Document Information

Date: 1869-06-12
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1st Parl, 2nd Sess, 1869 at 751-771.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

SUBSIDY TO NOVA SCOTIA

John Rose [Huntingdon] moved the consideration of the resolution reported from Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the affairs of Nova Scotia, respecting the terms of an arrangement made with that Province.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] said that before proceeding further it was desirable that the Government should inform the House what party they were dealing with in this transaction. There were always two parties to every agreement, and the Government had not yet placed the House in possession of any resolutions, formal or informal, of the Legislature of Nova Scotia on this subject, and this was the only local body which could have any legal dealing with the Dominion respecting that Province. The House had not even received the assurance that the representatives of that Province in the Dominion Parliament had pledged themselves to accept this arrangement as a settlement in full of the difficulties and injustice complained of. On the contrary, last night every one of the representatives from that

[Page 752]

Province expressed discontent, and stated that they refused to accept this measure as anything but an instalment of what was to be done.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East] replied that the power was easily given. The resolutions now before the House were not the result of any compact between the Local Government of Nova Scotia or any corporate body in Nova Scotia. The Government of the Dominion had, as a matter of course, instituted an enquiry into the alleged grievances of Nova Scotia, and having ascertained that the people of that Province were satisfied by the arrangement under Confederation, the Government came to the conclusion to pacify and reconcile Nova Scotia by the arrangement under discussion. He would go further and say that there was a demand from Nova Scotia for the resolutions, and consequently the matter was taken out of the 118th clause of the British North America Act. (Laughter.)

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] said, that so far, the Government had only produced evidence that two gentlemen, both of whom had seats in the House, had acquiesced to a certain extent in the arrangement, and what good was that to effect reconciliation

Joseph Howe [Hants] said, that the question of the hon. member for Lambton ought to be answered, and gave a very lengthy answer, in which he detailed to some extent the repeal agitation in Nova Scotia. From his position as leader of the anti-Confederate party, and as chairman of the convention at Halifax which was sitting when the Premier and his colleagues arrived there, it was right that the Government should have commenced negotiations with him. His own feeling in the long run was, that it was hopeless, and negotiations for financial readjustment were opened with him by the Canadian Government. The Local Government were all through, in favour of repeal, and although he offered to place the negotiations in the hands of the leader of the Local Government, and thus make them a party to it, his offer was declined. He was not so trammelled, and hence in the meantime the negotiation was carried on by him alone on the part of Nova Scotia, and subsequently with Mr. McLelan as his associate, until it was brought to a conclusion. He was free to admit, that for months, the Local Legislature demanded the negotiations and denounced him for conducting them. They believed that he had fallen away from the faith.

[Page 753]

Luther Holton [Châteauguay]—That is not true, I suppose. (Loud laughter.)

Joseph Howe [Hants] begged the hon. gentleman’s pardon. He (Mr. Howe) had explained himself pretty fully on this point. The question as to what was to be got for this expenditure was a fair one. The member for Hochelaga said the other day that only one man had been pacified, and that he had a seat in the Cabinet. He (Mr. Howe) admitted that he was very easily pacified if hon. gentlemen went the right way about it (Laughter.) Hon. gentlemen from Nova Scotia certainly mourned over the loss of their own Constitution and wished that they had it back, but some of them say we are willing to take this increased subsidy. We are willing to go that far. (Laughter.) The member for Hochelaga was not correct in stating that only one Nova Scotian had accepted the situation. The majority of members from Nova Scotia for whom he now spoke thought they could speak for themselves. They had made up their minds that repeal was hopeless and that they would accept the situation.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton]—And accept this as a final settlement?

Joseph Howe [Hants] said he would come to that point in a moment. He went on to say that finding they could not get repeal, the antis attempted to defeat him in order to come to Ottawa themselves, with the view of getting more money. It was now very clear, seeing the difficulty the Government had in getting into Committee on the present resolutions, that such an embassy would have been hopeless. He thought the present proportion fair and just and for his part would consider them final—final at all events for some years, until they saw how they would operate.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton]—Hear, Hear. Hon. Mr. Howe proceeded to notice that the Local Legislature had at last found out repeal to be hopeless and would accept the amount offered, but endeavour to get more. Didn’t they wish they might get it. He claimed that the resolutions had already done good in pacifying the people of Nova Scotia, and that thousands of those who had joined in the repeal agitation had made up their minds to give this Dominion a fair trial. The resolutions were then read a first time.

John Rose [Huntingdon] moved that they be now read a second time.

