Province of Canada, Legislative Assembly, Scrapbook Debates, 8th Parl, 5th Sess, (31 July 1866)


Document Information

Date: 1866-07-31
By: Province of Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Province of Canada, Parliament, Scrapbook Debates, 8th Parl, 5th Sess, 1866 at 67-70*.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
*Pages 67-70 were missing from the Scrapbook Debates and were supplemented by the Ottawa Times edition from August 1, 1866 as it is the source of the Scrapbook Debates.
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 Province of Canada’s Confederation Debates for 1866.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Tuesday, July 31, 1866[1]

Hector-Louis Langevin [Dorchester, Solicitor General East] introduced

“An Act to amend chapter fifteen of the Consolidated Statutes of Lower Canada, intituled: an act respecting Provincial aid for superior education, and Normal and Common Schools.”

He explained its provisions, giving of the several classes seriatim[2]

Resolved, That instead of the appropriation and distribution of the Provincial Aid according to the 15th chapter of the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada, the following appropriation and distribution be made take place, and be a charge on the revenues of that part of the Province of Canada known as Lower Canada, when it becomes a separate Province, and have a separate Government; and be then in lieu of the several appropriations now made by said chapter, viz.:—

The Provincial Aid for Education purposes in Lower Canada shall be Three hundred thousand dollars, and appropriated as follows:—

1. A sum of Forty-five thousand dollars for Superior Education;

2. A sum of Thirty thousand dollars for Normal Schools and their Building Fund;

3. A sum of Thirty thousand dollars for Academies;

4. A sum, of One hundred and seventy-three thousand dollars for Model and Common Schools, and other expenses required by chapter fifteen of the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada, and not above or hereafter mentioned.

5. A sum of Twenty-two thousand dollars for salaries and contingencies of the Educational Department.[3]

It provides for two Superintendents of Education, the one Catholic, the other Protestant, that the dissentients whether resident or non-resident, shall not be liable for taxes levied in support of the school of the majority, apportions the grant for educational purposes according to population, that the dissentient population of two adjoining municipalities may unite to form one school: that wherever the dissentients in any municipality shall have been one year without having a school in operation, they shall be liable to support the schools of the majority; that the Protestants shall have the power to separate the management of their schools from the Catholic, in which case there shall be established a Separate Board of Education, with the same powers as the board of the majority, and that the appropriation for education shall then be divided between the boards according to the number of children attending the schools.

Antoine-Aimé Dorion [Hochelaga] asked whether it was the intention of the government to introduce a similar measure, to give equal privileges to the Catholics of Upper Canada, with the same guarantees that were proposed for the Protestants of Lower Canada, or if not whether they would cause such measure to be introduced by any private member.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West and Minister of Militia] said he would answer the questions, though not at all relevant to the subject before the House. This was a measure relating to the subject of education in Lower Canada. He would say, however, that it is not the intention of the government to introduce any measure relating to Separate Schools in Upper Canada; it was not the intention of the government to cause any member to introduce such a measure, but he would tell the hon. member that if any member did introduce a measure assimilating the rights of the Catholics of Upper Canada to those of the Protestants of Lower Canada he (the Attorney-General) was prepared to vote for it.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] warned the Reform members of the Government that if any measure was introduced on the school question in Upper Canada, to increase the privileges of the Roman Catholics in Upper Canada, by any supporter of the Government then sitting on the Treasury Benches and merely voting against it would not save them from the indignation of their Constituents. A measure so introduced would be a tyrannical interference with the rights of Upper Canada which would be most unjust. The system in Upper Canada was very different from that of Lower Canada: under the Common School system of Upper Canada there were 400 Catholic Teachers, and of the 60,000 Catholic children 45,000 went to the Common Schools, only 15,000 going to the Separate Schools. There was a distinct understanding that the School question in Upper Canada was not to be interfered with, and the introduction of a measure now by a private member with the support of the Government would be most unfair. He had no objection to the majority in Lower Canada regulating their own affairs, but he claimed the same for Upper Canada.

