« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
before the election of 1874, announced
Mr. BUNSTER-I heard the hon.
our Province, when he called it an inhospitable country. I will not allow any hon. gentleman to vilify my country. I think it is as hospitable a country as any in Canada, and I think it is very unstatesmanlike to run down any part of the Dominion as the hon. member for South Bruce has done. Notwithstand
what has been said of British Columbia, we find the Finance Minister was willing to go to England and pledge its credit for money to build the Pacific Railway, but the Government are now using the money in improving and building canals in Ontario, instead of using it for the purpose for which it was borrowed. British Columbia requires no sympathy from this House. All we want is simple justice, and we are not getting anything but abuse by such gentlemen as the hon. member for South Bruce, who alludes to our Province as an inhospit able country and a sea of mountains. But I can tell the hon. gentleman that we have as good gentlemen living there as in any other Province in Canada. It is the only Province in Canada that has an agent in Great Britain to attend to its immigration matters.
Mr. SPEAKER-The question be fore the House is, an hon. gentleman reconstruction of the Ministry. When has called for explanations as to the the hon. gentleman has any observations to make on the reconstruction of the Ministry, or any further information to ask for from the Ministers, he will be in order, but I think his remarks are entirely outside the scope of this subject.
Mr. MASSON-Our attention up to the present point has been directed to the Minister of Justice, but we of Quebec have more fault to find with the accession of the President of the Council to the Ministry. That hon. gentleman said a short time ago that there was really no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives, but there was between the Liberals and the Radicals. I have read the expressions of the hon. gentleman, which I will here recite. He says “ Conservatism does not exclude liberality. It only excludes radicalism which
destroys, and which has become -extinct in Canada by its own excess. All that is not Radical will be bound to ally itself to the great Liberal-Conservative party." I would like to know who the hon. gentleman was then calling Radicals in the Dominion of Canada ? I can tell this House who they were. The hon. member referred to the Grits of Ontario and the Rouges of Quebec, with whom there could never be any union or fusion. Some hon. member has been saying-I think the Premier himself-that it is not a coalition because the hon. member came into the Government without any following. I will now show that the Radicals are really the great branch of the Liberal party of Ontario, led by the Premier. The Hon. the President of the Council thus writes: "As to the Radical opposition of Upper Canada, everyone knows the uncertainty and instability of the clements that compose it. How long would it follow Mr. Mackenzie if, perchance, he was one day to come into power? It is sufficient to recall to one's mind what the Radicals did to Baldwin in 1850, to Hincks in 1854, and to Sandfield Macdonald in 1863, when he was saved only by the Conservative Opposition." And yet the hon. gentleman calls this no fusion. He continues:-"The future belongs yet for a long time to the Conservatives, and it is towards them that we must turn all the aspirations that wish to have success." The hon. gentleman, when he asks what difference there is between Liberals and Conservatives, evidently means what difference is there between Conservatives and Radicals. I want to show that this fusion with the Government to-day is a union with what he then believed to be the Radical party. The Rouges in Quebec believe that there is no difference between Conservatives and Liberals. The hon. gentleman said on the 9th of June, 1868, that the Radicals of Quebec were Annexationists. He was then supporting the Government, as he generally supports Governments, and he said at the time, "It is not right to advise people to throw down the barriers and allow the enemy to enter and take posession of the country." These are the gentlemen that he is allied with to
day, and the question is whether the hon. gentleman himself is more to blame for entering the Cabinet, or those with whom he has allied himself for taking him in. taking him in. The hon. member for Cumberland has said there was no fault to find with the Hon. the President of the Council. But I say this to the Liberals, that I do not believe there is a political party in any country in the world that has shown the example which the Liberal party of Lower Canada has shown lately. They promised to take a stand on morality, but in accepting the Hon. the President of the Council as leader they have confessed that they have no understanding of morality as it is. felt in this country. I remember a fact. The very week that the hon. gentleman took the oath as a Privy Councillor, the Liberal party of the Province of Quebec repudiated a gentleman, of whom, although he is not working with us, we must all be proud. allude to the Hon. Mr. Joly, the Leader of the Opposition in that Province. Those who know and have followed the history of Lower Canada, must understand that before many months are over, the verdict of the people will be against a party that has lowered itself so far as to accept for a leader a gentleman whom they have always abused. Nothing is more demoralizing than to see a great party taking into its ranks a man whom they have always taunted-I do not say justlyfor his corruption when he was working for the Conservatives. They used to say that the great fault of our party was that they were corruptionists---that they robbed the public funds of the country. The gravest accusation made against the party was not that they had enriched themselves at the expense of the country, but that the hon. gentleman had so enriched himself. I do not say that that is true, but those who have made the allegation have certainly lowered the sense of public morality to an extent which it is impossible to surpass.
Hon. Mr. BLAKE-When I com
plied with the demand for an explanation which the hon. member for Kingston made, I was entitled to suppose that the subjects he mentioned were those which I was to explain, and it
who shall receive small salaries, not exceeding $200 a year each, and travelling expenses from their residences to the penitentiaries.
The Bill was read the first time.
said the House was aware that there
were no regular penitentiaries in those Provinces, though buildings were in course of construction. Owing to their great distance from head-quarters and the great expense of travelling to them, it was thought advisable to provide Inspectors for these Provinces,
Hon. Mr. BLAKE introduced a Bill to provide for the Collection and Registration of Criminal Statistics. He said the House last Session unanimously agreed with the suggestion of the hon. member for North York, respecting the obvious importance of such a measure as this. The Bill now introduced was very simple and elastic in its provisions. He would not now trouble the House with the details of it. The general principle was that such schedules as may from time to time be approved by the Governor in Council, shall be furnished to the Department of Agriculture, which has charge of statistics, to collect information with regard to the criminal business conducted in the courts and the number of prisoners in the jails for the establishment of a fee for the offithe year preceding. The Bill proposed cers discharging this duty, it being, in his opinion, not merely justice, but policy to pay some small sum to ensure would give fuller information at the second reading.
the collection of these statistics. He
The Bill was read the first time.
THE OTTAWA CANAL.
Mr.WHITE (Renfrew), asked whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps at an early date for the improvement of the navigation of the Ottawa, Mattawan and French Rivers, so as to enable vessels to pass from Lake Huron via the said rivers to tidewater on the St. Lawrence; and if so, on what scale as to draught of water and size of locks it is intended to construct the said works.
Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-It is not the intention of the Government to take any steps to prosecute any further works than those now under contract, for the present.
Mr. LITTLE asked whether the Postmaster General intends to make such arrangements as will provent rég
istered letters being tampered with, and if loss is sustained by the sender of such registered letter, whether compensation will be allowed by the Post Office Department?
Hon. Mr. HUNTINGTON-It is not the intention to make any radical change in the existing arrangements, but the Department will exercise every precaution to prevent the evils indicated in the hon. gentleman's question.
THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT. Mr. IRVING asked whether it is the intention of the Government to propose any Legislation during the present Session of Parliament upon the subjectmatter of the several Acts known as the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1872, and the amendment thereof passed at the last Session of Parliament?
Hon. Mr. BLAKE-I hope to be able to introduce such a Bill to-morrow.
THE FINANCIAL DEPRESSION.
Mr. MILLS-In rising to move for a Select Committee to enquire into the causes of the present financial depression, said-I assume that there exists at the present time a very considerable extent of financial stringency in the country. I don't think, Sir, that it is necessary to enter into any discussion with the view of establishing that particular fact. When we notice in the newspapers from day to day the failure of men engaged in manufacturing or commercial pursuits in various parts of the country,when we observe statements that a very large number of men formerly employed in the service of those who were engaged in the lumber trade, and in other pursuits, are out of employment-I think that it is unnecessary to bring before the House any array of facts for the purpose of establishing a proposition which I suppose will meet with general assent. "I assume, therefore, that there is a very considerable amount of depression in the various branches of industry and trade, and I purpose asking the House for a Committee to enquire into the causes of this distress. We observe that those who have failed are of the commercial as well as of the manufacturing class ----that it is not only those engaged in producing various articles of industry within the country who have suffered,
Mr. MILLS-I know it is not enstomary to refer to a debate, but this rule is not essentially observed in reference to debates upon the Address. and it is quite possible that I may be, If I am out of order in that particular, I may not say what the member for Kingston said; but I will say this, if the rules of the House permitted me to refer to the hon. gentleman's observations upon the Address, in which he stated that it was very important to enquire into how far the depression in
Mr. SPEAKER-The hon. gentleman is hardly in order.
Mr. MILLS-Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I shall trouble the House with any allusion to, or discussion of, the observations made by the hon. member for Kingston, if the rules of debate of this House will not permit it. I will say this, however, that I am of opinion that we are suffering to a very considerable extent from commercial depression in consequence of
our intimate commercial relations with the trade of the adjoining Republic. I think it was & sound principle which was laid down many years ago by a distinguished English Statesman, that one nation had the same interest in the commercial prosperity of another nation with whom it is carrying on trade to a large extent, that a merchant has in the welfare of his customers. It is not very easy for
the merchant to remain prosperous
large and continuous balance of trade will produce. The balance of trade against England was
That is, from 1868 down to June 30th, 1875, there was a balance of $209,000,000 against this country Now this is a very large amount, and if that represented the actual condition of things as between this country and other countries with whom we deal, it would be a matter for very serious consideration. But we find in looking at the trade of England since 1868 there has been a large balance continuously against that country, without producing any of the disasters which it is supposed that a
It greatly increased with the increased exports and imports of the of trade in a country we are bound to country, but in considering the balance see who does the carrying, and who reaps the profits; who controls the capital by which that trade is carried on. I have no doubt whatever, in looking at the trade of Great Britain, that the capital by which on, the tonnage and marine of England enjoy the profits upon the carriage of both the imports and the exports of the country, and that the profits upon the products exchanged accrue to the capitalists of Great Britain. What that amount is I
do not know, but it must in a very
In 1856 ...
1858 1859 "1860
105,000,000 103,000,000 130,000,000
Thus we observe that, while in England, the balance of trade is apparently against England under a non-protective tariff or free trade policy, in the United States, under a non-protective tariff, the balance was directly in favour of the Republic, regardless of any advantages which it may have from the carrying trade or on the profits of that trade. Since 1861 we all know that in that country they have had a highly protective tariff, a tariff that has averaged 48 per cent. upon the articles taxed, or 44 per cent upon the entire imports of the country. In 1862 the balance of trade against the United States was sixty-two millions in round numbers.