Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WEDNESDAY, March 15, 1876. The SPEAKER took the chair at Three O'clock.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-To supply an omission in the Act extending certain criminal laws to British Columbia. Also-Respecting the attendance of witnesses at criminal trials.

66

[ocr errors]

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. TASCHEREAU rose to a question of privilege affecting the character of this House. He found an entry in the Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada of the following facts:-" On March 30th, "1865, a certain person named Jean Baptiste Daoust was tried before the "Court of Queen's Bench, Montreal, "and found guilty of the crime of forgery; that afterwards, on the 9th of June, the following year, the said "Court of Queen's Bench refused to 46 order a new trial." A person also named Jean Baptiste Daoust had been introduced to this House as the member for Two Mountains. Under the circumstances of this case, he (Mr.Taschereau) thought it was only due to this House that the entry in the Journals should be read and the matter referred to the

[ocr errors]

Committee on Privileges and Elections. He therefore moved that the entry in the Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada for the Session of the year 1866, relating to production of certain papers in the case of the Queen vs. Daoust be now read.

Mr. MASSON said the House was

taken by surprise at this extraordinary motion, which was brought up without notice having been given, even to the member for Two Mountains himself. This matter occurred before Confederation, and Mr. Daoust had been since then elected to this House and held his seat for six years without an objection being raised. He appealed to the spirit of justice of this House to say whether it was fair to pursue such a course as this. Mr. Daoust had not only been a member of this House since 1866, but had been an employé of the present

Government since 1873, yet no action had been taken against him. The House and the country would view with regret, but not with surprisehe had grown accustomed to such things since the change of Government -the conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite, who showed themselves greatest in the smallest things. Whatever action the majority might take, it was plain that an injustice was being done in raking up old difficulties. However, nothing better could be expected from them after their action in the De Celles matter a few days ago. He protested with all his energy against this act of injustice.

Mr. LAURIER did not think this was the time for the hor. member for

Terrebonne to display any passion in the matter. This House was interested the matter. in the decision of this case as well as

the hon. member for Two Mountains. He and his colleagues only desired an investigation into the case, and that justice be done to whomever it was due. He would be very sorry to see the honour of the House trifled with. It was said by the hon. gentleman that they were dealing unfairly with the Mountains. hon. member for Two That hon. gentleman had accepted a

seat in the House and he must therefore take the consequences and face them manfully. The hon. gentleman had said satirically that they were the greatest men greatest men in small things. He consented to the first assumption of the hon. gentleman, but he did not agree that the honour of the House was a small thing.

Mr. SPEAKER-If the Hon. memem ber for Two Mountains is in his seat this is the time for him to make his

statement, after which he ought to withdraw.

Mr. MASSON-It would be difficult for him to know what is going on, seeing that he has received no information on the subject.

Mr. PALMER was surprised by the motion before the House.” He thought it was not for the House to deal with questions of forgery, and he could not see what an Election Committee had to do with it. It was extremely odd that no punishment had followed the conviction for forgery, and he took it

that there must be something very extraordinary in the case. While the honour of the House should be protected, he maintained that it was a very serious matter to bring a charge of this description against any member of the House.

Mr. HOLTON—There is no charge made. The motion is simply that the

Journals of the House be read.

Mr. PALMER-Then it is very wrong to take action in the matter.

Mr. LANGEVIN said it would only have been fair that the hon. member for Two Mountains should have had notice of this intended action in order that he might have prepared his defence, and he was satisfied the hon. gentleman who made the motion would, on reflection, see the justice of this. He suggested that the consideration of the matter should be postponed for 24 or 48 hours, for the purpose of giving the hon. member for Two Mountains time to prepare any statement he might have to make.

Mr. LAURIER said what the hon. gentleman who had preceded him had stated was perfectly reasonable, and that they were quite ready to accede to the suggestion, although when the motion was made the hon. member for Two Mountains was in his place..