William McDougall [Lanark North, Provincial Secretary] said the hon. member had not chosen a proper mode of discussion a question of such great importance as the one before the House. He would take occasion to say, however, that if the hon. gentleman considered himself the guardian and mouthpiece of the Protestants of Upper Canada, he would take the liberty of disputing his right to the position. When the Government was formed, it was agreed that a measure should be framed, to protect the rights of the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, in the future Confederation. Their position was a peculiar one, the School system of the majority was more sectarian in practice than that of Upper Canada.

He had, therefore, after consideration, felt justified in assenting to the proposition that they should be secured in their rights, and the bill now introduced had that object in view. Then the hon. member for Hochelaga [Antoine-Aimé Dorion] had put certain questions touching the School question in Upper Canada, which the Attorney-General West [John A. Macdonald] had answered in a very proper way. He said the Government did not intend to introduce any measure on the subject, and the reason was that the Government had not believed any measure necessary, they believed the rights of the Catholics well defined, and in no danger of being interfered with under the existing law: but the Attorney-General [John A. Macdonald] had also expressed his individual intention of voting for a measure to assimilate the privileges of the minorities in both sections, which did not effect the Government, as a government.

He (Mr. McD.) would say as he had said before on this question of Separate Schools, when the member for Lambton [Alexander Mackenzie] had supported him, that if the machinery of the law was defective in the working of the Separate School system, he would assent to its improvement, and if any measure of the kind was introduced by a member of the House, he should be prepared to act either with the hon. gentleman opposite or against him, according to his judgment, and the interests of those who had sent him there would direct him.

Antoine-Aimé Dorion [Hochelaga] denied that the schools in Lower Canada were sectarian, except where the population was all Catholic. In Montreal and other places where the population was mixed, the schools were not sectarian.

Christopher Dunkin [Brome] said there could not properly be any analogy between the school systems of Upper and Lower Canada, because they started from entirely different grounds. The Protestants had said: Make the schools of the majority in Lower Canada, the same as the schools of the majority in Upper Canada, and all will be right; but that could only be done by making the Lower Canada majority Protestant.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Christopher Dunkin [Brome]—The bill was a bill for the minority, which might be Catholic or Protestant, according to the locality; whereas, in Upper Canada, the Catholics were in a minority in every locality. He had no fear of the Lower Canadians agreeing among themselves as to their school system, but protested against Upper Canadians mixing the question with any views which they might see prevail in their own section, as a source of embarrassment to the settlement of the question now before the House.

Francis Jones [Leeds & Grenville North], said he could not believe that the Government would permit such an important question as education to be interfered with by any private member. It was not a question to be left in the hands of any individual member of this House, and he was sure the Government would not consent to the course that had been stated was to be followed.

Arthur Rankin [Essex] said the Separate School bill of Upper Canada[4], which was now law, was introduced by a private member and supported by the Government, when the hon. member for Cornwall [John Sandfield Macdonald] was at the head of it, and the member for Lambton [Alexander Mackenzie] had supported the bill.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West, Minister of Agriculture and Statistics] said a few words in explanation of a reference to him, made by the member for Lambton [Alexander Mackenzie].

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] taunted the Government with being afraid to introduce a bill for Upper Canada, similar to that which they had introduced for Lower Canada.

John Cameron [Peel] thought the discussion about the Upper Canada School law quite out of place on this bill. The Catholics of Lower Canada had always exhibited a very liberal feeling in dealing with the Protestant minority, and the question now before the House was on a bill introduced by a Catholic member of the Government, with reference to the privileges of the Protestants of Lower Canada.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton]—In reply to the Provincial Secretary [William McDougall] said, though he only professed to speak for himself his views were those of the people of Upper Canada.

John Pope [Compton] said that the Roman Catholics had asked for this bill as a means of protection to themselves in places where they were in the minority. I was right that concessions should be made on both sides.

Donald Macdonald [Glengarry] said the Government was afraid to introduce a bill for Upper Canada, knowing their supporters would not sustain them. He was also understood to say that he had always opposed Separate Schools, and always would, because in the first place he represented a constituency which did not desire them, and in the second place, the Reform party of Upper Canada, which had always opposed them.

Archibald McKellar [Kent] spoke in a similar strain to the member for Lambton [Alexander Mackenzie]. He asked the Attorney-General West [John A. Macdonald] if the government would support any measure for extending the Separate School law in Upper Canada.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West and Minister of Militia]—The government will not support any measure of the kind.