[Page 754]

Edmund Wood [Brant South] moved, seconded by Mr. Bowell, the following amendment:-“That it is inexpedient to disturb the financial arrangements settled between the Provinces composing the Dominion of Canada as settled by the British North America Act in favour of Nova Scotia, without, at the same time, making provision for increasing, in due proportion and on principles alike just to the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario, the amount of debts allowed by the British North America Act to the late Province of Canada, and the half-yearly payments to the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario respectively.” Mr. Wood said his amendment did not propose the withholding of the additional payments or aid to Nova Scotia; but it stated that if such aid were granted, it was proper and just that the House should take into consideration what in- crease should be allowed on the debt of the late Province of Canada, and on the payments to Quebec and Ontario. It pre-supposed that in the financial arrangements of the Quebec Conference, or at all events those of the British North America Act, no injustice was done to Nova Scotia. He had understood the Minister of Finance to say that the object of his resolutions was to correct an error of the Quebec Conference or the delegates in London. Would the Minister of Finance state what that error was?

John Rose [Huntingdon]—Go on.

Edmund Wood [Brant South] said he failed to see where there could have been any error which had operated injustice to Nova Scotia. It could not have been with regard to the population on which the calculations were based, for no one would contend that from 1861, the date at which the population was taken, to 1864, when the Quebec Conference met, or 1867, when the Union Act came into operation, the population of the old Province of Canada had not increased largely as compared with Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. Nor could it have been an error in estimating the local requirements of Nova Scotia, for it never was the design of anyone engaged in framing the Confederation scheme that the subsidies should be sufficient for all the local expenses. Ontario received about $1,200,000, but out of that she had to pay interest at five per cent, on her share of the Debt, above sixty-two and a half millions. The estimate by the Dominion authorities of that excess of debt had been rapidly running up, but, on a moderate computation, Ontario would have to pay $300,000, leaving her only $900,000 to carry on her

[Page 755]

Government, a sum entirely inadequate for the necessary services of the Province, and which would have to be supplemented by about $600,000 of local taxation. Quebec with an expenditure almost as large, would have only about $600,000 of her subsidy left after paying interest on her share of the debt. But while Ontario collected about half a million over and above all expenses, from local sources, and Quebec nearly the same amount, if not more, in the Province of Nova Scotia it was proposed to collect almost nothing, and to throw the whole burden of the expenses of the local government on the public exchequer of the Dominion. (Hear, hear.) But he held that the question before the House was not whether Nova Scotia required so much for her local services, but the question was whether she was entitled to any more, as a matter of justice between herself and the other provinces. If this House was to break up the financial arrangements between the various Provinces, as fixed by the Union Act, it was no light thing. If this sort of thing was to commence, no one could tell where it would end. He believed it would not be competent, or at all events, that it would not be expedient for the Imperial Parliament to interfere with the financial arrangement made by the Union Act without the almost unanimous consent of the several Provinces, expressed by their own Legislatures. As regarded the debts allowed to the several Provinces, if the arrangement was made according to population, the basis settled by the Union Act was sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes. It was not strictly accurate. It allowed too small a debt to Canada, too large a debt to New Brunswick, and too small a debt to Nova Scotia by so inconsiderable an amount that it was scarcely worth while to mention it. But it was contended that other elements besides population should be taken into consideration, as the ability of the Province to pay and the amount of its revenue. He contended that on the basis of the calculation in these elements the same results would be arrived at. Another way to test the accuracy of the distribution made in the British North America Act as to the allowance of debt was to look at the asset s which came along with the debts. On this point he showed that the Nova Scotia Railways which made up the assets handed over to the Dominion, would cost the Dominion in the first three years of Confederation some $300,000 or $400,000 more than the receipts. This included the so-called expenditure on capital account, and excluding that, the receipts from Nova Scotian railways had been only 71 cents per head per annum,

[Page 756]

while the receipts from the Public Works of Canada representing its debt were 151 cents per head per annum. It had been said that Nova Scotia paid more revenue to the Dominion per head of the population than the other Provinces. He had examined the returns for the first year of Confederation and found that in Quebec and Ontario each person paid on an average $3.87 of Custom and Excise, while in Nova Scotia the amount paid was $3.18 per head, a difference of about 70c, and in New Brunswick $3.30 per head, or 12c more than Nova Scotia per head. It was urged that we ought to give more to Nova Scotia in order to pacify her. But if they gave money in a way that was not based on a just rule as to the rights of all parties concerned, while it might for a time pacify the Province to which it was given, it would stir up dissatisfaction in other parts of the Dominion less easy to be alloyed than the original dissatisfaction. (Hear.) He had spoken of the arrangements as to the debt. As regarded the subsidies for carrying on the Local Government, the Quebec Conference had adopted the fair principle of granting 80 cents per head to each Province. From that principle there was a departure, when the delegates in London were framing the final arrangement, a departure which had never been sanctioned by the Legislatures of the various Provinces or by this House. For reasons stated at the time the Quebec Conference made an exceptional provision in favour of New Brunswick granting her $63,000 a year for ten years, but at the London Conference there were also added $80,000 a year to Ontario, $70,000 to Quebec, $60,000 to Nova Scotia, $50,000 to New Brunswick? On what principle was this done? Calculated according to population it gave Ontario 54 cents per head, Quebec 6c, Nova Scotia 18c, and New Brunswick 19c. Assuming what no one would dispute, that Ontario paid 5-9ths of the revenue of the Dominion, this was the result of this departure from the original arrangement. Ontario paid 27c into the common fund and drew out 5¾c, Quebec paid 9c and drew 6c, Nova Scotia paid 52c and drew 18c, New Brunswick paid 5c and drew 19c. (Hear.) Ontario and Quebec might have had some reason, therefore, to complain of that adjustment. But this was not all. It was arranged in London that Nova Scotia should have the 80 cents per head until her population increased from 330,000 to 400,000, and that New Brunswick also should have 80 cents per head of the population until it increased to 400,000, but that Quebec and Ontario should only receive it calculated for the population of 1861.

