for the interests of the country could for a moment contemplate it. He found that after deducting all possible expenses, the cost to the country for even the adjournment proposed by this motion—providing members were paid for the time of their absence—would reach $59,000. He did not for one moment suppose that any hon. member, particularly hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches who had always made strong professions of retrenchment, would be found voting against his motion. He should, therefore, leave the matter entirely with the House, not having the slightest doubt but that the motion would be carried by a large majority.

Robert Somerville [Huntingdon] objected that the time was too short to allow members living at a great distance to spend any considerable time at home. The period proposed would be almost spent in going and returning. He would move in amendment that, when this House adjourns on Wednesday next, it stand adjourned until the 6^th April next.

Some Hon. Members—Shouts of “Lost,” “Carried.”

James Cowan [Waterloo South] did not see any reason why the House should adjourn at all. Ministers stated they were prepared to go on with their men sures, and this being the case, he did not see any reason why the House should adjourn over a longer term than the statutory holidays. The consequence of a week’s adjournment would be that a fortnight would be lost, as many members would overstay the time, and their absence from the House would retard the introduction of any important measures, so that fully a second week would be lost for all purposes of useful legislation.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

James Cowan [Waterloo South]—He would move in amendment to the amendment that, when this House adjourn on Thursday, 24^th inst.

Some Hon. Members—Cries of “Hear, hear,” and “Carried.”

James Cowan [Waterloo South]—It seemed that no matter what party was in power, it was impossible to assemble Parliament early enough in winter, to conclude the session by the holidays, but since this was the case, he hoped the adjournment would be as short as possible, that the interests of the country might not suffer from late legislation.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

The Speaker explained that the latter amendment proposed, in reality, no adjournment, as the day adjourned over was Good Friday, a statutory holiday, on which, in any event, the House could not meet.

John Rose [Montreal Centre] said that although he would have been willing to vote for the main motion, the latter motion in amendment pleased him better. One day’s recess was, to his mind, quite enough under present circumstances. One thing appeared clear—that we were not to have the Tariff and Budget till of [illegible] the Easter recess. But if we adopted any others than the second amendment, it would be the middle of April before we could be in a position to have those important measures effecting our trade and committee introduced. The consequence would be that the trade of the country would be greatly embarrassed, and the revenue would also suffer materially. He believed it would be conducive to all our interests, should we sit here and go through all the work of legislation as speedily as possible.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Rose [Montreal Centre]—An adjournment for only one week would entail the loss of several days in addition, and the public business would be greatly retarded. He hoped all the members would sit here and get harder to work after the holidays.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

Robert Somerville [Huntingdon] then withdrew his amendment in favor of Mr. Cowan’s.

The question being put on James Cowan’s [Waterloo South] amendment for an adjournment from Thursday, 24^th, to Monday, 28^th inst., the amendment was carried by a vote of 100 to 13, vis.—

YEAS

Abbott
Alleyn
Ault
Beaubien
Bell (Lanark North)
Bell (Russell)
Bellerose
Blanchet
Bourassa
Bown
Brousseau
Buchanan
Carling
Caron
Cartier
Cartwright
Cauchon
Chambers
Chapais
Cockburn
Cornellier
Coupal
Cowan
De Boucherville
Denis
Dickson
Dorion (Attorney-General)
Dorion (Drummond & Arthabaska)
Duckett
Dufresne (Iberville)
Dufresne (Montcalm)
Dunkin
Dunsford
Evanturel
Ferguson (Simcoe South)
Ferguson (Frontenac)
Foley
Gagnon
Galt
Geoffrion
Harwood
Higginson
Holton
Houde
Howland
Huot
Huntington
Irvine
Jackson
Joly
Jones (Leeds South)
Jones (Leeds & Grenville North)
Knight
Labrèche-Viger
Laframboise
Lajoie
Langevin
Macdonald (Toronto West)
Macdonald (Kingston)
Macdonald (Attorney-General)
McConkey
McDougall
McGee
McGiverin
McIntyre
Mowat
Notman
O’Halloran
Paquette
Parker
Perrault
Pinsonneault
Poulin
Powell
Price
Raymond
Rémillard
Robitaille
Rose
Ross (Champlain)
Ross (Dundas)
Ross (Prince Edward)
Scatcherd
Scoble
Smith (Durham East)
Somerville
Stirton
Street
Sylvain
Taschereau
Tassé
Thibaudeau
Thompson
Turcotte
Walsh
Webb
Wells
Willson
Wood
Wright (York East)—100.

NAYS

Biggar
Macdonald (Glengarry)
Mackenzie (Lambton)
Mackenzie (Oxford North)
McKellar
Munro
Pope
Rymal
Simpson
Smith (Toronto East)
Wallbridge (Hastings North)
White
Wright (Ottawa County)—13.

The main motion as amended was then carried.