Archibald McKellar [Kent] asked if the government would prevent the introduction of a bill for that purpose by any private member

Some Hon. MembersSeveral cries of “no”.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West and Minister of Militia]—Members had the privilege of introducing bills upon any subject they might see fit, and the government did not design to interfere with their prerogatives in this nor any other matter.

Archibald McKellar [Kent] continued, saying the government had desired some private member to introduce a bill for Upper Canada upon this subject, and spoke strongly against it.

Maurice Laframboise [Bagot]—In reply to Mr. Pope denied that the Catholics of Lower Canada had asked for this bill, though they would probably allow it to pass. The bill had been promised to the Protestant members of the House, representing Protestant Constituencies as compensation for their votes in favor of Confederation[5].

William Howland [York West, Postmaster General] said the government occupied a peculiar position on this question. A measure had been promised to guarantee the privileges of the minority in Lower Canada on the subject of education. But the question was in fact merely one of arrangement between the Catholics and the Protestants of Lower Canada, and the government had taken charge of it in the House. With regard to what had been said on the Separate School question in Upper Canada, the government had taken no action, and did not intend taking any action in the matter. He begged to contradict the statement of the member for Kent [Archibald McKellar], that the government had desired some private member to bring in a bill. Nothing of the kind had been done.

Thomas Scatcherd [Middlesex West] said the members for Lambton [Alexander Mackenzie] and Kent [Archibald McKellar] exhibited great zeal for the Protestant interests of Upper Canada now, but when it suited their purpose, they had supported the government that had passed the present school law[6], and voted large sums for sectarian grants.

After some other members had spoken,

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] replied to Mr. Scatcherd, saying that when that gentleman accused him of having supported sectarian grants, he stated what he knew was not correct.

Some Hon. MembersCries of “order.”

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West and Minister of Militia] said the hon. member had no right to use such language, and ought to substantiate it or apologise.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton]—Had only used it in the presumption that every member knew what took place in the House, and it would be seen by reference to the journals, that he had not voted as the member for Middlesex [Thomas Scatcherd] had said[7].

Thomas Scatcherd [Middlesex West] said the member for Lambton [Alexander Mackenzie] was accustomed to making such statements in the House, when he got into a difficulty. He (Mr. Scatcherd) had said that that gentleman had supported the Government, which passed the Separate School law and voted sectarian grants[8], and he did not care in what manner the hon. gentleman might choose to reply to him.

After further discussion Messrs. Jones, McKellar and others taking part, the bill was read a first time.

Local Constitutions[9]

On motion of the John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West and Minister of Militia] the adjourned debate on the Resolutions providing for the Local constitutions was resumed[10]:

That by the 38th paragraph of the Resolution of this House passed on the third day of February, 1865, for presenting an humble Address 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 Resolutions which were adopted at a Conference of Delegates from the said Colonies, held at the City of Quebec, on the 10th of October, 1864, it is provided that “for each of the Provinces there shall be an Executive Officer, styled the 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;” and that by the 41st paragraph of the same Resolution it is provided that “the Local Government and Legislature of each Province shall be constructed in such manner as the existing Legislature of each such Province shall provide.”[11]

And the Question being put on the amendment;

That the words “and it is further now resolved, that in the opinion of this House the appointment of the first Lieutenant-Governor should be provisional, and that he should hold office strictly during pleasure,” be added at the end thereof.[12]

it was resolved in the Affirmative.[13]

The first resolution being again put,

That by the 38th paragraph of the Resolution of this House passed on the third day of February, 1865, for presenting an humble Address 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 Resolutions which were adopted at a Conference of Delegates from the said Colonies, held at the City of Quebec, on the 10th of October, 1864, it is provided that “for each of the Provinces there shall be an Executive Officer, styled the 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; ” and that by the 41st paragraph  of the same Resolution it is provided that “the Local Government and Legislature of each Province shall be constructed in such manner as the existing Legislature of each such Province shall provide.

And it is further now resolved, that in the opinion of this House, the appointment of the first Lieutenant-Governor should be provisional, and that he should hold office strictly during pleasure.[14]

was declared and carried on division.