[Page 757]

There was some reason to complain here also, but when the British American Act came out the people of Ontario and Quebec, while seeing that this injustice had been inflicted, did not murmur about it, but willingly accepted the Act in order that the Union might work harmoniously. But what was now proposed in the resolution before the House? Why, substantially to take $2,000,000 from the Dominion and give it to Nova Scotia in addition to all the advantages secured to her by the Union Act. The present worth of $82,698 for ten years was $638,000; the debt to be added was $1,188,756, and these same sums with the other obligations undertaken gave this result that there would be a further payment to Nova Scotia equivalent to a little over $2,000,000. (Hear, hear.) Why should this be done? Could it be said that the Nova Scotians paid more into the revenue per man than Quebec and Ontario, that their public works were more valuable, or that their other revenues, aside from Customs, would warrant it? He defied any hon. gentleman to show, with reference to any one of those points, a reason why this arrangement should be made. It was said Ontario and Quebec had local resources. So might Nova Scotia, if she chose to tax herself. (Hear.) Ontario had a marriage license fund, so might Nova Scotia. Ontario had a law-stamp tax, amounting to $80,000, and shop and tavern license fund, and Nova Scotia might have these sources of revenue if she chose. (Hear.) It was said Nova Scotia needed money to make her roads and bridges. Ontario needed money for that purpose also, but she raised it by means of her Municipal Councils. Ontario, by municipal taxes, provided for roads and bridges, and other local improvements, education, etc., to the amount of upwards of five millions. Added to the contributions to general and municipal revenues, Ontario paid $9.14 per head of population, Quebec $4.50, New Brunswick $5.16, and Nova Scotia $4.44. If Nova Scotia would bring up her local taxes to the same standard as those of Ontario, she would have plenty of money to carry on her local services. (Hear.) Mr. Wood proceeded to give some other calculations. He showed that if the allowance debt had been made according to the amounts of the public revenue in each of the Provinces in 1863, the year before the Quebec Conference, if Canada was allowed a debt of 62½ millions, New Brunswick should have a debt of $5,700,000, instead of $7,000,000, and Nova Scotia a debt of $7,600,000, instead of $8,000,- 000, as was fixed in the Union Act, or $9,186,- 000, as was now proposed. (Hear.) Again,

[Page 758]

taking the special subsidies to the various Provinces, if New Brunswick got $50,000, Nova Scotia, according to population, should have got $65,000, Quebec $212,000, and Ontario $233,000, per annum in place of $80,000. (Hear.) Again on the basis of allowing the increase of subsidy of 80c. per head to go on until the population reached 400,000, if the same principle had been allowed to the old Province of Canada, Ontario would ultimately receive an additional $442,800 per annum, and Quebec $340,000. Again if a proportionate addition to the allowance of debt to the old Province of Canada was made as was now proposed for Nova Scotia, Canada would be entitled to carry about $12,000,000 more of debt into the Union, thus more than relieving Quebec and Ontario of any special obligations on account of the debt. He did not say that Nova Scotia should not have some additional allowance, but if Nova Scotia was to have an increase, depend upon it that Ontario would not consent to have $2,000,000 allotted for that purpose, of which she paid more than one half, without having some consideration therefor. (Hear.) An examination of the Public Accounts would shew that all the revenue collected by the Dominion out of Nova Scotia was already paid back by the Dominion into that Province. The statements he had made to the House were not speculations, but facts; and they showed there was no justice in the arrangement that was now proposed. Nor did he believe it would be quietly submitted to by Quebec and Ontario, unless the claims of these Provinces were taken into consideration at the same time. (Cheers.)

