Document Information

Date: 1869-06-11
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1st Parl, 2nd Sess, 1869 at 717-749.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY TO NOVA SCOTIA

John Rose [Huntingdon] moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on certain resolutions relative to the affairs of the Province of Nova Scotia, respecting the terms of a certain arrangement affecting that Province. The hon. gentleman said the House was aware that Nova Scotia had objected to the financial arrangement embodied in the Union Act in many particulars, and these objections were made not only to that House, but also formed the subject of communications with the Home Government. In the course of last autumn an intimation was expressed by the Home

[Page 718]

Government that our attention should be again directed to this financial arrangement with Nova Scotia. An enquiry had been instituted by the Government into the causes of complaint, the result of which had been laid before the House in the shape of correspondence.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay]—Has the despatch on the subject been laid before the House?

John Rose [Huntingdon]—Yes.

Edward Blake [Durham West]—Is it the despatch of June 4th?

John Rose [Huntingdon] thought that was the date.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] said that that despatch had never been laid before the House in the sense alluded to.

John Rose [Huntingdon] said it had been laid before the House last session and had appeared in the newspapers. With the result of the inquiries into the complaint of Nova Scotia, the House had been made acquainted since the commencement of the present session. He did not think it necessary to go over all the ground covered by the correspondence and the report. He would simply content himself by adverting to the principal point, viz., the change in the circumstances of Nova Scotia between the time the resolutions adopted by the Quebec Conference were passed, and the period when the Union was consummated. He would advert to that point first, and afterwards endeavour to show by the figures contained in the report that Nova Scotia could not provide for the whole of her local wants under the strict calculation of the Union Act. The House would see from the statement placed before it, that at the time of the Quebec Conference the Public Debt of Nova Scotia was about $4,800,000, and the annual interest thereon reached, in round numbers, $183,000. That was in 1864. The next year it increased to $5,100,000, and the interest to $278,000. In 1866, the debt had increased to $6,032,000. In 1867, it was $8,026,000; and in 1868, it had swelled, estimating it as nearly as possible, to $9,200,000-showing an increase between the period of the Quebec Conference and the Union, of $4,400,000, while the annual interest increased $323,000. This increase in the liabilities of Nova Scotia was in the main occasioned by the engagements she had come under for sums paid for building railways and other works, which have since become the property of the Dominion. From the report it would be seen that she had laid out $2,600,000 on the Truro & Pictou Railway, Provincial Buildings, and St. Peter’s

[Page 719]

Canal; and besides this a farther sum of $1,100,000 had been or was in course of expenditure for the Windsor and Annapolis Railroad, which, though it will not become the property of the Dominion, is an important feeder to the Dominion lines. So that out of the $4,400,000 increase of debt, $3,700,000 was represented by valuable assets which had either become Dominion property or increased the value of such property. A number of other objections were urged by Nova Scotia, one being that it was unfair that the debt should be calculated at so much per head and a payment of 80 cents per head only made, because she contended she paid more in the shape of customs duties than any other Province in the Dominion. She contended also that she had to represent her debt a larger amount of property than any other Province. She contended also that if she were left out of the Union, she would only have had to increase her revenue by a small amount in order to meet all the charges laid on her. He would not weary the House by a repetition of the arguments on the point, for a moment he would refer to another point on which the whole question in a great degree pended. Nova Scotia contended that the circumstances were so peculiar, that she was so exceptionally circumstanced, that there had not under Confederation been left her sufficient means in local revenue to meet the expenditure entailed on her under the Union Act. She asserted that she had not the valuable Crown Lands and assets of the other Provinces, and in fact no means to enable her to meet the vast outlay entailed on her by the Union Act. Her debt, amounting to some $9,200,000, had to be charged with about $50,000 a year, deducted from the subsidy. In order to show the true position of Nova Scotia he would give a statement of the local revenue on which she had to depend to meet her local wants, and also state the amount necessary to support the Local Government. For the three half years previous to Confederation the revenue of that Province from local sources was $161,300, and the gross amount of subsidy to which she would be entitled under the Union Act was $333,000, making together $494,300. These were sums available to her for the purposes of Local Government under the strict terms of the Act. Her average expenditure during the same period would be found to be $766,000 a year, leaving an annual deficit of $270,000 between her local revenue and local expenditure. That was the result of a comparison for the three and a half years previous to Confederation, and represented a deficit which would necessarily have to be met by direct

[Page 720]

taxation. Further to illustrate this point, he would revert to the condition of Nova Scotia since the Union. In 1867 her local revenue, including the total subsidy, was $567,000, and the entire expenditure for local purposes was $868,000, leaving a deficit of $300,000 for that year. Take the next year, 1868, and it would be found that the estimated revenue for that year from all the resources left, was set down at $456,000, while her estimated expenditure figured up to $663,000, leaving a apparent deficit of $207,000, which would have to be made up by direct taxation. The sources of local revenue left to Nova Scotia were few in number. They were shown in the statement, and were mainly the royalty on coal, Crown lands and mines; and the receipts were inadequate to the services which were shown in the same statement. There was a very considerable deficiency between the expenditure necessary for local services and the available local revenues, which, unless some special provision was made, would have to be made good by direct taxation. He would now shew what was the result of the arrangement to which the assent of the House was asked. The principle of that arrangement was that Nova Scotia should be placed on the same footing as New Brunswick. She should come in with the same amount of debt per head of her population, and should receive for a period of 10 years the same special subsidy in proportion to population which was given to New Brunswick. These were the two principal charges, and there were two minor matters which would give her $32,000 a year more. A considerable portion of the debt of Nova Scotia was on account of her Provincial notes, and the amount she owed for deposits in her Savings Banks. These Provincial notes were issued thirty or forty-years ago and it was believed a considerable portion of them would never come in, and that the Dominion would never be called to pay interest or principal on account of them, so that there would be a gain to the Dominion if Nova Scotia was charged interest on the whole amount. The same principle also applied to the deposits in the Savings Banks, a considerable proportion of which, it was believed, would never be called for. The Government had not felt at liberty to deduct anything absolutely from the debt of Nova Scotia on this account, but they had considered it right that a certain proportion, 10 percent, of each amount, should be placed to a suspense account, on which no interest should be charged until it was found whether interest would have to be paid by the Dominion or not. He would now state the practical operation of these changes, and how much they

[Page 721]

would give Nova Scotia beyond what was provided in the Union Act. The debt which she would bring into the Union, instead of $8,000,000, would be $9,188,000. Her actual debt at present was estimated at $9,040,000, Canada currency. The figures he had given a little while ago were in Nova Scotia currency. There would thus be left a sum of $148,311 on which Nova Scotia would be entitled to receive interest to the amount of $7,400. Secondly the additional subsidy for two years, to the first of July next, at the same rate as that to New Brunswick, would represent a capital of $165,390, the annual interest on which would be $8,269. Thirdly, the 10 per cent of deduction from the Savings Bank deposits and Provincial notes represents a capital of $125,054, the annual interest on which was $6,252. The additional subsidy for the eight years yet to be run would be $82,680. Lastly, the interest on the amount by which the actual debt exceeds the debt provided for in the Union Act, would be $52,000. These various sums made a total amount of $156,656, which would be the practical result to Nova Scotia of the charges under this arrangement. He would next show the aggregate sum she would receive from the Dominion. 1st. The special subsidy under the Union Act, $60,000. 2nd. The subsidy of 80c. per head, $264,685. 3rd. Additional amount under this arrangement, $156,656, being a total of $481,341 per annum, payable by the Dominion to Nova Scotia. The next question was, what were her local sources of revenue. The Provincial Treasurer estimated the receipts from the Mines and Royalties on Coal at $90,000; Insane Asylum, $20,000; Crown Lands, $28,000; Marriage Licences, and other fees, $30,000. These made a total of $141,000, which, added to the $481,000 payable by the Dominion, would give her a total revenue of $622,000.