The second resolution, declaring the principle of Responsible Government in the Local Legislature, being put:

That under and subject to the Constitution of the Federated Provinces, the executive authority of the Lieutenant Governor of Lower Canada and Upper Canada respectively shall be administered by each of such Officers according to the well understood principles of the British Constitution.[15]

Matthew Cameron [Ontario North] objected that the resolution did not sufficiently define the Local Government.

He moved in amendment

That the Local Governments, shall, until altered by the Local Legislature consist of a Lieutenant-Governor and Executive Council, to consist of five members chosen by the Lieutenant-Governor, and the executive authority of the Lieutenant-Governor shall be exercised by the advice of the Executive Council, who shall be responsible to Parliament.

He contended that the expression “the well understood principles of the British Constitution” did not define the Local Governments with sufficient precision.

Joseph Cauchon [Montmorency] said the amendment did not provide for responsible Government. It did not consist in the Executive Council being limited to five members, but in the responsibility of ministers, first to the Sovereign and then to the people.

Some Hon. Members—Hear.

Joseph Cauchon [Montmorency]—They had a right to limit the number of heads of departments to five, for the sake of keeping down expense, but we had no right to limit the number of councillors. It was the prerogative of the Sovereign to seek the advice of as many as he pleased, and the ministers were responsible to the Crown for that advice and to the people too. The proposition to limit the number of councillors was, in fact, limiting the system of responsible government.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] argued that the reasoning applied to the Crown, would not extend to the Lieutenant-Governor. The House now stood in the same position towards the Local Governments, that it did when creating the county Councils, and they might as well define the duties of the Lieutenant-Governor as they had done those of the Warden. He thought it right that the House should now limit the number of advisers, beyond which the Lieutenant-Governor ought not to be allowed to go. He was perfectly willing to allow the gentlemen from Lower Canada, to make their own arrangements, and would suggest therefore, that this amendment apply only to Upper Canada.

William McDougall [Lanark North, Provincial Secretary] said the amendment only asked the Imperial Government to put into the Imperial Act, a clause which would prevent the Local Legislature from regulating a number of the Executive. It would be competent for the Local Parliaments to regulate the matter, and if the Lieutenant-Governor should appoint too many advisers, they could vote Want of Confidence. […][16]

The debate on the Local Constitutions was resumed by Arthur Rankin [Essex], who replied to John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] and opposed the amendment.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] said the opponents of the amendment misapprehended its effect, in saying it prevented the Local Legislature from regulating the number of the Executive. The amendment provided only that the number should he fixed at five, until the Local Legislature should see fit to change it.

Christopher Dunkin [Brome] and Alexander Morris [Lanark South] opposed the amendment, the former contending that it did not harmonize so well with the principle of responsible government as the resolution.

Matthew Cameron [Ontario North] denied that the amendment limited the number of advisers; it only defined the numbers which should be responsible to Parliament, of course, that had always been followed. He should like some of the gentlemen opposite to explain the meaning of the well understood principles of the British Constitution.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West, Attorney-General East] addressed the House briefly, showing that according to British practice the number of advisers was never arbitrarily fixed; that the Lieutenant-Governors would represent the crown, the Local Constitutions being direct from Imperial Parliament.

Thomas Parker [Wellington North] made a few remarks favoring the amendment.

The amendment—

That the Local Governments, shall, until altered by the Local Legislature consist of a Lieutenant-Governor and Executive Council, to consist of five members chosen by the Lieutenant-Governor, and the executive authority of the Lieutenant-Governor shall be exercised by the advice of the Executive Council, who shall be responsible to Parliament.[17]

—was then declared lost on division and the second resolution—

That under and subject to the Constitution of the Federated Provinces, the executive authority of the Lieutenant Governor of Lower Canada and Upper Canada respectively shall be administered by each of such Officers according to the well understood principles of the British Constitution.[18]

—carried.

The third resolution (regarding the seal)—

The Great Seal of each Province of Lower Canada and Upper Canada, shall be the same or of the same design, in each of the said Provinces, as that used in the said Provinces respectively, at the time of the existing Union, until altered by the Local Government.[19]

—was then carried.