Hon. Mr. CAMERON (Cardwell) thought it would be a great pity to have the matter laid over for a day without some further explanations being made in reference to the whole case. The circumstances as they really appeared from the papers, which he held in his hand, were very different from anything they had had reason to understand from any statement made up to the present time. It appeared this gentleman was indicted on two informations for forgery. At the first trial two of the witnesses whom the accused expected to have on hand did not appear, and he was convicted. The second indictment was for the forgery of the name of the same person, and at the second trial the witnesses whom he had expected at the first trial were examined, and the prisoner was acquitted. He accordingly made application to the Court to have the verdict of his first trial set aside on the ground that the evidence |

[ocr errors]

given at the second trial ought to have been given at the first. The Court granted him a new trial on the ground that he was taken by surprise. Accord ingly the case came up for trial a second time, when the Counsel for the Crown objected to the second trial on the ground that the Court had acted illegally in granting a new trial on the ground of surprise; that the Court. under the Criminal Law as it then of Criminal Appeal for Lower Canada, stood, had no right to grant a new trial, or take any action in this regard except upon a point of law; and that following the judgments the Courts of Appeal of Upper Canada had given, no right whatever existed for the granting of a new trial on the mere fact that a witness who had been expected had not been present, or upon any other ground apart altogether from questions of law. The learned Judge, before whom the case came, took the same view, and reserved the matter for the Court of Appeals, which determined that there could be no new trial; and therefore the conviction stood. When he had heard that this point would likely arise he had asked a gentleman, a member of the Bar, conversant with these matters in Lower Canada, whether he could show him the judgment of the Court of Appeals on this occasion; and he believed that there

was none on record.

An Hon. Member-The case is reported.

Hon. Mr. CAMERON supposed that if this was so, it related to the legal point. The accused from that day to this, under two Administrations, had never been called to appear for judgment by any Crown officer.

These circumstances, which it was but fair to state, were apparent from the official document which he held in his hand; when they referred to the Journals of the House of 1876, as was suggested, they simply saw that on Mr. Cartier's motion certain papers were placed before the House, and that shortly afterwards the resignation of the member for Two Mountains took place; both in the Journals and Sessional Papers reference was made to Sessional Paper No. 31, and turning to where it should be, a blank was found with the explanation that under

the direction of the Printing Committee it had not been deemed advisable to print these documents; but these documents were here now, and they established the facts he had mentioned.

Mr. TASCHEREAU replied that he had been charged by the hon. member for Terrebonne with having been. unwilling to act honestly and impartially in this connection; he had not, however, alluded to the case in an invidious way. His object had been to lay the papers before the Committee on Privileges and Elections; and he had not thought that there would have been a discussion on the merits of the case on the present occasion. This he considered unfair to the hon. member for Two Mountains himself. The judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was to be found in Lower Canada Jurist, vol. 10, was this--that a new trial could not legally be had.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Let it stand until to-morrow.

Mr. TASCHEREAU-I have no objection to give twenty-four hours; and then I will bring it up as a question of privilege.

The motion was withdrawn by leave of the House, with the understanding that it would be brought up on the following day.

SUPPLY.

Mr. BORDEN resumed the debate on the amendment to the motion to go into Commitee of Supply.

He thanked the hon. member for Cumberland for his kindness in interfering in his behalf on the previous evening with the desire of obtaining for him a favourable hearing; and also the Premier for affording him the opportunity of moving the adjournment of the debate. He desired to read a portion of an article which appeared in the paper which was the organ of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia. The extract showed that this journal followed a policy entirely opposite to that laid down by the hon. gentleman from Cumberland on the evening previous.