John Rose [Huntingdon] said the Treasurer of Ontario had given a series of calculations covering the same ground as had been gone over in the correspondence, and had stated that if Nova Scotia resorted to the same system of taxation as he had been compelled to resort to in Ontario she would get on without any change of the present financial arrangements. His (Mr. Rose’s) answer to this he had already given in introducing the resolutions yesterday, when he pointed out first the necessity of the case that the Union could not work harmoniously unless an additional amount were granted; and, secondly, that there were exceptional circumstances in the condition of Nova Scotia, which called for special consideration. What would be the

[Page 759]

result if the amendment were agreed to? It would involve, according to hon. gentlemen’s calculations, an additional yearly payment to Quebec and Ontario of $984,000, and if a corresponding special subsidy for ten years were also granted another yearly payment of $496,000, requiring him, as Minister of Finance, to bring down measures of taxation to yield an additional yearly revenue of $1,480,000.

Edmund Wood [Brant South] said the honourable gentleman had not given correctly the effect of his amendment. He did not propose to interfere with the Union Act, or to ask for the extra subsidy for ten years.

John Rose [Huntingdon]—The honourable gentleman pointed it out. He also stated that there was no reason in the circumstances of Nova Scotia why taxation should not be imposed to enable them to meet their local wants, and that they ought to be provided for. The best answer to that was given by the honourable gentleman himself who not long since congratulated himself on his easy circumstances as Treasurer of Ontario, and was delighted with the proposal that for twenty years to come there was no fear of Ontario having to undergo direct taxation. (Hear, hear) This was the hon, gentleman who spoke so lightly of Nova Scotia being taxed. (Laughter). He (Mr. Rose) held that the reasons which could lead to a change in the financial arrangements of any Province, should be of the greatest, weightiest and most necessary character, and they were so in the case of Nova Scotia, as she would find it absolutely impossible to meet her local expenditure under the first arrangements. He would not follow the member for Brant in any calculations as to whether all the arrangements of Confederation were fair or not. That would involve a series of calculations and exchanging of figures across the floor of the house to no advantage.

Alexander Galt [Town of Sherbrooke] said that the amendment was out of order, as it proposes to make an increased charge on the public.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay] said that if the member for Sherbrooke read the resolution again he would see that it made no proposition to appropriate money. It was a negative proposition which affirmed that it was inexpedient to proceed further until something else was done, but it did not propose to do that something else.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East] maintained that this amendment was not a mere negative, as it

[Page 780]

was accompanied with an affirmation that a certain amount of money should be appropriated in certain circumstances.

Antoine Dorion [Hochelaga] said that the way to test it was this: suppose the motion carried, could the House take any other step towards appropriating this money without a message.

Charles Tupper [Cumberland] thought that the number for Brant forgot the position of the resolutions in moving this amendment. The House had resolved in Committee that the money should be appropriated. Now the hon. gentleman moves that the House affirm the appropriation of it to be inexpedient. The effect of it would be to reverse the decision already arrived at by the House. It would negative the action already taken.

Antoine Dorion [Hochelaga] said that he could not imagine any hon. gentleman of that House holding the proposition that the House should not negative a conclusion arrived at in Committee.

Alexander Galt [Town of Sherbrooke] argued that the amendment would attach a condition to the main motion, and hence was out of order.

Edward Blake [Durham West] maintained that the amendment, if carried, would have no such effect. If it had, under the circumstances, the point of order would have been well taken.

Edmund Wood [Brant South] defended his amendment. His proposition was, in the abstract, one affirming that it was inexpedient to vote this money in the way suggested.

After recess,

[…]

SUBSIDY TO NOVA SCOTIA

The debate on the point of order was then resumed.

Christopher Dunkin [Brome] argued that precedent was against the amendment of the member for Brant, and cited a motion made by the member for Compton last session, which, in his (Mr. Dunkin’s) opinion, was precisely similar

[Page 761]

to that of the member from Brant, and which the Speaker ruled out of order.

The Speaker in deciding the point of order said he did not lay any stress on the fact that, the Committee having affirmed a certain expenditure, the House was in a measure bound by it. He could not agree with the member for Brome in regard to a decision of his (the Speaker’s) which had been quoted. On the 15th May of last year on a motion for the adoption of the report of the Committee of the Whole on the Militia Bill, the member for Compton submitted a motion, the object of which was unquestionably to increase the pay of the officers of the force. It was not a mere expression of opinion such as that now before the House, but it was a step towards passing an Act of Parliament appropriating the public funds. In that important respect it differs from the motion now before the House. The motion of the member for Brant is a mere assertion of an abstract principle; beyond that it proposed nothing. It does not propose to take any step in the direction of legislation, but on contrary, as he read the motion, the effect would be to prevent concurrence in the resolutions and to stop the whole proceedings, so that the question on this proposed appropriation could not be approached again this session unless a message come down from the Crown recommending such additional expenditure. Therefore he thought the argument unsound that this amendment involved a question of additional public expenditure, and in his opinion the motion was in order.

James Young said he believed there was no one in the House who would say an unkind word of Nova Scotia, or who did not desire its pacification; but it was the duty of hon. gentlemen to discuss the resolutions before the House, and, at least, ascertain the relative financial position in which their passage would place Nova Scotia to the other Provinces. The difficulties in Nova Scotia had arisen from the way in which Confederation was forced upon the people. The Government was blameable, too, for taxing their breadstuffs last year, and thus increasing their discontent. He had heard the word sectionalism used during the debate, and it was to be hoped that word would be seldom used. But those could not be charged properly with sectionalism who desired to stand by the Constitution, who asked nothing but what others received; but rather those who asked special favours or advantages for their particular sections. (Hear) To disturb the basis of the Quebec agreement was a most dangerous proceeding; but it was doubly dangerous from the way the Government pro-

[Page 762]

posed to do it-by Bill. There was no saying what financial concessions might be wrung from weak governments in future, and the worst consequence was to be feared from the vote of the previous night in allowing Nova Scotia an increase of $1,118,756 to its debt, and $82,698 to its annual subsidy. It could only be defended on two grounds-its justice or its expediency. Something might be said in favour of its being expedient if Nova Scotia accepted it as a final settlement, if they would thereafter heartily accept the Union; but it was well known that the majority of the able representatives of that Province in this House would not so accept it, and therefore it was desirable whether these concessions were now made or not that the financial relations of the Provinces should be clearly brought out. The Minister of Finance had failed to show that any financial injustice was done to Nova Scotia under the Union Act. His argument had gone to show that that Province had a debt over the $8,000,000 at which she came in, and that the subsidies received from the Dominion Government were not sufficient for the services of their Local Government. This argument was not to the point. Ontario had a surplus debt also, but that was no reason why it should be thrown on the Dominion; and as to the Local Government not having sufficient income, that was no argument to show that Nova Scotia was treated unfairly. To raise their monies for roads and bridges and similar services by Municipal taxation as in Ontario was the proper remedy for that, but the fact did not establish a case for the concessions in their resolutions. (Hear) Now let us enquire if any injustice had been done Nova Scotia. In the first year of Confederation the Dominion received from that Province $1,504,910 and it expended there $1,506,651 and if it was charged to her share of the expenditure of the General Government, as stated at page 19 of the Blue Book, she received over $100,000 more than she contributed. It has been claimed that the Dominion tariff would increase the taxes of the people down there; but they had deficits in 1865, 1866 and 1867, and if there had been no Union their deficit in 1868 would have been $390,811. To raise this amount the Blue Book shows the per centage of duty on their total imports would have risen from $9.32 to $14.18 per cent; but under the Dominion tariff they only paid $13.80 per cent-38 cents less than if they had not been in the Union. These facts did not show that Nova Scotia was suffering such wrong as justified the Government in making these concessions at the Quebec Conference. The debts of Canada and Nova Scotia were calculated on the

[Page 763]

basis of the census of 1861, at $25 per head. Taking the population at 1864 the calculation showed Nova Scotia was allowed to come in with a debt of $22.90 per head, and Canada $22.42, but now the Government proposed to allow the former over $27.50 per head. This was not fair to the other Provinces. At this latter rate Canada would have been entitled to come in with a debt of $68,960,567, but it was only allowed $62,500,000, thus throwing $6,- 460,567 on the Local Governments of Ontario and Quebec, which, if treated like Nova Scotia, the Dominion ought to assume. Last year the subsidies paid to Nova Scotia amounted to 98c per head, to Quebec 89ec, and Ontario 85ic; but this proposed subsidy of $82,698 would raise the amount to be paid to the former to $1.25 per head. It might be desirable to conciliate our eastern friends; but was this difference fair to Ontario and Quebec? (Hear, hear.) Calculated at the sane ratio, and taking the census of 1861 as a basis, the subsidy of Quebec ought to be $1,389,457, but she now received $430,205 less; Ontario would be entitled to $1,745,113, but her subsidy is now less by $548,241. Possibly this was not too much to pay for peace; but there was no good reason why Nova Scotia should receive more than the people of the larger Provinces. The argument that the people of that Province paid more in duties than the same number in the late Province of Canada was true as regards the whole Province; but not true as regards Ontario. Taking the municipal taxes, of which the latter contributed $5,000,000 annually, the rate per head was, Ontario 352c, Quebec 9c, Nova Scotia 81c, and New Brunswick 2c. Since the Union, the percentage of duty paid by Nova Scotia has declined, and certainly does not make out a case of justice in favour of the resolutions. The conclusions could not be defended on principle, whatever might be said of their expediency. The true cause of difficulty with Nova Scotia was not so much financial injustice as the way Confederation had been forced upon her. The President of the Council had called up the demon of Discord, but could not allay him; and now this Dominion was being forced to pay sweetly to undo what had been done.

[Page 764]

Charles Connell addressed the House at length concerning the arrangement entered into as one which was not only in contravention of the Union Act, but which must, in the nature of things, work infinite mischief in futu.re. It was only the beginning of an end which he feared must prove disastrous to Confederation. Before Confederation the cry was generally raised by those opposed to it that its effect would be to dwarf the power and importance of the Provinces and swell that of the Dominion; that the Provinces would be small and insignificant and the Dominion so all-powerful as to be almost irresistible. Unfortunately, the events now transpiring seemed to justify the predictions to which he had alluded. He had at the outset full faith that under Confederation Ontario and Quebec would allow no gross injustice to be perpetrated, and for his part he would say that until last night he had never faltered in his faith that a bright future awaited the Dominion. But the action then taken sowed, in his opinion, the first seeds for the destruction of the Dominion. Having stated that he had always opposed coercing Nova Scotia into the Union, the hon. gentleman alluded to the further disastrous steps taken by the Government in respect to Nova Scotia, steps which influenced the minds of the people against them and produced widespread discontent. He went on to denounce the mode in which the Government now sought to redress the matter as a violation of the Constitution. He would say if these Nova Scotia terms had to be arranged let it be done in a Constitutional way. There was no question but that the proposed arrangement was a gross wrong and injustice to the people of New Brunswick, and one they would not soon forget. Taking up the official statement laid before Parliament the hon. gentlemen then went on to show that New Brunswick paid more per head of her population in duties than the other Provinces. He found that in 1868 Canada paid $2.84 per head. Nova Scotia $3.21, and New Brunswick $3.27. The hon. gentleman next proceeded to show the present action of the Government was really effecting a premium to discontent and would infallibly lead the other

[Page 765]

Provinces to take action similar to Nova Scotia. In New Brunswick he was satisfied that this arrangement would create such heart-burning and discontent as must result disastrously. Everything a large community is bent on doing, that they will do. We must take the only practical course and put the saddle on the right horse. This was an exceptional case which did not apply to the other Provinces. The true course of statesmanship was to give Nova Scotia a fair and equal allowance and if they were not satisfied the fault would not be ours. Courage gives success. If England believed we intended to be a great people in perpetuo they would assist us to carry out our intentions.

John Pickard [York] was of opinion that the arrangement made in the Act was merely intended to cover the general terms of Confederation, but we had a perfect right to supplement if we thought proper in the interests of the Dominion. He would vote against the amendment and for the original resolution when it came up.

Samuel Tilley [City of Saint John] explained that while the Imperial Act secured the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, the payment of the subsidies and the proportion of the debt of each of the Provinces, which could not be changed, there was no reason that the increased requirements of the Provinces could not be met by the General Government. He had himself said on more than one occasion that if in a quarter of a century hence the local subsidies were not sufficient, they should be increased by the representatives of all the Provinces in the General Government. The arrangement now proposed was simply to place Nova Scotia in precisely the same position as New Brunswick (hear, hear). His hon. friend for Carleton had said that he had received letters from his constituents complaining of Confederation, but all his (Mr. Tilley’s) letters from New Brunswick were to the effect that there was less discontent today than at any previous time.

John Pope [Compton] argued that if they did not legislate for the whole Dominion, irrespective of sectional views, they never could make this a great country. He accepted the fact of the Colonial Secretary throwing the responsibility of conciliating Nova Scotia as an evidence

[Page 766]

that this House had the power to increase the subsidy.

Charles Burpee [Sunbury] was opposed to opening up the former arrangements as enacted by the Imperial Parliament, and complained that ministers had sought to put him and other Unionists in a wrong position, by asserting that those who voted against the resolutions before the House were opposed to the Union and to the reconciliation of Nova Scotia. He contended that to alter the Constitution in any respect would be dangerous to the smaller Provinces, leading to a general scramble for more money and increased subsidies by the other Provinces; would introduce contention and sectional turmoil that would have the effect of destroying unity; and it was in the interest of the Union, and to preserve Parliament from such turmoil, that he gave the vote he did last night, and that he intended to do to-night. If the Government had, without interfering with the Constitution, by address to the Imperial Parliament, or otherwise, for the reconciliation of Nova Scotia, made concessions to Nova Scotia, he would have supported them in it.

Albert Smith [Westmorland] said it was very well for the gentlemen who received positions as Ministers of Customs to laud Confederation. He held that the resolutions were a violation of the Union Act, and that no change of the constitution could be effected, except by the Imperial Parliament on an address from the Local Legislatures of all the Provinces.

Peter Lawson [Norfolk South] thought that Confederation was brought on too hastily, but was willing to give the scheme a fair trial. The vote he gave last night was to the best of his judgment in the best interests of the country. He continued at considerable length to justify the vote then given.