On the 4th resolution,

That there shall be a Local Legislature for Lower Canada, composed of Two Chambers, to be called the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada.[20]

Antoine-Aimé Dorion [Hochelaga] stated that he wished to move an amendment, providing that the Lower Canada Legislature be not composed of two chambers, but that it be composed of a single chamber, as provided for Upper Canada.[21]

And the Question being put,[22]

That the […] Fourth[23]

That there shall be a Local Legislature for Lower Canada, composed of Two Chambers, to be called the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada.[24]

Fifth—

5. That there shall be a Local Legislature for Upper Canada, which shall consist of One Chamber, to be, called the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada.[25]

Sixth—

6. That the Legislative Council of Lower Canada shall be composed of twenty-four Members, to be appointed by the Crown, under the Great Seal of the Local Government, who shall hold office during life; but 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.[26]

Seventh—

7. That the Members of the Legislative Council of Lower Canada shall be British Subjects by birth or naturalization, of the full age of thirty years; shall possess a continuous real property qualification, in Lower Canada, of four thousand dollars over and above all incumbrances, and shall continue worth that sum over and above their debts and liabilities.[27]

Eighth—

8. That if any question shall arise as to the qualification of a Legislative Councillor in Lower Canada, the same shall be determined by the Council.

Ninth—

9. That the Speaker of the Legislative Council of Lower Canada (unless otherwise provided by the Local 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.[28]

—and Tenth—

10. That each of the twenty-four Legislative Councillors of Lower Canada shall be appointed to represent one of the twenty-four Electoral Divisions thereof, mentioned in Schedule A of the first chapter of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, and such Councillor shall reside or possess his qualification in the Division he is appointed to represent.[29]

be now read a second time; the House divided:And it was resolved in the Affirmative.[30]

On reading the 11th resolution,

That the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada shall be composed of the sixty-five Members to be elected to represent the sixty-five Electoral Divisions into which Lower Canada is now divided, under chapter two of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, chapter seventy-five of the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada, and the Act 23 Victoria, chapter 1, or of any other Act, amending the same, in force at the time when the Local Government shall be constituted, as well for representation in the Local Legislature thereof, as in the House of Commons of the Federated Provinces;

Provided that it shall not be lawful to present to the Lieutenant Governor for assent any Bill of the Legislative Council and Assembly of Lower Canada by which the number of the Representatives in the Legislative Assembly or the limits of the Electoral Divisions may be altered, unless the second and third readings of such Bill in the Legislative Assembly shall have been passed with the concurrence of three-fourths of the Members for the time being of the said Legislative Assembly, and the assent shall not be given to such Bill unless an Address has been presented by the Legislative Assembly to the Lieutenant Governor that such Bill has been so passed.[31]

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] moved, in amendment, seconded by John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West and Minister of Militia],

That the words “number of Representatives in the Legislative Assembly or the” be left out; that after the words, “limits of the Electoral Divisions” the words “mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed, marked A” be inserted; that the words “three fourths” be left out, and the words “the majority” inserted; and that after the words “being of the said Legislative Assembly” the words “representing the Electoral Divisions in said schedule, marked A.”

Schedule A.

Electoral Divisions in Lower Canada referred to in the above Resolutions:—

Counties of Pontiac,
“ Ottawa
“ Argenteuil
“ Huntingdon,
“ Missisquoi,
“ Brome,
“ Shefford,
“ Stanstead,
“ Compton,
“ Wolfe and Richmond,
“ Megantic and

The Town of Sherbrooke be inserted.[32]

Alexander Galt [Sherbrooke, Minister of Finance] stated that it was intended to amend the same for the purpose of providing that certain constituencies—those inhabited by the people of British origin—may not be altered as to their limits, except by the vote of a majority of the representatives of the same.

The amendment—

That the words “number of Representatives in the Legislative Assembly or the” be left out; that after the words, “limits of the Electoral Divisions” the words “mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed, marked A” be inserted; that the words “three fourths” be left out, and the words “the majority” inserted; and that after the words “being of the said Legislative Assembly” the words “representing the Electoral Divisions in said schedule, marked A.”

Schedule A.

Electoral Divisions in Lower Canada referred to in the above Resolutions:—

Counties of Pontiac,
“ Ottawa
“ Argenteuil
“ Huntingdon,
“ Missisquoi,
“ Brome,
“ Shefford,
“ Stanstead,
“ Compton,
“ Wolfe and Richmond,
“ Megantic and

The Town of Sherbrooke be inserted.[33]

—was carried.