In reply to Thomas Killam [Yarmouth],

John Rose [Huntingdon] stated there would be a deduction from the $156,000 of the interest on the cost of the Province Building $22,000, until the Province Building was given up by the Local Government. Then what would be the local expenditure? The expenditure in the various Provinces were estimated in the aggregate at $614,000, about balancing the estimated revenue. Very few of the estimates seemed to him susceptible of diminution. Having given these results, he did not think it necessary to travel over the whole ground of the reasons assigned for these new arrangements in the various reports which were in the possession of the House. He trusted the

[Page 722]

arrangements would commend themselves to the people of Nova Scotia, and also to the justice and good sense of the people of the Dominion. He felt sure there was no desire on the part of this country to overlook the special or peculiar circumstances of any Province, but that they would be willing, on the contrary, to treat those exceptional circumstances with that spirit of liberality which would enable the Union to be carried on with harmony and not leave the people of any one Province to feel that they were subjected to exceptional hardships which were not borne by other Provinces. He moved that the Speaker do leave the chair for the House to go into Committee on the resolutions.

Edward Blake [Durham West] rose to move the amendment of which he had given notice. He recognized the very great importance of the subject which the Finance Minister had presented to the consideration of the House, and he regretted that the bringing it before the House should have been delayed till this late hour of the session. The proposal of the Government involved a charge to the Dominion to the amount of about $2,000,000 if capitalized at 5 per cent. It was one which certainly deserved the most attentive consideration of the House and especially the attention of gentlemen representing the Province from which he came, which according to the calculations of the Treasurer of Ontario in another place, had to contribute a sum equal to five-ninths of that capital or a sum exceeding $1,100,000. His amendment did not involve the question whether it was proper that the case of Nova Scotia should be considered, or whether a case had not been made out for there being made some alterations in her favour of the terms of the Union Act. He had observed with pain the charge that the gentlemen with whom he was accustomed to act in this House had never had any real sympathy with Nova Scotia, and that their pretended sympathy with that Province had been actuated by other and sinister views?

Joseph Howe [Hants]—Do you refer to anything I have said?

Edward Blake [Durham West] acquitted the President of the Council of having said anything of the kind, and said he referred to some statements in the Ottawa correspondence of the Halifax Citizen. But in spite of such charges he was here to repeat what he declared last session, that if it should turn out after Nova Scotia had given a fair trial to this Union, that the feelings of her people were still averse to it, he for his part would be willing to further a separation. He had the strongest

[Page 723]

hope and confidence that that result would not arrive. But a proposition sound last session was in his judgment sound this session, and his proposition last session was founded on this-that a Union which was not a union of hearts would not prosper. He was therefore still prepared to declare what he declared last session, that if it should be made to appear that Nova Scotia had an injustice inflicted on her by the terms of the Union Act; if it should appear that those who were the guardians of her interests in framing the Constitution neglected or betrayed their trust, that they had caused less to be assigned to her than in fairness and justice she ought to have, in that case hon. gentlemen interested in the prosperity of Nova Scotia would find him working heart and hand with them to remedy that injustice. (Hear, hear.) and it was in no way inconsistent with these views that he should now submit the amendment of which he had given notice. He was anxious to intervene this early because he desired that consideration of his amendment should not be complicated with a debate on the rights or wrongs of Nova Scotia in this matter, and that the debate should proceed on the constitutional question abstracted altogether from the merits of the proposition submitted by the Government. The proposition of the Finance Minister proposed, and he was glad it did so in its very terms, for that was so far a fair and candid proceeding, in terms a direct amendment of the conditions of the Union Act. He observed that his honourable friend shook his head, but when the resolution came to be read it would be seen that it proposed to make the debt of Nova Scotia such a sum, just as if such a sum had been inserted in the Act, and that a special subsidy was proposed to be granted to that Province, in addition to the grant given by the Union Act. In whatever form of words the hon. gentleman might have been pleased to conceal and cloak the proposition, the substance of it would have been the same; but he was glad he had put down in plain words what he proposed to do, asking this Parliament to claim the right of amending the Imperial Act, and saying that such and such figures should stand for certain other figures in that Act. The question then to be considered was, whether the course proposed by the Government was a course constitutionally correct; that course being-that, in order Io alter the conditions of the Union Act, this Parliament should pass an Act for that purpose, instead of dealing with the matter by an Address to the Crown. This might be inferred from the resolutions themselves; and

[Page 724]

the Finance Minister himself had distinctly announced that it was his intention to proceed, not by Bill, but by Address. The question they had before them was, whether it was competent to this Parliament to pass into law the proposition contained in these resolutions. He had been somewhat surprised to hear the Finance Minister allege that those proposals were founded upon a despatch from the Imperial Government. The only despatch which they had heard, and which his honourable friend had alluded to, was the despatch of June 4th, 1868, referred to in the letter of the Minister of Justice of the 6th October last. In that letter, His Grace the Duke of Buckingham draws the attention of Lord Monck and his Government to the points raised in the address relative to taxation, the regulations of trade, and the fisheries, and he expresses a confidence, which, says the Premier, I am sure is well founded, that it will be the care and wish of that Government, and of the Parliament of the Dominion, to relax or modify any arrangements on those subjects which may prejudice the peculiar interests of Nova Scotia, and the maritime portion of the Dominion. That was the statement of the English Government on which the negotiations were based, and he denied that that statement pointed to any amendment or alteration of the terms of the Act of Union. He denied that it pointed to anything more than such modifications in our own internal arrangements, effected by us during the present session, as might be advisable. He did not say that the Government were blameable for entering into these negotiations.-What he said was that they had not the sanction of the English Government for the proposition that this Parliament was competent to relax or modify the terms of the Act of Union. The Finance Minister said that the Imperial Government had directed the attention of the Canadian Government to the terms of the Act of Union which pressed hardly on Nova Scotia,-he (Mr. Blake) said that the Imperial Government had done nothing of the kind-they directed the attention of this Government to the points with reference to taxation, the relations of trade, and the fisheries, all of which we had under our control, but not to any modification of the Union Act. In entering therefore, upon these negotiations the Government did so on their own responsibility. He blamed them not for entering into the investigation, the results of which they had laid before the House, but in that they had no colour of right from that despatch to say that it was in the contemplation of the English Government that there