Robert Harrison [Toronto West] said there might be a necessity for action of some sort with reference to Nova Scotia. There was a chronic discontent there, which if not removed in some manner, must be detrimental if not destructive to our Union; and where there was so much dissatisfaction there must be some cause for it. Nova Scotia, as he understood it, did not ask for bribes. She asked, as her representatives alleged, for simple justice. He must vote against the amendment of the member for West Brant, for while there was a necessity for action with reference to Nova Scotia there was no necessity for such action at present with refer-

[Page 767]

ence to Ontario. The financial arrangements between the Provinces must not be based on population alone, wealth also must be taken into account. Nova Scotia had brought valuable public works into the Union. She had not come empty handed, and in that view was entitled to some consideration. Then when we considered that the people of Nova Scotia had never had an opportunity of considering the terms on which she had been brought into the Union on that view also she was entitled to consideration. He would be satisfied with the proposed arrangements if he were certain that what we were going to do was to be a finality, but he would not like to have Nova Scotia coming every year asking for an additional subsidy. He believed, however, the people of Nova Scotia were settling into an acceptance of the situation. New Brunswick had got a special subsidy for 10 years, and why should not Nova Scotia get the same?

Edmund Wood [Brant South]—Why shouldn’t we in Ontario get it?

Robert Harrison [Toronto West]—Because we don’t want it. Ontario instead of being pressed for means to carry on its local services was actually accumulating money. He did not think $150,- 000 a year was a large sum to be devoted to removing the chronic discontent of Nova Scotia. For these reasons he would vote against the amendment and give his support to the resolutions.

Thomas Oliver [Oxford North] said the last speaker had used an extraordinary argument, that because the Ontario Government had been economical and been able to invest some of its funds in Dominion stock its surplus should be handed over to Nova Scotia, and that because the people of Ontario provided for roads and bridges by municipal taxes, thus lessening the demands on the Government for local services, the amount thus saved to the Ontario Government should go to Nova Scotia to pay for similar services there. Such arguments were not convincing to his judgment. A great deal had been said about the necessity of Nova Scotia to the Union. However important it was to the Union it might be bought at too high a price. We had existed without Nova Scotia, and if the Union Act should be repealed as regarded Nova Scotia, we could continue to exist without it. If Nova Scotia would not remain in the Union, on reasonable terms, he would say let her go. The hon. gentleman went on to comment on the details of the proposed arrange-

[Page 768]

ment, showing by various calculations that they were unjust to other Provinces, and especially to Ontario. The Dominion debt, he stated, was already very large, and it was unwise to add to it for this purpose. If we were to add to it, let it be for useful and productive public works. The amount of the Dominion debt had rapidly increased since the Union, until now it amounted, according to his estimate, to $136,000,000. How long would it be at this rate? Until we had a debt, in proportion to our population, equal to that of the United States.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton], at ten minutes after 11, asked the Government to consent to an adjournment. (No, no.) It was impossible, he said, to get a division tonight as many gentlemen still desired to speak. (Cries of “Go on.”)

Thomas Killam [Yarmouth] said Ontario at the end of fifteen months of Confederation had a surplus of $1,300,000; Quebec had a surplus of $650,000; New Brunswick had a small surplus, and the Dominion, according to the Finance Minister, had a surplus of $36,000; but the Province of Nova Scotia had a deficit of $29,000.

Charles Tupper [Cumberland]—It has had a surplus ever since the Union.

Thomas Killam [Yarmouth] gave as his authority the statement of the Treasurer of Nova Scotia, and asked what had caused this but the Union. He had been surprised at the parsimony exhibited by the members for Ontario in this debate, in denying to Nova Scotia what was necessary to carry on her local services. It had been said that Nova Scotia contributed no more to the Dominion than she received back again. Even if that were true, her money had gone, if not into the Dominion treasury, into the pockets of the Ontario manufacturers. He thought the Governnent did right in proposing this arrangement to allay Nova Scotian discontent. He did not say it would allay that discontent, but it was right for them to try to do so by fair means. He claimed that this additional subsidy was no more than fair. He had been asked if he was still in favour of repeal. He would answer, that he was bound by his duty to his constituents, and by his own feelings, to stand here and whenever the opportunity offered to strike a blow in the direction of Repeal. (Cries of “Question.”) He believed that the time was coming when the

[Page 769]

Provinces would turn their attention southward. (Cries of “No.”)

Luther Holton [Châteauguay] asked if the Government proposed to proceed further with the resolutions tonight, after the amendment was disposed of.

John Rose [Huntingdon] said he would ask the House to concur in the resolutions, and would then introduce a Bill; and there would be full opportunity for discussion when the Bill was moved to a second reading on Tuesday.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Wood’s amendment, which was negatived.—Yeas, 46, Nays 88.

Yeas—Béchard, Blake, Bodwell, Bourassa, Bowell, Bowman, Brown, Cameron (Huron), Coupal, Dorion, Drew, Ferguson, Fortier, Geoffrion, Godin, Hagar, Holton, Kempt, Little, MacFarlane, Mackenzie, Magill, McCallum, McConkey, McMonies, Metcalfe, Mills, Morison (Victoria), Oliver, Pâquet, Pelletier, Pozer, Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross (Prince Edward), Ross (Wellington), Rymal, Scatcherd, Snider, Stirton, Thompson (Haldimand), Tremblay, Wells, Wood, Wright (York), Young—46.

Nays—Archambault, Beaty, Beaubien, Bellerose, Benoit, Bertrand, Blanchet, Bown, Brousseau, Burpee, Burton, Cameron (Inverness), Cameron (Peel), Carling, Carmichael, Caron, Cartier, Cayley, Chamberlin, Chauveau, Chipman, Cimon, Coffin, Colby, Connell, Costigan, Crawford (Leeds), Dobbie, Dufresne, Dunkin, Forbes, Fortin, Galt, Gaucher, Gaudet, Gendron, Grant, Harrison, Heath, Howe, Huot, Hurdon, Jackson, Keeler, Killam, Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois, Lapum, Lawson, Le Vesconte, Macdonald (Sir J. A.), McDonald (Lunenburg), McDonald (Middlesex), Masson (Soulanges), Masson (Terrebonne), McCarthy, McDougall (Lanark), McGreevy, McKeagney, McLelan, McMillan, Morris, Morrison (Niagara), O’Connor, Perry, Pickard, Pinsonneault, Pope, Power, Rankin, Ray, Read, Renaud, Robitaille, Rose, Ross (Champlain), Shanly, Simard, Simpson, Smith, Stephenson, Street, Tilley, Tupper, Wallace, Walsh, Wright (Ottawa)—88.

The first and second resolutions were concurred in.

James Forbes [Queens] moved to strike out certain words in the third resolution, as to capitalizing the arrears of additional subsidy to July, 1869, and paying the principal at the end of

[Page 770]

ten years, and to insert words making it payable on the 1st of July, 1869.

Antoine Dorion [Hochelaga] supported the amendment. He did not think it worth while for the Dominion to ask for a delay in the payment of this sum.

Christopher Dunkin [Brome] objected that the amendment was not in order, as it contemplated an appropriation of money other than was recommended by His Excellency’s message.

The Speaker ruled the amendment out of order.

The House divided on the 3rd resolution as to the $82,698 per annum of additional subsidy for 10 years, which was carried. Yeas 80, nays 51.

Yeas—Archambeault, Beaty, Beaubien, Bellerose, Benoit, Bertrand, Blanchet, Bown, Brousseau, Burton, Cameron (Inverness), Carling, Carmichael, Caron, Cartier, Cayley, Chamberlin, Chauveau, Chipman, Cimon, Coffin, Colby, Costigan, Dobbie, Dufresne, Dunkin, Forbes, Fortin, Galt, Gaucher, Gaudet, Grant, Grover, Harrison, Heath, Howe, Huot, Hurdon, Jackson, Keeler, Killam, Lacerte, Langevin, Lapum, Lawson, Le Vesconte, Macdonald (Sir John A.), McDonald (Lunenburg), McDonald (Middlesex), 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), Shanly, Simard, Simpson, Stephenson, Tilley, Tupper, Wallace, Walsh, Wright (Ottawa County). —80.

Nays—Béchard, Blake, Bodwell, Bourassa, Bowell, Bowman, Brown, Burpee, Cameron. (Huron), Connell, Coupal, Crawford (Leeds), Dorion, Drew, Ferguson, Fortier, Geoffrion, Godin, Hagar, Holton, Kempt, Little, MacFarlane, Mackenzie, Magill, McCallum, McConkey, McMonies, Metcalfe, Mills, Morison (Victoria), Oliver, Pâquet, Pelletier, Pickard, Pozer, Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross (Wellington County), Rymal, Scatcherd, Smith, Snider, Stirton, Thompson (Halidmand), Tremblay, Wells, Wood, Wright (York, Ont.), Young—51.

The fourth resolution, providing that Nova Scotia shall be debited in account with Canada, with interest at 5 per cent per annum on the cost of the new provincial building until it shall have been placed at the disposal of the Dominion, was moved amidst a good

[Page 771]

deal of confusion and cries of “adjourn,” the hand of the clock being at the figure 12 which separated secular from sacred time. While the division was being taken, the House was very unruly, paper pellets flying about in every direction.

The resolution was carried. Yeas 118, nays 7, the nays being all from Nova Scotia.

John Rose [Huntingdon] introduced a Bill intituled an Act respecting Nova Scotia. Second reading on Tuesday.

The House adjourned at ten minutes past twelve.