Then, the main Question, as amended, being put; the House divided:[34]

11. That the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada shall be composed of the sixty-five Members to be elected to represent the sixty-five Electoral Divisions into which Lower Canada is now divided, under chapter two of the-Consolidated Statutes of Canada, chapter seventy-five of the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada, and the Act 23 Victoria, chapter 1, or of any other Act, amending the same, in force at the time when the Local Government shall be constituted, as well for representation in the Local Legislature thereof, as in the House of Commons of the Federated Provinces;

Provided that it shall not be lawful to present to the Lieutenant Governor for assent any Bill of the Legislative Council and Assembly of Lower, Canada by which the limits of the Electoral Divisions mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed, marked A. may be altered, unless the second and third readings of such Bill in the Legislative Assembly shall have been passed with the concurrence of the majority of the Members for the time being of the said Legislative Assembly, representing the Electoral Divisions mentioned in the said schedule marked A, and the Assent shall not be given to such Bill unless an Address bas been presented by the Legislative Assembly to the Lieutenant Governor that such Bill has been so passed.

Schedule A.

Electoral Divisions in Lower Canada referred to in the above Resolutions:—

Counties of Pontiac,
“ Ottawa
“ Argenteuil
“ Huntingdon,
“ Missisquoi,
“ Brome,
“ Shefford,
“ Stanstead,
“ Compton,
“ Wolfe and Richmond,
“ Megantic and

The Town of Sherbrooke be inserted.[35]

And it was resolved in the Affirmative.[36]

The Eleventh Resolution, as amended, was then read a second time.[37]

And the Question being put, That the Twelfth,—[38]

12. That the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada shall be composed of eighty-two Members, to be elected to represent the eighty-two constituencies in Upper Canada, such constituencies being identical, whether for representation in the Local Legislative Assembly or for representation in the House of Commons of the Federated Provinces, and which constituencies shall consist of the divisions and be bounded as is provided in the schedule hereto annexed, marked A.[39]

Thirteenth,—

13. That until other provisions are made by the Local Legislature of Lower and Upper Canada respectively, changing the same in either of the said Provinces, all the Laws which at the date of the Proclamation, constituting the separate Provinces of Lower Canada and of Upper Canada, shall be in force in each of the said 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 of the Province of Canada, and relating to the qualification and 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 proceedings 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 the 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 said Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada and in the said the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada.[40]

Fourteenth—

14. That the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada and the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada respectively, shall continue for four years from the day of the return of the Writs for choosing the same, and no longer, subject, nevertheless, to either the said the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada, or the said the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada, being sooner prorogued or dissolved by the Lieutenant Governor of either of the said Provinces respectively.[41]

—and Fifteenth Resolutions—

15. That there shall be a Session of the Legislature of each of the said Provinces once at least every year, so that a period of twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the Local Legislature in one Session, and the first sitting thereof in the next Session.[42]

— be now read a second time; the House divided:And it was resolved in the Affirmative.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West and Minister of Militia] moved the resolution of which he had given notice on Friday, to provide for a settlement of accounts between Upper and Lower Canada.

16. That it is expedient that any Act of the Imperial Parliament which may be passed for the Union of the Colonies of British North America, should contain a provision that the division and adjustment of the debts, credits, liabilities, properties and assets of the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, should be referred to the arbitrament of three arbitrators, one to be chosen by the Local Government of Upper Canada, the other by the Local Government of Lower Canada, and the third by the General Government; it being further provided that the selection of the arbitrators shall not take place until after the General Parliament for British North America and Local Legislatures for Upper and Lower Canada have been elected—and that the third arbitrator shall not be a resident in either Upper or Lower Canada.[43]

A long discussion ensued.

And the Question being put, That the said Resolution be now read a second time; the House divided:And it was resolved in the Affirmative.[44]


ENDNOTES

And the Question being put, That the said Resolution be now read a second time; the House divided:And it was resolved in the Affirmative.[44]

[1]      This debate day is missing from the ‘Scrapbook Debates’. A note appears where the pages should be from the compiler of the 1866 Debates, Library of Parliament Clerk Augustin Laperrière. The note reads, “The pages from 66 to 71 were torn out by some person unknown, but their contents may be found by referring to the file of the Ottawa Times deposited in the Library.” The source of this debate, thus, is the Aug. 1, 1866 edition of the Ottawa Times. As a result of this, the pagination of the original is lost for this day. The debates would have appeared on pp. 67-70, but we cannot determine where the page numbers would have occurred. All references from these debates in the index are marked as pp. 67-70.

[2]      i.e. “point-by-point.”

[3]      Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada (1866), p. 253. Added for completeness.

[4]      An Act to Restore Roman Catholics in Upper Canada Certain Rights in Respect to Separate Schools (Province of Canada, 1863).

[5]      This charge against Galt—the guarantee of English, Protestant rights in Lower Canada in exchange for a vote on Confederation—was a charge that had been made in the Legislative Assembly as early as Mar. 18, 1865, p. B:7. Luther Holton is the first to make the accusation. The letter itself remains an unconfirmed reference.

[6]      An Act to Restore Roman Catholics in Upper Canada Certain Rights in Respect to Separate Schools (Province of Canada, 1863).

[7]      Scatcherd implies that Mackenzie and McKellar supported the present school law, but this is misleading. Mackenzie and McKellar voted against the school law (Mar. 13, 1863), Journals (1863), p. 129.

[8]      Mackenzie is correct. He did not vote for the bill.

[9]      This title has been added by the editors of the current edition (2022).

[10]    Debate was resumed on John A. Macdonald’s amendment from Jul. 27, 1866, p. 61.

[11]    Journals (Jul. 13, 1866), p. 141. Added for clarity.  The original resolutions have been reinserted from the Jul. 13th proceedings, pp. 141-145, since they aren’t reproduced in either the debates or the Journals of that day. Any missing amendments from the debates have been supplemented by the Journals from Jul 31st, pp. 256-258. The reader, as a result, will see fluctuating page references—the reinsertion of resolutions and the insertion of amendments to those resolutions.

[12]    Journals, p. 233. This amendment was presented to the House on Jul. 27, 1866. Added for completeness.

[13]    Journals, p. 256. Added for clarity. The amendment was agreed to before the reconstituted resolution was then agreed to.

[14]    Added for clarity. This is a combination of the resolution and the amendment which had just been agreed to.

[15]    Journals, p. 141. Added for completeness.

[16]    Non-relevant material has been left out. To view the entire original document, see PrimaryDocuments.ca.

[17]    Journals, p. 257. Reinserted for clarity.

[18]    Journals, p. 141. Added for completeness.

[19]    ibid.

[20]    ibid.

[21]    This amendment seems to have never been formally proposed as it appears nowhere in the Journals.

[22]    This next part, the passing of resolutions 5-10, replaces a curious sentence from the newspaper reporting of the debates, which read, “It was then agreed that the remaining resolutions should be read, and the debate adjourned until Thursday.” In the Journals, there is no such adjournment. The resolutions are agreed to in order. This also aligns with the debate itself, which after the supposed adjournment until Thursday, continues to debate the eleventh resolution. Journals, p. 257.

[23]    The Journals say “That the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Resolutions be now read a second time…” Since the debates have already covered the passing of the third resolution, it has been omitted from this sentence in the form of an ellipses. Journals, p. 257.

[24]    Journals, p. 141. Added for completeness.

[25]    ibid.

[26]    ibid.

[27]    ibid.

[28]    ibid.

[29]    ibid, pp. 141-142.

[30]    Journals, p. 257.

[31]    Journals, p. 142.

[32]    Journals, p. 257-258. Added for completeness.

[33]    ibid. Reinserted for clarity.

[34]    Journals, p. 258.

[35]    Added for clarity. This is a combination of the resolution and the amendment which had just been agreed to.

[36]    Journals, p. 258.

[37]    ibid.

[38]    ibid. The full sentence, which has been divided for clarity purposes, reads in full, “And the Question being put, That the Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Resolutions be now read a second time; the House divided:—And it was resolved in the Affirmative.”

[39]    Journals, p. 142. Added for completeness.

[40]    ibid.

[41]    ibid.

[42]    ibid.

[43]    Journals, p. 258. Added for completeness.

[44]    ibid.

Leave a Reply