[Page 725]

should be negotiations for the modification or variation of the terms of the Union Act. Now what were the terms of the Union Act as to the subject in hand? By sections 102 to 106 it was provided that all duties and revenues over which the respective legislatures have control are to form the Consolidated revenue fund, to be appropriated for the public service of Canada in the manner and subject to the charges by the Act, provided:-that the consolidated revenue funds of Canada is to be charged, first, with the expenses of the management thereof; secondly, the annual interest of the debt; thirdly, with the salary of the Governor-General; and the 106th section provides that subject to the several payments of this Act charged on the consolidated revenue funds of Canada, the same shall be appropriated by the Parliament of Canada for the public service. The provisions as to the local appropriations, so far as they were material to this question, were to be found from the 111th to the 116th sections. It was provided that Ontario and Quebec should be liable for a certain sum in the event of their debts exceeding certain amounts. In the 118th section there were provisions as to the half-yearly payments to the several Provinces, and the annual grant at the rate of 80e per head, and then it was said “such grants shall be in full settlement of all future demands on Canada.” Such were the provisions of the Union Act, and he contended that the conditions of the Union, effected by this Act, were not amendable or repealable, or alterable by this Parliament, excepting so far as by the Union Act, power shall have been given to this Parliament to amend, alter or repeal. That was the proposition which he stated. He did not mean to rest it upon the dictum of any man, but perhaps it might be convenient to advert to the remarks made by a Minister of the Crown when the Confederation Resolutions were introduced into the Parliament of Canada. Mr. Blake here read from the speech of the late Mr. McGee, in which he pointed out the necessity of having the Constitution based on an Imperial Act, and insisted very strongly that with a view to permanency, the fundamental Charter we here received should be capable of being altered only by the authority which made it. This was a distinct enunciation of the views of the Government at that time and it laid down the only sound principle. He thought it should be perfectly clear to every man on great and obvious principles that the basis of Union settled by the British America Act was not capable of alteration by this Parliament. Was it to be supposed that any

[Page 726]

of the Provinces would have consented to surrender their rights as independent Provinces, if they had imagined that the conditions of the Union should be alterable at the will of this Parliament? It had been remarked by the Finance Minister, in answer to the suggestion that this power could not exist in this Parliament, surely we may do what we like with our own money. Well he would ask the hon. gentleman had the Legislature of Ontario the power to do what it liked with its own money? Had it the right to subsidize the judges of the Superior Courts with its own money? Had it the right to provide for services which the Imperial Act provided should be paid for by the Parliament of Canada? No; it might fling its money into the lake if it liked, but it could not devote any of it into a channel which was within the jurisdiction of this Parliament. And so, when we found by the Union Act that, for the support of the Provincial Governments and Legislatures, certain specified sums should be given, and that those grants should be in full settlement of all future demands upon Canada, he held it to be clear that this Parliament had no right to devote from the service of Canada, for the support of the Local Governments, any money whatever, except those specified sums. In illustration of what would be the consequence of the opposite view being carried out, Mr. Blake here read from a speech of Hon. Mr. Dunkin in a Confederation debate, a passage in which that gentleman depicted very graphically an ideal picture of the demands being made on the Federal Government for money for Provincial purposes, and of the urgency with which Provincial politicians, to get popularity in their respective Provinces, would be pressing for so many cents additional to the 80 cents per head. The question came to be, continued Mr. Blake, whether this picture was to be realized or not. It depended on how the House disposed of his amendment whether or not the proposition was to be established that this Parliament had power to grant aid as it pleased to the Local Governments out of moneys which by the Act were appropriated to the Public Service of Canada. What was the consequence of conceding the rights of Parliament as was now proposed? The consequence was this, that what this Parliament did to-day it might undo to-morrow. What it gave to Nova Scotia this day it might take away the next; and if they had the right to give additional grants for local purposes, he wanted to see the logic which would deny them the right to take away the grants given by the Union Act. If they had the right to in-

[Page 727]

crease the grants, he failed to see the logic which would deny them the right to diminish them. (Hear, hear.) An injustice, it was said, had been done Nova Scotia. She ought to get a larger sum. Her necessities demanded it. How long would it be till the other Provinces brought forward their cases of injustice and necessities. Where will those demands cease? When will the flood gates now opened be closed again? Never. Have not we in Ontario a right to assert, and by our votes establish, that injustice has been done us? Have not the representatives of each Province a right to say to the Dominion—”You departed from the provisions of the Quebec Conference in an unjust measure, and in an unjust principle you gave a subsidy to one of the Provinces not in proportion to its population—hence we claim a reconsideration in our favour?” He was not aware that any representative of Ontario ever uttered a word of complaint in reference to any injustice felt. For his part, he had been careful to avoid suggesting anything of the kind. He had thought it better not to meddle with the foundations of the Constitution. He thought it better to leave injustice if injustice there were, un- touched, rather than meddle with the principle underlying the whole structure. But if it was to be established by this Parliament, so far as they could establish it, that it was just and right to give an additional subsidy to any one of the Provinces, that it was right to alter the amount of debt with which any Province came in, that it was right to appropriate the public fund of Canada to local works, he warned the House that it would be utterly impossible for those representing the interest of any particular Province, who deemed themselves unfairly treated by the Union, to abstain from bringing forward what they conceived to be the claims of their grievances for readjustment, in order that even-handed justice should be done to all parties. If you give power to the majority of Parliament to alter the condition, he apprehended there was great danger, for notwithstanding what had been said, the monetary condition was not merely essential, but vital. He appealed to those who had taken a prominent part in the discussions in Quebec and elsewhere on this subject, and was sure that none of these would regard the question of the debt or the amount of the subsidy as otherwise than finally and conclusively settled, as far as Canada was concerned, by the Imperial Act. Not merely in the letter, but in the spirit of the law was this the case, and their only safety lay in maintaining it to be so. This being the case, he asked the hon, gentlemen to consider this objection as one not of form merely, but of substance and

[Page 728]

essence. He knew no reason either of expedience or convenience why the Constitutional form should not have been adopted of addressing Her Majesty with a view to Imperial legislation on this subject. Having stated that he would not trouble the House by any remarks with terms and conditions, the honourable gentleman concluded by moving in amendment “That all the words after ‘that’ be left out, and the following added, ‘the British North America Act of 1867 has fixed and settled the mutual liabilities of Canada and of each province in respect of the public debt, and the amount payable by Canada to each Province for the support of its Government and Legislature; That the said Act does not empower the Parliament of Canada to change the basis of the Union thereby fixed and settled; That the unauthorized assumption of such power by the Parliament of Canada would injure the interests of the several Provinces, weaken the bond of Union, and shake the stability of the Constitution; that the proposed resolutions on the subject of Nova Scotia involve the assumption of such power; and that, therefore, this House, while ready to give its best consideration to any proposals to procure in a constitutional way any needed changes in the basis of Union, deems it inexpedient to go into Committee on the said proposed resolutions.”

John Cameron [Peel] thought the member for West Durham adopted the proper course in not debating the motives of the resolutions on this purely constitutional question, which he had very ably and fully held before the House. He (Mr. Cameron), looking at the Act, had come to a very different conclusion from the hon. gentleman, and was convinced that no charge of unconstitutionality lay against the Government proceeding in this matter. The fact was the hon. member’s argument was not so much one of unconstitutionality as of inconvenience; and from this the logical result of the hon. gentleman’s argument, if carried out, would be to affirm that the imperial Government should have the control and disposal of the revenues of the Dominion (Hear, hear.) He objected, altogether, to the argument that in this instance you cannot give, because you cannot take away. It was absurd and not borne out by anything in the Act. There was no question of constitutionality or unconstitutionality about it, and we had simply to argue a question of convenience as to whether or no other Legislatures and Provinces might not come in and ask increased subsidies. When they did come then they could be dealt with. If we had not the power to deal with our own

[Page 729]

revenues as here asked and supplement the amount we had pledged simply because we had determined that a certain sum should be guaranteed, it was placing the question on a footing on which it could not stand.

Robert Harrison [Toronto West] for once agreed with the member for West Durham on this constitutional argument taking up the section on which this argument hung, and speaking as a lawyer, he felt it due the House and profession to say, that lie entirely agreed with the construction put on the section by the member for Durham West. The latter part of the section distinctly stated that such grants should be in full settlement of all demands, something very different altogether contrary to that which the House was now asked to adopt. He also demurred to the statement of the member for Peel, that the effect of this course advocated by the member for West Durham would be to transfer the control of their revenue to the Imperial authorities.

Joseph Howe [Hants] was not a lawyer, (laughter), but thought that it did not matter much to Nova Scotia as to the form in which they received the amount so long as they got it. It was absurd and ridiculous to argue that the Constitution was to be unchanged, immovable—(hear) and sooner than believe that the work of the thirty men in London could not be altered or remodelled, he heartily wished that il had been thrown in the fire. It was said that there was danger in making any alteration. Danger to whom? To Ontario? No. To Quebec? No. These Provinces were too powerful. The danger, if any, was to the maritime Provinces, and Nova Scotia, for one, was willing to run the risk. (Laughter.) If the arrangements made in England was unjust, was it not to be remedied? Was it to be perpetual? Hon.

Charles Tupper [Cumberland] pointed out that it was found that the means at the disposal of the Nova Scotian Government were not sufficient to carry on efficiently the public services, and that a great part of the debt was incurred in building public works, which became the property of the Dominion. With these facts in view he thought the House should give the most generous and liberal interpretation to the Union Act in the direction of giving increased means to enable Nova Scotia to efficiently perform her local services. But he differed from the gentlemen on the Treasury benches on a very essential point. He would not ask for an increased subsidy to Nova Scotia on the ground of a just consideration of her claims, but on the ground of a legal consideration of the Union Act, which could

[Page 730]

do away entirely with the objection raised by the hon. member for West Durham. At the last general election the people of Nova Scotia thought proper to send to the House of Commons a large body of gentlemen hostile to Union itself. He then found himself in the difficult position of not having that support which it was desirable he should have in order to press any claims Nova Scotia might have upon the Government. He used every means in his power to influence his colleagues from Nova Scotia to alter their relations to the Parliament and the Act of Union. He had felt that the time had come when in order to secure the best consideration for the interests of Nova Scotia, it was necessary that the gentlemen in question should be in harmony with the new arrangements. He appealed to gentlemen opposite whether he had not urged on them the consideration that it was their duty to take such a position as would enable him to cooperate with them in claiming and obtaining what he felt was justice to his own Province. He did not intend, in the observations he was about to make, to detract in the slightest degree from what was due to his hon. friend, the President of the Council, and the gentlemen who had sustained him. He had felt that if the gentlemen on the other side were as sincere friends of Union as they pretended to be,-if they believed that Union was necessary to the future greatness of this country, they would not have taunted the hon. President as they had done, for his changed attitude in reference to the Dominion. That hon. gentleman and his friends might be assumed to be quite sincere in their hostility to the scheme-to believe in their hearts that Union was the greatest misfortune that had ever befallen the country; but when the time came that they were face to face with the palpable fact that all their efforts to obtain Repeal were fruitless, and if persisted in much longer could only inflict ruin upon their own province, and jeopardize the best interests of the Dominion, they were bound by every consideration as public men and statesmen,-by what they owned not only to all British America, but to Nova Scotia especially-to pursue such a line of action as would enable them to secure that justice to which they believed the people of their own section were entitled. He had thought if the gentlemen opposite were themselves friends of Union, instead of objecting to the course pursued by the great body of the Nova Scotia representatives, they would have regarded it with the most unqualified satisfaction. Now, with these few preliminary observations, he would go on to state to the House the grounds upon which he purposed basing his argument on the question

[Page 731]

under consideration. It had never been supposed that we could suddenly pass from the condition of isolated provinces, and arrange at a single stroke of the pen all the financial questions that would actually arise in the adjustment of the financial terms of the Act of Union. It was intended that subsequently a commission should issue-that the Local Governments should each appoint a commission, and one also jointly; and to these commissioners were to be entrusted the examination of the financial affairs of all the Provinces and an adjustment of the debt on a satisfactory basis. That was the view he had always entertained, but in the case of Nova Scotia the unfortunate circumstance of the anti-Union party having been brought into power-of the country being excited by a party hostile to Union-rendered such a course practically impossible. Then the difficulty arose of Nova Scotia being represented by men opposed to the Union, and apparently determined to take Nova Scotia out of the Dominion. He had found that the views which he had presented to the Government did not receive the consideration to which he believed they were entitled. It might be asked why it was he had not then taken the only course which a public man was bound to take when lie was unable to obtain that fair consideration for his Province. He must assure the gentlemen opposite in the language of the Hon. President of the Council—

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton]—Only offering the custom of the country? (laughter).

Charles Tupper [Cumberland]—The Hon. President had stated that he was obliged to leave the opposite side because he did not receive all the sympathy he thought he should have received. His own objection to the gentlemen opposite was that they had at times given too much sympathy to the hon. member in his opposition to Union (laughter). Now he had found that the power which was always behind the gentlemen opposite had assumed a position of hostility to the smaller Provinces, immediately after the re-adjustment of the scheme at Westminster Palace. The additional concessions then granted to his own Province were made the subject of the most frantic appeals to the prejudices of the West in the organ of these gentlemen. Under these circumstances, he was in the difficult position of not being able to obtain that support in the House, which was necessary in order to enforce his views in regard to Nova Scotia.

It being six o’clock the speaker left the chair.

[Page 732]

After recess,

[…]

SUBSIDY TO NOVA SCOTIA

Charles Tupper [Cumberland], in resuming his remarks, went on to say that he must now call attention to the terms of the resolutions passed at the Quebec Conference. It was there arranged that Nova Scotia’s debt should be $8,000,000;

[Page 733]

New Brunswick, $7,000.0000; and the Canadas, $62,500,000. If that was an inflexible arrangement-not to be modified at any time thereafter, then Nova Scotia would be placed in a position very difficult from what she had been. It would be found by reference to the resolutions that they provided that all assets connected with such portions of the public debt of each Province as are assumed by that Province shall belong to that Province. Further on it was stipulated that the several Provinces shall retain all their respective public property not otherwise disposed of in this Act subject, to the right of Canada to assume any lands or public property for certain purposes mentioned. The same principle was adopted at the Conference at Westminster Palace, and was explained in terms at once clear and conclusive. It was provided that on the surplus debt each Province should pay 5 per cent interest. But at the same time it was also declared that whilst the Province was charged with the interest on the surplus debt, the asset which that debt represented should belong to that Province. Now the Province of Nova Scotia had expended $2,000,000 of Public money for the construction of the Pictou Railway after the Quebec Conference; and the Dominion Government had taken possession of the work. Should it, however, charge the Province for even the interest on such a debt? It should be remembered in that connection that the indebtedness of Nova Scotia was embraced by public property, which had become the property of the Dominion-which was actually within the debt; in fact the actual expenditure which has been expended on public works, since the Quebec Conference-works now the property of Canada-was over $3,000,000. In further illustration of his argument, he would refer to the new public building at Halifax. St. John and Halifax, were without Custom Houses at the time of the conference. The Dominion would therefore have been obliged either to erect or rent a building for the purpose in both cities—and the latter course they pursued in St. John. In Halifax, however, the Provincial Government expended £50,000 in the construction of a new public building, which was intended by the Crown Lands, and a museum (local purposes), and for a custom house and post office. Would not the law be construed in the most arbitrary manner if we took the expenditure of £50,000, and relieved the Dominion from an obligation which they themselves were obliged to discharge, as they had done, in fact, in the case of St. John. Now, in order to treat Nova Scotia in accordance with the letter and spirit of the act they

[Page 734]

must do one of two things, assume the entire debt of Nova Scotia-the $8,000,000-and the additional money required for these works, or hand over the Pictou Railway, which cost $2,000,000; for the law provided that whilst you charge the Province with the surplus interest, the Local Government, which paid that surplus, was entitled to the asset which it represented. It might be said that did not cover the case, because the Minute of Council, passed after the negociations between Mr. Howe and the Government, provided that Nova Scotia should come in with a debt of $9,186,756, whereas the actual debt only amounted to $9,040,439. He would, however, draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Local Government had expended on the construction of the public building, £50,000, and that they were entitled to retain that property if they chose, and assume the indebtedness. The Dominion Government did not profess to claim the Provincial Hospital at Halifax, which had been erected since the Confederation, and yet they might do so with as much justice as in the former case. Consequently as respects the indebtedness question it was covered by the express terms of the Act, which brought the debt within the amount provided in the resolutions, by subtracting the case of the Provincial building-which could be either sold or retained by the Province. But, it might be said that there was provision in the resolutions for $82,698 besides for ten years. He contended that that was defensible as an equitable adjustment under the terms of the law, which would give Nova Scotia an amount of money equal to that in the resolutions. Looking at the 107th section of the law it would be seen that all securities for money belonging to each Province at the time of Union, except as in the Act mentioned, should be the property of Canada, and should be taken in reduction of the amount of the respective debts of the Provinces at the Union. Now, the city of Halifax owed, at the date of the Union, a large amount of money. It was the owner of property in the provincial railways to the extent of one-tenth, for which it was liable to the Province to the extent of $400,000. The Dominion Government was not willing to have such a lien held on the property which it would receive under the Union, and accordingly the city of Halifax was released from its obligation to the Province, at the conference held at Westminster Palace. Now, this amount would nearly equal the additional sum provided in the resolutions. Then there was the question of provincial notes. The banks in Nova Scotia had been re-

[Page 735]

stricted to $20, and the Provincial Government assumed the privilege of issuing the small notes-to the total amount of $600,000, without the slightest change in the revenue. The Dominion Government could have floated the notes without a single dollar of charge upon themselves. Was he to be told that it would be an equitable arrangement to come in and charge 5 per cent on the $600,000 for which the Dominion would not pay one farthing, if they continued the law as it existed at the time of Union? He would not go into the legal points, but he had simply confined himself to the view he had held on the financial question he had always pressed. The bon. gentleman then went on to say that even supposing he were wrong in his opinion, yet he could not help feeling gratified at the present position of things. On the great question at issue between the Unionists and Anti-Unionists he had been proved at length to be right. It had been declared over and over again in Nova Scotia that her interests would be swamped by the larger Provinces-that her rights would be ruthlessly trampled down in the Parliament of the Dominion; but the fact was now revealed that there was every disposition to show justice to the smaller sections of the Union. A Government more powerful than any we would probably have for many years to come-one which could disregard the voice of the representatives of Nova Scotia-had been influenced by the feeling that the success of this great Dominion required that they should show every generous consideration which the Province was entitled to receive. He felt confident, be said in conclusion, that the House would never agree to the proposition, which anti-Unionists had once asserted, that Nova Scotia had no guarantee under the Act that her interests would be protected. He did not think that the House was prepared to assert the principle, under any circumstances, that it was not in a position to give any f air consideration which any Province ought to receive, or extend it any relief beyond what the Union Act provided, or that it should submit the power to the Imperial Parliament of giving away our public money.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] said that bon. gentlemen on his side of the louse had been accused by some hon. gentlemen of not sympathizing enough with Nova Scotia, and by others with sympathising too much. For his part, while he had no sympathy with the disunion sentiment of a large section of the Nova Scotians, he did sympathize with them in having been forced by their Legislature into a Union without their

[Page 736]

consent. (Hear, hear.) It would be unnecessary for him to go any farther into the argument which had been so ably presented by the member for West Durham; first, because the argument was complete, and secondly, because it was as yet untouched. The hon. gentleman then alluded to the course of the member for Cumberland in this question. Last year that hon. member in the most unequivocal terms expressed his belief that the terms accorded his Province at the Union were full and ample, and he (Mr. Mackenzie) was curious to see what ground that hon. gentleman would now take. It was to be expected that having formerly acknowledged that his Province had full and ample justice done it in Confederation, he would be averse to doing injustice to the other Provinces by disturbing that arrangement and asking for more money. But at all events that hon. member had no right to assume that his Province had not only suffered injustice, but that the Government might under the Act of Union remedy that injustice without resorting to any Parliamentary aid for that purpose. A more extraordinary doctrine he (Mr. Mackenzie) never heard laid down. Having shown that by the 108th section of the Act all public works and property enumerated in the schedule, including railways, customs houses, post offices, military roads, and all public buildings, such as were appropriated to the use of the Provincial Legislature and Government, because the property of Canada under the Act, the hon. gentleman contended that the member for Cumberland was altogether wrong in wishing the House to recognize that the Halifax building, which had cost so much money, did not belong to the Dominion. This was the first time such a claim had ever been made; and it was made in order, if possible, to justify the hon. gentleman’s own dereliction of duty when this Province was represented at the London Conference. But it appeared that the House was never to get at the bottom of that London Conference; for tonight the same hon. gentleman made the extraordinary statement, as member for Nova Scotia, that he had some sort of secret understanding with the delegates that a Commission was to be appointed which would have some international duties to perform in relation to the debts of the Province.

Alexander Galt [Town of Sherbrooke] said he knew of no such understanding.

Charles Tupper [Cumberland] stated that he always understood it to be so, the understanding being that the financial position of each Province in relation to the Government should be arranged by Commission.

[Page 737]

Mr. Mackenzie said that it appeared he had correctly stated the position of the honourable member for Cumberland. What was the meaning of this understanding, but that there was a prior arrangement that this Commission should be appointed. Why, then, was not this extraordinary intelligence communicated at an earlier day? It was no wonder the member for Sherbrooke felt restless when such an extraordinary statement was made. And there was the President of the Council, did he sanction it?

Joseph Howe [Hants] said that if the delegates made such an arrangement, it was a very wise one.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] supposed that in this matter the President of the Council only followed up his extraordinary Constitutional ideas. (Hear, hear.) That hon. gentleman’s doctrine was that that an elastic Constitution should be framed that whenever any Province became dissatisfied and wanted more money they should get it. Such a doctrine was destructive of all order. Having noticed the very loose notions of political morality advanced by the President of the Council, the hon. gentleman alluded to the other argument in favour of the resolutions, contended that they altogether failed to meet the position assumed by the leader of the Government, and urged that if we were to continue the present arrangements we must abide strictly by the law.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East] said that the argument of the Minister of Finance was met the outset by what, in legal parlance, was called a demurrer. The member for Durham West objected to the proposition before the House on Constitutional ground, as a contravention of the British North America Act; but he (Sir George E. Cartier) maintained that this was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament, and that the Parliament of Canada was omnipotent on all subjects on which they had jurisdiction. In the first place, the public money had to be applied to the public requirements, and if there were any surplus then it was at the full disposal of the Dominion. In the present instance, the sum of money asked for was to correct an injustice, and promote order and good government in the Dominion, and there could not be a more correct appropriation. The member for West Toronto, and others, seemed to attach great weight to the words “for the public service,” in the Union Act, and to argue that the amount asked for was not for the public service. But how was this understood in the old Parliament of Canada? In reply he would merely call attention

[Page 738]

to the liberal vote of that Parliament to the French and English soldiers of the Crimea, and no member had objected that such votes were unconstitutional. He then replied to the arguments of Messrs. Blake and Harrison regarding the interpretation of the phrase “public service”. The Union Act authorised Parliament to acquire the Northwest Territory, he defied any member to show that it authorised the appropriation of any money for its purchase. After reviewing other points he concluded that the member for West Durham had failed to prove the correctness of his amendment.

John Gray [City and County of Saint John] said that when Confederation was being agitated in New Brunswick, they were frequently asked what security had they that the terms of Union would be observed.- The answer was that they had the firm reliance of the Acts of the Imperial Parliament, which would be the keystone of the arch on which the future Dominion rested. It was therefore of the utmost importance that we should have that written Constitution. But the question arose in construing the words of the Act in the light of intelligence and experience; did the Imperial Parliament intend to restrain the Parliament of Canada from meeting such unforeseen emergencies as might arise, and remove difficulties which might be found to be in the path of the harmonious working of the Union? He thought the meaning of the Imperial Parliament was this: while we give you all the power necessary to meet all the emergencies which may arise, understand this, there is one stipulation, one limitation which you shall not break. That limitation is, that there are certain sums to be specially set aside for those different Provinces. The Act meant not that you shall not go beyond this, but you shall not under any circumstances whatever entrench on the amount of the subsidies provided. We could not diminish, but the absence of prohibitory words showed that we were not prevented from increasing them.

Albert Smith [Westmorland] considered the arguments by which the amendment had been sustained were irresistible. He thought the Lower Provinces had even a greater interest than the large Western Provinces in maintaining the Constitution intact. This Parliament was the creation of the Imperial Parliament and they had no right to change their Constitution; and he could not see how on reading these resolutions they could come to any

[Page 739]

other conclusion than that they were violating the Constitution. It seemed clear to him that in the minds of the framers of the Act it was intended for ever to set at rest the financial arrangements between the Provinces. Such grants shall be in full settlement of all future claims on Canada. No language could be more clear or conclusive. The member for Peel and the Minister of Militia had not attempted to shew how it could bear any other than its obvious meaning. Would the Minister of Militia say that Parliament had the power to increase the subsidy of 80 cents a head to 90 cents a head.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East] said this Parliament could not interfere with the grant of 80 cents per head, because that would be amending an Imperial Act; but they might add to the 80 cents per head. That would not be amending the Imperial Act, but would be making a grant, which it would be in the power of this Parliament to make.

Edmund Wood [Brant South]—Would that be for the public service of Canada?

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East] said it would be as much so as voting £300,000 for the North-West.

Albert Smith [Westmorland]—Would the Parliament have power to make an additional grant of $500,000 to Ontario.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East]—Yes, if it so pleased them. Hon.

Albert Smith [Westmorland] said this was a most dangerous doctrine. If it were admitted, what guarantee would the weaker Provinces of the Dominion have for their rights, if the larger Provinces could vote to themselves what sums they pleased? All protection for the minority would be taken away.

Christopher Dunkin [Brome] said if the member for West Durham had read the whole passage quoted from his speech, it would have been seen that he did not consider the danger he apprehended was to be precluded by the words “in full settlement of all future claims on Canada,” and that the danger he apprehended was not that application would be made to the Imperial Parliament for additional grants to the Provinces, but that application would be made to this Parliament. As regarded the question before the chair, there was undoubtedly a constitutional incapacity on the part of this Parliament to reduce the grants to the Provinces specified in the Act. But he contended there was no

[Page 740]

constitutional barrier in the way of their adding to those grants. Stress had been laid on the words “for the public service of Canada.” These were not to be interpreted too rigidly. They could not be held as restricting them from voting a sum for the relief of public distress abroad. We could not withhold what the Union Act gave Nova Scotia; but we could give more if we pleased. The member for West Durham had referred to an Act of the Ontario Government voting money to Judges as ultra vires; but what was the main objection to that Act? He did not understand that it was said a Provincial Legislature could vote money only for provincial purposes; but the objection was that it had contravened a great object of public policy by putting Judges in the position of serving two masters. The Ontario and Quebec Legislatures had both of them voted money for the relief of distress in Nova Scotia and at Red River. No one could say that their so doing was unconstitutional.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston] said those who were in favour of Confederation would vote against the amendment. (Loud cries of No, No). It was well that the veil should be removed and the position exactly understood. It was well that the member for Lambton, by seconding this amendment, had at last revealed his true position as an enemy to Confederation. (Cries of No, No, and ironical cheers.) That hon. gentleman had claimed to be a friend of Confederation and had made all kinds of professions on the subject. But when he found the key-stone of Confederation was about to be put in its place, without which all other efforts were useless, the hon. gentleman for party considerations, negated all his previous professions. Rather than see Confederation carried out by the present Government, to which he was opposed, he would insidiously, if not openly, oppose it. (No, No.) The object of Confederation was to bring all British North America into one Union. We were now incorporating the North-West, we were about to admit Newfoundland. All that remained was this measure to pacify Nova Scotia and hon. gentlemen opposite were found opposing it. If the gentlemen opposite were successful, then there would be a jubilee among anti-Unionists, and such classes in Nova Scotia, throughout Canada, and outside of the Dominion as well. Let them reconcile Nova Scotia—the very keystone of the Dominion. The people of that Province at first refused to come into the Union, but now were about to be reconciled.

[Page 741]

Isaac Le Vesconte [Richmond]—No, no!

John A. Macdonald [Kingston]—The whole action of the Local Legislature showed that they accepted it. This very day the Treasurer of Nova Scotia had telegraphed that he hoped the grant was made, that he might get the money. (Great laughter.) There might be some few fossils like his hon. friend from Richmond, old tories like himself who did not care to change, but except a few like him the people of Nova Scotia had accepted it. A majority of the representatives of Nova Scotia in this House had accepted it, and the Government of Nova Scotia had accepted it. The simple question raised by this amendment was Confederation or no Confederation.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay]—I thought that was settled long ago.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston]—It was settled by law in 1867 against the desire and vote of that hon. gentleman and ever since he had done all in his power to obstruct it. The member for Durham West had contended that this matter was one to be settled by England. Hon. gentlemen would give up to the Imperial Parliament the control of our money and a different doctrine was laid down in the discussion on the Governor-General’s salary. It was then decided by the member for Oxford South that for the Imperial authorities to interfere with us in that matter was to trample on the liberties of the people of Canada.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton]—Order. If the hon. gentle- man seeks to make out his argument by dragging in matters foreign to this debate, I ask the interference of the Speaker.

The Speaker pro tem., Joseph Blanchet [Lévis], said the Minister of Justice was out of order in alluding to a previous debate.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston] said any gentleman going to the library and looking over the newspapers, would find that such words were used in a certain Colonial Parliament with reference to the Governor’s salary: but the question was whether this arrangement was a right one or a wrong one. If they admitted it was a right one they should place it in the hands of the Government to carry it out. This amendment was a mean motion-an attempt by a side wind to prevent the success of Confederation, instead of fairly meeting the question. The argument of the member for West Durham was hardly worth replying to. His

[Page 742]

answer to it was that as a Parliament they had a right to do what they pleased with their own. They might draw it away if they pleased. It constituted the difference between a free and a servile people to retain or give up the control of their own money. Recently the colonists of Red River had been afflicted by a plague of locusts. Suppose a similar disaster were to happen Ontario, causing a failure of its crops and a state of famine, and it was proposed to vote money to relieve the distress; such a vote could not be made according to the argument which had been presented from the other side. He repeated that this was a blow at the Union, and looking at the division on the Newfoundland resolutions yesterday, there would be found the same lurking desire to impede the wheels of Confederation. If this motion carried there would be a jubilee among the avowed anti-Confederate rebels, and Annexationists of Nova Scotia, and it would be the cause of corresponding depression to those in that Province who desire the Union to be successful. If the hon. gentlemen repudiated this arrangement which had been entered into with Nova Scotia, they would give a death-blow to Confederation, and on them, not on him, would rest the responsibility of so suicidal an act.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay] made a motion of adjournment to allow a reply to be made by the gentlemen attacked by the Minister of Justice.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] desired to say a few words in reply to the very extraordinary attack made by the Premier on himself, and also on those with whom he usually acted. He had never witnessed a more unjustifiable attack made in this House. It was no new thing, however, for the hon, gentleman to make such attacks. It was part of his tactics. Those who had sat in Parliament with that hon. gentleman so long as he had done could recall many instances in which, when worsted in argument, when he found the sense of the House was against him, and the leading men of his own party forced to take ground against the position he occupied, he tried to simulate passion and attempted to cover his weakness by hurling unfounded reproaches at his opponents. The hon. gentleman and his satellites had sought to defeat him at his election in ’67 by calling him a disunionist; but, when he came here and assisted the Government in carrying the very measure necessary to the completion of Confederation, they complimented him as a friend of Union. Now, however, because he did not choose to accept the hon. gentleman’s mode of settling this difficulty, which he looked upon

[Page 743]

as really a stab at Confederation, he brought up against them the old cry of disunionist. He scorned the honourable gentleman’s imputations, and hurled them back as too gross to deserve answer. He contended if the hon. gentleman’s policy succeeded, if he was able to set aside the Act of Union, by the subserviency of this Parliament which he had at his command, the Act of Confederation was not worth the paper it was written on. If he was allowed, by this tampering with the Imperial Act, to do away with the only security we had for our rights, then we had no guarantee that this Union would continue for half a dozen years to come. What was it that originated the difficulties they had in the old Province of Canada? What but that hon. gentleman’s recklessness and extravagance? What raised those sectarian difficulties which compelled them to seek a new state of political existence?-what but that hon. gentleman’s misconduct and maladministration of public affairs? And now, because he was powerful, because he succeeded by his misrepresentations of the grossest character at the last general election in obtaining a majority in this House, he sought now to introduce a new reign of extravagance and disorder. The consequences which resulted from his mismanagement of the country in former times seemed to follow in his wake as inevitably as slime marked the trail of the serpent. (Cheers). The hon. gentleman was seeking to raise a totally false issue when he declared that everyone who voted for this amendment voted to break down the Dominion. He had no right to say so. He (Mr. Mackenzie) and hon. gentlemen who acted with him had a right to take their own mode of consolidating and carrying forward the Union. The merits of the proposed arrangement itself had not yet been discussed. When it came properly before the House he would discuss it on its merits. He would not willingly be a party to inflicting injustice on any Province of the Dominion, but he opposed this mode of dealing with the question, on constitutional grounds; and because that hon. gentleman was not able to answer a constitutional argument he got up in a passion, threw reproaches at his opponents, and attempted to dragoon his followers into carrying through his proposition, however unconstitutional and however opposed to their convictions. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of Justice had not attempted to touch the argument of the member for West Durham, but had contented himself with mere empty declamation. He acknowledged that the Minister of Militia had endeavoured to argue the question.

[Page 744]

John A. Macdonald [Kingston]—My hon. friend exhausted the subject, and it was not necessary for me to repeat his arguments.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] said the argument of the Minister of Militia amounted to this; that we had the right of taxation and therefore we had the right to spend the taxes. He would say in answer to that argument that we had the right to spend our own money within the terms of the Constitution. Mr. Mackenzie went on to reply to some of the other remarks of the Minister of Justice, and continued by saying that the House could easily see the hon. gentleman’s motive in raising a storm on false issues, in order to divert attention from the real question before the Chair.

Edward Blake [Durham West] said he had opened this discussion, as far as he could, in a judicial spirit, and it was in a similar spirit his argument had been replied to by all the gentlemen who had spoken on the other side, except the Minister of Justice. He never felt so convinced of the soundness of his own views, knowing something of the tactics of that honourable gentleman, as when he heard the tones in which he commenced his speech. The honourable gentleman began by misrepresenting the whole tenor of the argument, and the position of those who sustained it, branding them as enemies to Confederation. It was in the interest of the Constitution and of the Union that this amendment was moved. They moved it because they believed that the honourable gentleman’s proposition tended to destroy the Union, because they believed it was levelling a blow at the Union; and having that opinion they were bound to express it. The result would show which policy was most calculated to promote the prosperity of the Union. The hon. gentleman would no doubt carry his proposition, as he could carry anything in this House, but his (Mr. Blake’s) proposition, even if defeated, would remain on record, and the event would shew which policy was the soundest. It had been argued that this Parliament could do what it liked with its own. He held that this was only true within the limits of the Union Act. It had been held that it was not competent for the Province of Ontario to appropriate its money to do Dominion work, and in like manner it was not competent for the Parliament of Canada to appropriate its money to do Provincial work. Reference had been made to the grant for opening up the Northwest Territory. That was a very different case. The Imperial Parliament had authorized us to add that Territory to the Dominion, and the right of course followed of appro-

[Page 745]

priating money to open up that Territory. It was an entirely different thing to tamper with the financial arrangement between the Provinces which were the basis of our Constitution. He looked upon the Union Act as the shield of the smaller Provinces, and held that the integrity of that protection should be most carefully guarded.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East] appreciated the arguments of his hon. friend from West Durham to give Nova Scotia fair play. He admitted that the House was omnipotent to deal with the people’s money. It appeared clear that the clause of the Act which gave the Governor-General power by Order in Council to grant money, could be applied in the public service, and not left unproductive. Nova Scotia was one of the weak Provinces, and required our assistance. The honourable member for Lambton had admitted the other day that Nova Scotia was not fairly used.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] explained that Nova Scotia was allowed more than Canada.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East] did not see it in that light. The weaker Provinces were as much entitled to a fair share as the larger Provinces. He thought the arguments adduced had not impressed members on this side of the House with any weight.

William Chipman [Kings] did not relish having himself and his colleagues who thought as he did, classed as rebels. He did not intend to be forced out of the position he had taken. He asserted there was a large majority of Anti-Confederates in Nova Scotia. The British Parliament rejected the request of the Nova Scotia delegates. The honourable President of the Council could testify to the fact. He proceeded to review the whole case reading several extracts from speeches and despatches. He thought the case could only be fairly met by enquiring into the difficulties of Nova Scotia.

Alexander Galt [Town of Sherbrooke] at that late hour would not say much. The objections of the member for West Durham he took to be answered in this way, that if the matter had to be amended by address, it must be by address of the several Provinces, not of the Dominion. He (Mr. Galt) argued that the House had the power of dealing with everything of a general and national character, and to assume anything else would be to assume that which would not be for the well-being of the Dominion. And having assumed that, it was within the power of that House to deal with the pacifica ion of Nova Scotia, he believed

[Page 746]

that if anything of a hard bargain had been driven with Nova Scotia it was not the intention of the Conference that that should be the case. It had turned out apparently that an injustice had been done, but the question now to be decided was to the constitutionality of these resolutions proposed, and in objecting only to the form in which the redress should be made, he (Mr. Galt) would say that the member for West Durham had not touched the main point. He trusted the good sense of the House would look to the peace and good government of the Union, and would take means to that end. He hoped the House would say to Nova Scotia-notwithstanding all you have said we will pay the price of peace and good fellowship and accede to your terms for the contenting of this Union. He sought not to cut the ties but wanted to see the great good of the country the first consideration. He did not wish to grasp at the shadow and lose the substance. (Cheers.)

Lucius Huntington [Shefford] rose to remind the House that last session he had expressed sentiments similar to those of the member for Sherbrooke, and had not been greeted with anything like the applause which had greeted that hon. gentleman. It was absurd to pretend that any man in the House, unless he sought the destruction of the Dominion, would seek for anything else than justice to the Nova Scotians and their relief from oppression, if oppression there be. But he asked the hon. gentlemen not to take their step in the settlement of this grievance by violating the law of the land.

John Rose [Huntingdon] said it was clear that hon. gentlemen generally were extremely anxious to see Nova Scotia pacified. The real question at issue was whether this question of relief should originate in Committee or not, and the member for West Durham’s argument really amounted to this, that the preliminary step toward pacification should not be taken. If they could not go into Committee, they could not consider the matter at all. If the amendment was carried the real effect would be that the House would not consider this question of the Nova Scotian discontent at all. The real question at issue was, will you reject the proposition to conciliate Nova Scotia, or will the House consider it?

Isaac Le Vesconte [Richmond], as representative of a county as much opposed to Confederation as formerly, was not disposed to place himself under the dictum of the Minister of Justice.

[Page 747]

He would vote against the amendment of the member for Durham; but, at the same time, could not at all agree with the sentiments of the Minister of Justice.

John O’Connor [Essex] said he would vote to go into Committee.

John Bolton [Charlotte], while disposed to go a great length in the pacification of Nova Scotia, was not willing to go too far and assent to such a breach of the law of the land as might lead to most disastrous consequences. He would vote for the amendment.

Antoine Dorion [Hochelaga], replying to the Minister of Finance, said the proposition of the Government was to go into Committee, not to consider the claims of Nova Scotia, but to vote certain specific sums as an additional subsidy. Last year the member for Lunenberg moved that the House should go into Committee to consider the grievances of Nova Scotia. Who opposed that? The Minister of Finance and his colleagues. He read from the speech of the Minister of Militia in that debate, passages in which that hon. gentleman declared that the only constitutional mode in which redress could be got for the grievances of Nova Scotia was by application to the Imperial authorities, and that this Parliament had no jurisdiction in the matter. It was said that this measure was to pacify Nova Scotia. There was no evidence that anybody was pacified except the member for Hants. (Hear, hear). He then read from the speech of the Minister of Justice in the same debate, a passage similar in sentiment to the remarks of the Minister of Militia, and contended that the course they were now proposing involved a most dangerous doctrine. Parliament was asked now to tax the rest of the Dominion for the benefit of one of the Provinces. Next year, on the same principle, they might be asked to impose a special tax on one Province for the benefit of the rest of the Dominion. The Union would mean nothing, if, by a vote of this House, they could set aside the provisions of the Union Act.

Mr. Forbes said Nova Scotia when introduced here always created a sensation. It had brought up the leader of the Government, and like a whale when he felt the dart he got into a tremendous flurry (Laughter.) The people of Nova Scotia would take this grant, but it would not pacify them. It was their civil rights they chiefly looked to. He felt bound to support the resolution of the Government.

[Page 748]

James Rymal [Queens] expressed his disapproval of the course of the members of the Government in fostering sectional jealousies. If that course were pursued, and if the arrangements of the Union Act were re-opened, he believed Ontario, which furnished most of the funds, would not be so favourable to Confederation as she had been.

The House divided on Mr. Blake’s amendment, which was negatived. Yeas, 57; Nays, 96.

YEAS—Messrs. Béchard, Blake, Bodwell, Bolton, Bourassa, Bowell, Bowman, Brown, Burpee, Cameron (Huron), Connell, Coupal, Crawford (Leeds), Dorion, Drew, Ferguson, Fortier, Geoffrion, Godin, Hagar, Harrison, Holton, Huntington, Kempt, Little, Macfarlane, Mackenzie, Magill, McCallum, McConkey, McMonies, Merritt, Metcalfe, Mills, Morison (Victoria), Munroe, Oliver, Pâquet, Pelletier, Pickard, Pozer, Redford, Ross (Prince Edward Island), Ross (Wellington Centre), Rymal, Scatcherd, Smith, Snider, Stirton, Thompson (Haldimand), Thompson (Ontario), Tremblay, Wallace, Wells, Wood, Wright (York, Ontario), Young.—57.

NAYS—Abbott, Archambeault, Ault, Beaty, Beaubien, Bellerose, Benoit, Bertrand, Blanchet, Bown, Brousseau, Burton, Cameron (Inverness), Cameron (Peel), Carling, Carmichael, Caron, Cartier, Cartwright, Casault, Cayley, Chamberlin, Chauveau, Chipman, Cimon, Coffin, Colby, Costigan, Currier, Daoust, Dobbie, Dufresne, Dunkin, Forbes, Fortin, Galt, Gaucher, Gaudet, Gendron, Grant, Gray, Heath, Holmes, Howe, Huot, Hurdon, Irvine, Jackson, Keeler, Killam, Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois, Lapum, Lawson, Le Vesconte, Macdonald (Cornwall), Macdonald, Sir J. A., Medonald (Middlesex), McDonald (Lunenburg), Masson (Soulanges), Masson (Terrebonne), McCarthy, McDougall (Lanark), McGreevy, McKeagney, McLelan, McMillan, Morris, Morrison (Niagara), O’Connor, Perry, Pinsonneault, Pope, Power, Rankin, Ray, Read, Renaud, Robitaille, Rose, Ross (Champlain), Ryan (Kings, N.B.), Shanly, Simard, Simpson, Sproat, Stephenson, Street, Tilley, Tupper, Walsh, Webb, Willson, Workman, Wright (Ottawa county)—96.

The house then went into Committee on the resolutions.

Edmund Wood [Brant South] intimated that he would move, at the stage of concurrence, the amendment of which he had given notice.

The resolutions were reported, report to be received to-morrow, Saturday.

[Page 749]

John Rose [Huntingdon] said they would be proceeded with to-morrow.

Thomas Gibbs [Ontario South] said his name had not been taken down at the vote. He desired to vote “yea.” (Cries of “Too late.”)

John A. Macdonald [Kingston] said it could not be done.

The House adjourned at twenty-five minutes to three.