It was headed "Dr. Borden on the Pacific Railway," and read as follows: "The member for the County "of Kings in the Dominion Parliament "has delivered—we beg pardon-read

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a speech in the House of Commons on "the Pacific Railway. We say read, because we have the authority of one "who was present "-he trusted this was not a member of the House

"That the hon. gentleman read every "word of his so called speech like a "child reading a spelling book. Every"body in Kings knows that the worthy "doctor is incapable of speaking thirty "consecutive words anywhere. He may "have written it, although of that we "have grave doubts, and if any friends "fancy that he can succeed, let him "settle the matter by arranging for the "re-delivery of his Pacific speech with"out the paper. The speech,taken upon "its own merits, whoever wrote it, is a "piece of blatant and senseless balder"dash."

He did not suspect the hon. member for Cumberland of having anything to do with the publication of these comments, and he believed that they met with the hon. gentleman's entire disapprobation.

The hon. member for Cape Breton undertook on the previous evening to announce the political feeling of Nova Scotia; this was a new departure for this hon. member, who had hitherto contented himself with the investigation of postal, and similar matters. The hon. gentleman declared that he supported the national policy of the hon. member for Cumberland, and perhaps he thought that this gave him the right to lecture the House and members from Nova Scotia regarding the politics of that Province.

The hon. gentleman said there were no Free Traders in Nova Scotia, but after the vote on the motion of the hon. member for Montreal West, he might feel happy if there were not. If that motion had been carried the cost of living to every one of the colliers of Cape Breton would have been increased, and the existing depression would only have been increased. The hon. gentleman also remarked that the amendment before the House just suited him, but was there anything in the speech of the right hon. member for Kingston which could be construed into a guarantee that the coal interest of Nova Scotia would be protected? There was nothing definite either in that speech or in the resolution before

the House. If the intention of the right hon. member for Kingston was to protect everything, it was clear that nothing would be protected. But he seemed to indicate a desire to protect only the agricultural and manufacturing interests. It was denied by some that he intended to increase the taxation of the people, but if the protection was to be at all adequate, would it not have the effect of destroying the revenue derived from the articles protected? This would necessitate a readjustment of the tariff, and general increase on articles imported into this country, and not manufactured here. It was plain that there would be increased taxation on everything. The great reason alleged for asking that manufactures be protected was that they suffered from a peculiar depression, but that argument had been exploded. It had been shown that they suffered from the depression which prevailed in other countries and in all branches of industry at this time.

a

same

There were many reasons why a protective policy should not be adopted. We must depend upon the development of our vast resources for future greatness. Our North-West must be filled with population, and we can only attract immigration by making the cost of living cheap in this country. While a protective tariff would be an injustice to the majority for the benefit of the few, it would also enhance the cost of living and drive immigration from our shores.

The only protection for our agriculturists was low duties, which would enable them to purchase the necessaries of life as cheaply as possible. Several Ontario farmers in this House had spoken in opposition to the principle of protection as applied to agriculture, and he believed they expressed the opinions of a large majority of the people of Ontario. He had the honour to represent the largest agricultural constituency in Nova Scotia, and he had no hesitation in saying that the views of the vast majority of his constituents were opposed to protection either to manufactures or agriculture. He had not the slightest doubt they would continue to do so, notwithstanding the captivating pic

[ocr errors]

ture drawn by the hon. member for Stanstead of large manufacturing towns and home markets. The same picture had been presented to them when they entered the Confederation; but although the tariff had been increased seven or eight per cent., they saw no such result. No interest of Nova Scotia asked for protection, and the Board of Trade of Halifax had unanimously adopted a resolution against the system. The chief production in his county formerly was potatoes, for the raising of which the soil was peculiarly adapted. Since the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty they had been shut out of the United States' markets, and the farmers of King's had been obliged to turn their attention to raising other products. In the year ending Sept. 20th, 1865, the value of potatoes shipped from his county alone to the United States was $130,992. In the six months immediately preceding the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, the value of potatoes exported from the same county to the United States was $135,229. In the year ending June 30th, 1875, the total amount of vegetables exported from the entire province to the United States was only $35,257.

It was very clear that the only remedy for Canada was reciprocity. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman would not help them, and he denied that a retaliatory policy would assist Canada. It had been stated that the United States had endeavoured to force us into annexation by the imposition. of a high tariff. They had not succeeded, and it was absurd to think that a country ten times weaker than our neighbours could succeed in forcing a policy on the United States. He was further satisfied that a retailatory policy would result injuriously to Canada. The right hon. gentleman's proposition to protect agricultural products would involve the imposition of a duty on flour. That would be a strange kind of protection for the farmers of the Lower Provinces who had no outlet for their products. Some might accuse him of sectionalism in his remarks, but he was satisfied that he was not open to this charge. Notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton he felt assured that among

the leading men of the Maritime Pro- | vinces, the determination of the Government to keep down taxation had met with entire approbation. With regard to his own county he believed it was so, and he believed it applied to the whole of the western part of Nova Scotia at least. In conclusion he desired to congratulate the Government on the policy they had adopted in resisting the encroachments of Protectionists on the rank and file of the people, and on the system of economy they had inaugurated.

Hon. Mr. CAMERON (South Ontario), held that a retaliatory policy would ruin Canada, and especially the lumber trade. What would the gentlemen conducting their business on the Ottawa say if they had to pay two

or three more dollars on lumber?

A

retaliatory policy meant that we should do the same as the United States with

out reference to interest or to common had been sense. One thing which had been lost sight of by hon. gentlemen was,

that if a tariff were raised above a cer

tain point it afforded neither protection nor revenue. Last year the hon. member for Cumberland advocated retrenchment and opposed taxation on the ground that the finances of the country did not require it, whilst this year he took an altogether different course. The Finance Minister in the course of his duty notified the banks to prepare for the payment of money falling due to the Government; but the moment they were notified a yell came up from the Conservative party that the whole country was to be ruined by the absurdity of the Finance Minister. But the

money was not called in.

Mr. WHITE (Hastings)-Did he not notify the banks that he wanted the money?

Hon. Mr. CAMERON replied in the affirmative, but repeated the fact that the money was not called in. He then showed that the Government had reduced the expenditure on militia and camps $403,000, and on emigration to the extent of $195,000. He thought the Government might very well reduce the militia expenditure another $400,000. If by this system of retrenchment the Government succeeded in maintaining the public credit, they

would receive the approbation of the whole country.

A Government was in difficulty when it raised a tariff suddenly, either without due consideration, or owing to necessity and loss of revenue. Prior to Confederation a Finance Minister came to demand, on the plea that increased revenue must be obtained, double the duty on tea-it was then a penny. The consequence was--as he had warned the House-that $80,000 of revenue was lost. The farmers did not desire the imposition of a duty on grain; but on the contrary, they wished to see the importation of more grain than at present from the United States. The market was in England, and the only question at issue was whether the grain went by Quebec or New York.

Mr. WHITE (Hastings) believed that a large majority of the peopleresiding in the county of Hastings were anxious for increased protection in favour of our manufactures and of desired the construction of the Pacific a duty on American grain. They also Railway to open the great West for emigration. These matters had been brought before the electors of East Hastings in 1872 by a gentleman prominently engaged in lumbering and in shipbuilding; and this gentleman be lieved that Canadians should levy a duty on American grain, and showed that tion, not only to aid our farmers, but we were prepared by granting protec-

also our manufacturers. All would

[ocr errors]

admit that this the latter required; and our agriculturists knew that when these interests prospered, they could readily sell their produce at increased prices, and for cash-which was impossible under contrary circumstances.. Protection would consequently be to the farmers' advantage. The importation of Indian corn depreciated the price of our coarse grains; and the policy of the American manufacturers • in sending their goods into this country and selling them for their actual cost was easily understood. The Americans had been given the privilege of fishing in Canadian waters in order that the fishermen of the Maritime Provinces might have the advatage of sending their fish and fish oil free of duty into the United States. The farmers of the Provinces of Ontario and

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »