Document Information

Date: 1869-06-16
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1st Parl, 2nd Sess, 1869 at 806-829.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

SUBSIDY TO NOVA SCOTIA

John Rose [Huntingdon] moved the second reading of the Nova Scotia Bill.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay] said that the action of the Government in this measure, was such as struck at the very foundations of Government. It struck at the federal element in the Government, and with the destruction of that element, in his opinion, the Dominion could not exist. Without that element it was impossible to govern this extended sparsely-settled country, occupied by people who were various as to their origin, habits of thought and institutions. His chief ground of opposition to the Bill before the House was, that it assailed the federal element, and if the action of the Nova Scotia were followed un in the same respect by the other Provinces, as it would be infallibly, then the House was at this stage really asked to take the initiatory step for the destruction of their own handiwork. (Hear.) What were the statements made when this measure was under discussion in the various Provinces? Certainly in Upper Canada it was held that the resolutions on which the Union Act was founded were of the nature of a compact between the Provinces; that this Confederation was in point of fact our own creation, and that we merely went to the Imperial Government to seek the homologation of a Constitution which we had agreed on among ourselves. A mere statement of this answered much of what had been advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite about our hands being tied by Imperial statute. He maintained that our Constitution was of the nature of a compact between the Provinces, and could only be violated, disturbed, changed or modified with the consent of all the contracting parties. (Hear and cheers.) This was the main proposition of his motion, but the Constitution was not only to be a compact between the Provinces, but a cure for all the evils of sectionalism which has grown up under the union of the two Canadas, and therefore he objected to the proposed arrangement, because in the second

[Page 807]

place it would bring back in an intensified form all these evils which we sought to escape, and which it was intended we should escape by the operation of Confederation. To-day we had Nova Scotia clamoring for a money grant as an act of simple justice, and we are told, notwithstanding the provision of the Union Act determining what each Province is to receive under Confederation, that it is constitutional and legal to make this draft. Next year we may have another declaration, and that whenever the Government of the day feel in a difficult position coincidently with any Province in the Dominion being in difficulties, we will have such a Government seeking to maintain its position by money grants, not as formerly to particular institutions, but to a whole Province. (Hear and cheers.) The hon. gentleman regretted that the member for Sherbrooke was not in his place, as that hon. gentleman was one of the chief architects of this Union, and the House would look to him to explain how it came about that he being beyond, of any man in the Dominion, responsible for the financial disposition of the Union had suffered the great injustice to Nova Scotia which it was the contemplation of this Act to cure. (Hear, hear.) The House would look to that hon. gentleman to reconcile the statement made that day in support of the measure before the House with the statements made before Parliament at the time of the Union, when the financial arrangements were held up to the House as the very perfection of human reason. In the absence of the member for Sherbrooke, perhaps the hon. gentleman opposite, who was as strong in figures as in law or in war would say how he who was skilled in figures as in most other things—(laughter)—had consented to do this great wrong to Nova Scotia in the year of our Lord, 1865—(hear)—which wrong the hon. gentleman now called on the House to remedy on pain of being termed disunionists, annexationists, anti-Confederates, and all the terms so common in the slang literature of the day. The House would remember well that when he and some with whom he acted opposed the acquisition of Nova Scotia unless by consent of the people at the polls, the brand of disloyalty and disunion was frequently applied. Now all who refused to endorse the departure of the Government from the position then assumed were similarly branded. (Hear). With regard to Nova Scotia, he need not say that he was one of the few public men in the former Province of Canada, who believed that Nova Scotia was hardly dealt with in being forced into the Union.

[Page 808]

He thought so still, and believed that what we were doing now showed not only the injustice but un-wisdom of the course which he had formerly objected to. But Nova Scotia was now in the Union. Her venerable leader had accepted, to use his own perspicuous phraseology, not only the situation but a situation. The hon. gentleman has forgiven all the farce and fraud which he told us last session was used against the liberties of his country. He has not one word to say concerning the liberties of which he believed his country to have been despoiled. He is pacified, and we heard to-day of case number two of Nova Scotian pacification. (Laughter.) It was to be supposed that the whole Province would follow in the wake of these two hon. gentlemen, and we therefore have not to deal with the higher question of Constitutional right which hon. gentlemen used to bring so frequently under our notice. We have to deal with the vulgar question of money. What we have to consider is the fairness of the terms in a financial point of view on which Nova Scotia entered the Union. This being the case the burden of proof was on those who perpetrated the wrong, and by whose side the President of the Council sat. It rested on them. to show that the financial position on which the Union was based was unfair; but so far they had utterly failed to make out a case. But admitting for the sake of argument, that Nova Scotia had the same claim to pecuniary consideration, in that case, he would infinitely prefer that the matter had been dealt with in the manner pointed out by the member for Cumberland, than that relief should be accomplished by a breach of the Union Act. Having noticed that the hon. member for Brant had shown conclusively what the effect on the other Provinces would be if there were a change in the Constitution, the hon. gentleman went on to say that the Premier of Quebec must know whether in the very near future his Province was not likely to want a supplement to the subsidy she received under the Union Act, and hon. gentle- men from Quebec should either speak out now or forego all claims. Of course that hon. gentleman would never be a party to ask the Government to disturb the settlement under the Union Act, but when it was proposed to disturb the arrangement a declaration of this kind should be made by hon. members representing Quebec, or they might consider the matter forever closed.

Pierre Chauveau [Quebec County] said that the great complaint of members opposite was that the arrangement opened the door for such purposes, not that it closed it.

[Page 809]

Luther Holton [Châteauguay] contended that whilst the result of the adoption of this arrangement must be to open the door to the Provinces, to clamour for that which was a breach of the Union Act, yet members from Quebec ought now at the outset to prefer their claims, if they considered they had any, or consider the door closed against them. Let them not declare by their votes that they were satisfied with the Union Act, so far as the Province of Quebec was concerned, if they were not so satisfied. (Cheers.) In conclusion, the hon. gentleman moved that the said Bill be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that, in the opinion of this House, any disturbance of the financial arrangements respecting the several Provinces provided for in the British North America Act, unless assented to by all the Provinces, would be subversive of the system of government under which this Dominion was constituted; and, if effected, as proposed by this Bill, in favour of one Province, without at the same time providing for a general revision and readjustment of those arrangements, would be manifestly unjust to the other Provinces.

Joseph Howe [Brant] said he had not in the previous debates undertaken the defence of the proposed arrangement for two reasons. First, because his views were on record in the published correspondence; second, because he would have liked if this act of reparation and justice should be done to Nova Scotia gracefully and as a free-will offering by this Parliament without the representatives of Nova Scotia requiring to plead for it. The member for Chateauguay had asked if wrong had been committed in the original arrangement, why had the member for Cumberland and other representative of Nova Scotia consented to that wrong. He (Mr. Howe) did not believe any wrong was intentionally perpetrated by any party, and if the member for Cumberland did not interfere to prevent the wrong it was because his information was defective. The hon. gentleman had made particular reference to the member for Sherbrooke as having been the architect of the existing scheme in its financial aspects. He (Mr. Howe) had a very high appreciation of the financial abilities of the member for Sherbrooke, and, unfortunately for the position of the member for Chateauguay, the member for Sherbrooke now frankly admitted the wrong had been done to Nova Scotia. The hon. gentleman had spoken of the protest he (Mr. Howe) had made against the constitutional rights of Nova Scotia having been violated, and reproached him for now being satisfied with mere financial arrangements. His position was this, satisfied that Re-

[Page 810]

peal was hopeless, he was endeavouring to see whether they could not, under this Confederation, work out something akin to responsible Government, and when this measure was carried, and the financial question adjusted, he would endeavour, so far as lay in his power, to make his people feel that after al the thing was not so bad as perhaps they had thought, or as he had believed himself. He begged to say that the Nova Scotian opposition to the scheme had not originated with himself, and had not originated with politicians at all. The opposition originated among the merchants and financiers of the Province. He did not think the excitement would calm down at once. The people would still feel that their Constitution had been improperly taken from them, but they would have no longer to complain of that aggravating element in the question that pecuniary wrong was done to them. For the interests of the Maritime Provinces, and the Dominion generally, this question should be set at rest. All the Provinces were interested in getting reciprocity. Last summer General Butler visited Prince Edward Island to propose certain special arrangements with that Colony, and in returning he visited Nova Scotia, and taking advantage of the discontent there, talked of special arrangements with that Province. So long as the state of feeling was such that the Provinces might be dealt with as units, the negotiating of reciprocity with the Provinces as a whole would be delayed.

Thomas Gibbs [Ontario South] said he had supported Mr. Blake’s amendment, believing the proper course to proceed was by address, rather than by Bill, but the House having decided against that view, he was prepared to support that Bill, believing that it was a measure of justice to Nova Scotia.

Hon. Mr. Wood held that no attempt had been made on the other side to prove that injustice had been done to Nova Scotia in the original arrangement. The details of that arrangement had been freely discussed at the Quebec Conference, in the various Legislatures, and by the delegates in London. The figures were simple and easily understood, and yet during all these months of discussion the delegates never found out that any injustice had been done to Nova Scotia. The President of the Council had stated that the member for Sherbrooke admitted that a great wrong had been done to Nova Scotia. He (Mr. Wood) had not understood the member for Sherbrooke.

Joseph Howe [Brant]—I merely quoted the member for Chateauguay, who said the member

[Page 811]

for Sherbrooke admits a wrong was done. (Cries of “No, no”).

Edmund Wood [Brant South] did not deny that something should be done if the effect would be to propitiate Nova Scotia. In some way she must be propitiated. (Hear, hear). She could not be permitted to go out of the Union. It was against the policy of the British Empire and of the Dominion that she should go out; but the Government, in seeking to propitiate Nova Scotia, brought down a scheme which struck at the foundation of the future peace of the rest of the Dominion. He regretted that the Union had in the first place been based on the principle of the Federal Government providing for the local services of the Provinces. The framers of the United States constitution had been more wise than to introduce such a principle. This, however, was not now the question. He did not blame the Government for seeking to propitiate Nova Scotia, but he blamed them for attempting to so do by attacking the Constitution. Not being on the treasury benches, it was not for him to indicate a scheme, but there were many ways by which the object might be accomplished without interfering with a vital part of the Constitution. He would be glad if the system of subsidies could be got rid of altogether. The Bill could not be passed without violating the clause of the Union Act which said that the payment specified should be in full settlement of all future claims on Canada. It was stated this meant legal claims. What other sort of claims could be meant? Was it moral claims or immoral claims? He was surprised at the position taken on this question by the member for West Toronto. That hon. gentleman declared this disturbance of financial arrangements to be unconstitutional; and yet, because the House had decided against him, he was prepared now to support what he considered unconstitutional.

Robert Harrison [Toronto West]—it is true that I voted that it was unconstitutional to interfere with the Union Act; but I voted against the motion of the member for Brant because I am opposed to log-rolling and I shall vote against this amendment for the same reason.

Edmund Wood [Brant South] said the hon. gentleman’s explanation was exceedingly lucid, and would no doubt be appreciated by the country. He went on to say that he supposed the majority would carry this Bill, although unconstitutional, but in that event he hoped that, at all events, it would be looked upon as an absolutely final settlement.

[Page 812]

Alexander Galt [Town of Sherbrooke] said he had not had the advantage of being present when the member for Chateauguay addressed the House, but he gathered from the remarks of the member for South Brant and the President of the Council, that that hon. gentleman stated that he (Mr. Galt) had admitted an injustice had been done to Nova Scotia in the original arrangements.

Luther Holton [  Châteauguay] repeated what he had said, that Mr. Galt having been chief architect of the financial arrangements of the Confederation scheme, was now bound, when the Government brought down a measure implying that a gross injustice had been done to Nova Scotia, to show how that injustice had arisen.

Alexander Galt [Town of Sherbrooke] said he had never heard a more unconsequential argument than that, because the Government had brought down this measure he who was not a member of the Government was bound to shew that there had been an injustice done. He did not admit that any injustice had been done in the original arrangement. (Hear, hear.) He rested his support of this measure on other considerations. He had taken an active part in framing the financial clauses of the arrangement, but more especially with reference to the Province of Canada for which he was to ascertain the extent of responsibility. The arrangements for the other Provinces were in able hands, those of the member for St. John (Col. Gray), and the member for Cumberland (Hon. Mr. Tupper), and he (Mr. Galt), disclaimed both any merit for the arrangements with reference to those Provinces and blame for any ignorance which might have been displayed in making them. He had not the means of questioning, and had not presumed to question the statements put before the Conference by the gentlemen who represented the Governments of those Provinces. It was undoubtedly the case that the gentlemen who represented Nova Scotia at the various Conferences did not then believe that the engagements of that Province would amount to so large a sum by any means as they had amounted to. They believed the debt would be under $8,000,000, and that a certain sum would be payable to Nova Scotia on the difference between that and the debt with which she was allowed to enter the Union. The debt, on the contrary, had proved to be over $9,000,000, which made a very material difference. The calculations, therefore, as to the sum which Nova Scotia would receive for carrying on her local services proved to be all wrong. The unexceptionable treatment of New Brunswick in those arrangements arose from causes which would

[Page 813]

be readily understood by those who considered that the cost of Government in a populous country must be less per head than in a less populous country, and that the burdens connected with opening up a country comparatively new must be greater than in an older country. Again, in the two Maritime Provinces there was not the same municipal system as in Canada, and it had been their practice to provide by direct votes of their Legislatures for many wants which in Canada were provided for by local taxation. It was of no use saying to those Provinces that they should provide for these services by local taxation. Had this been attempted the result would have been to create such a local excitement against Confederation that it would have been impossible to carry it. This was the ground taken by the member for St. John, and also by the member for Cumberland; but the member for Cumberland, and also the member for Hants and other Nova Scotians, he believed at that time, said that the position of Nova Scotia was much better than that of Canada. That was not his (Mr. Galt’s) opinion. He believed that Canada had really the best financial position of the three Provinces coming into the Union. Well, the measure before the House proposed simply to place Nova Scotia in the position in which it was intended to place her at the time of the Union. On account of the larger amount of debt which had fallen on Nova Scotia than was anticipated, it was proposed to allow her a larger debt, and as regarded subsidy, it was proposed to place her on the same footing on which New Brunswick had originally been placed; and the grounds were the same for dealing with Nova Scotia now, in an exceptional way, as they were then for dealing with New Brunswick in an exceptional way. He did not feel that any injustice had been done but were they to refuse to do what was necessary for the good of the whole Dominion, simply because the Union Act contained provisions which it was now found Nova Scotia could not work under? When this state of things existed they should apply a practical remedy. In many respects he might think a different mode should have been adopted from that adopted by the Government. Although the end he had in view was precisely the end the Government had in view, he was not, because of his individual opinion as to mode, to have even the appearance of withholding what was necessary for the pacification of Nova Scotia. But while the formal consent of the Government of Nova Scotia had not been obtained to these terms, and it was possible that in the negotiations which must take place

[Page 814]

before the matter was finally settled, the same charge might take place. It was clear that no one in this House could give the pledge demanded by the member for South Brant, that the settlement should be absolutely final; he thought, however, it would be unfortunate if by the rejection or this measure the House should declare to Nova Scotia that it was not prepared to procure the means required for carrying on its necessary service.

Antoine Dorion [Hochelaga] said the speech of the member for Sherbrooke contained substantially only two propositions-first, that he believed Nova Scotia in the original arrangements had got all she was entitled to, and secondly, that his only reason for voting for this measure was that the Government of Nova Scotia had not enough to carry on the local administration of its affairs. If that were a good reason it would be good for making an additional grant for Quebec, which certainly had not enough to carry on the present scale with its present revenue. Some one had said that Quebec had a surplus of $650,000. He (Mr. Dorion) ventured to assert that she never had that surplus, and never would with her present revenue. The funds at the disposal of her Local Government were not sufficient to meet the demands on them. The original arrangement ought not to be disturbed unless that Parliament was prepared in re-opening it to have regard to the claims of Quebec as well as of Nova Scotia (Hear, hear.)

John Bolton [Charlotte] replied to some remarks by the Minister of Customs to a former debate, and pointed out certain inconsistencies in the Nova Scotia correspondence. He contended that the figures did not establish that Nova Scotia had the same claim to exceptional consideration as New Brunswick with regard to the amount of her debt and subsidies.

After recess,

John Bolton [Charlotte] contrasted the resources of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, contending that though the former had not much revenue to look to from timber, yet her mines would

[Page 815]

prove a larger and more lasting source of wealth than would the timber of New Brunswick. The hon. gentleman went on to contend that the re-adjustment proposed was unfair, but he would not offer any factious opposition to a measure for the pacification of Nova Scotia. He warned the House, however, that from her position New Brunswick might ere long feel bound to come before the House and make an application similar to that now made by Nova Scotia. (Hear, hear.)

John Thompson [Ontario North] deprecated the introduction of a measure of this kind as calculated to foster sectional feeling. He observed that this was not accepted as a final settlement. Instead of being a final settlement, it opened the door to future tamperings with the Constitution. If it could be shown that injustice had been done to Nova Scotia, he would willingly consider how that injustice could be remedied. But he had not heard, in the course of this debate, any attempt to place this measure on the ground of its being required as an act of justice.

David Stirton [Wellington South] said the Minister of Justice had charged himself and others, who had voted for Mr. Blake’s amendment, with being enemies to the Union. He claimed to have been a firm friend of Confederation, and it was because he was a friend of Confederation that he opposed the proposition of the Government. The passion displayed by the Minister of Justice, the other evening, recalled the old times, when there was a standing conflict between Upper and Lower Canada, and when the Minister of Justice used to make frantic appeals on behalf of the right of Lower Canada to spend more of the public money than she contributed. He could not on principles either of justice or expediency vote for this Bill. The President of the Council had spoken of the money voted for the North-West as an advantage to Ontario which should make that Province coincide in these advantages to Nova Scotia. The opening up of the North-West was part of the basis of Union, and the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway, which would be of no use to Ontario, would be more than an offset for that.

Ebenezer Bodwell [Oxford South] denied that this measure had been shown to be a measure of justice to Nova Scotia. The contrary had been shown. The effects of the rejection of Mr. Blake’s motion were already appearing. Already there were symptoms that the other Provinces

[Page 816]

would demand special advantages, similar to these conceded to Nova Scotia. We had already heard claims set up on behalf of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Constitutional argument had not been met by argument, but merely by rhodomontade and tergiversation.

The Speaker called the hon. gentleman to order. He had no right to refer to a previous debate.

Ebenezer Bodwell [Oxford South] said the Ministry were bound to show that this was a measure of justice to Nova Scotia, or that it was a measure of conciliation. They had shown neither. The member for West Brant had shown that Nova Scotia had got more than justice in the original arrangements. It had been shown that while the people of Nova Scotia taxed themselves only $1.11 per head for local purposes, the people of Ontario taxed themselves $3.93 for local purposes. Let the people of Nova Scotia show the same willingness to support their own services as the people of Ontario, and there would be no occasion for their making any additional demand on the Dominion exchequer. The Government had also failed to show that this would be a measure of conciliation. Even the President of the Council did not accept it as a final settlement.

Joseph Howe [Brant]—I do so accept it and have twice resisted by my vote any attempt to procure more money for Nova Scotia.

Ebenezer Bodwell [Oxford South] said the President of the Council in his letter to the people of Nova Scotia, after accepting office, advised them to make a trial of the arrangement, and if it was not found satisfactory in one year or so when the extra subsidy ran out, something else might be tried; and the whole tone of the debates in the Nova Scotia Legislature, and the attitude assumed by the majority of Nova Scotian members in this House, showed that it was not accepted by Nova Scotia as a final settlement; in other words that it would not conciliate that Province. He believed the most disastrous results would follow the passing of this Bill, and he implored hon. gentlemen to pause before finally sanctioning a measure which dealt a fatal blow to the Constitution. While the hon. gentlemen was addressing the House a good deal of noise was made from the Ministerial side by the creaking of desks and otherwise, in order to

[Page 817]

drown his voice. He concluded by thanking the House for its patient attention.

Pierre Chauveau [Quebec County], in French, addressed the House in support of the Government scheme. While he was speaking there was some retaliation from the Opposition for the treatment of the previous speaker by a resort to the same tactics of creaking of desks and other Parliamentary noises. He was understood to say in reply to Messrs. Dorion and Holton that Quebec, by showing liberality to Nova Scotia, now would be in a better position to urge her own claims to an increased subsidy if necessary therefor should arise.

Joseph Rymal [Wentworth South] said last session when the member for Lunenburg moved for a Committee to consider the grievances of Nova Scotia, the Government refused the Committee, and declared no injustice had been done to that Province, and when the Local Government sent the member for Hants to England to represent the grievances of Nova Scotia, the Government sent Dr. Tupper in post-haste after him, to show there were no grievances, and to counteract the efforts of the oily-tongued member for Hants. Now the position was entirely changed. Nova Scotian discontent continued, and the Minister of Justice, who was well skilled in the arts of abduction and seduction, had tried his arts on the member for Hants, and had been successful. The people of Nova Scotia would compare him in future to a vessel which had remained sound in the midst of storms, but when the sunny hour came he foundered like a ship at sea, when heaven was all tranquility. He regretted that no Committee was appointed last session. A certain number of members from each Province would have sat down to examine quietly and deliberately, what were the grievances of Nova Scotia, and what remedy was required; and there would have been more probability of a lasting settlement being arrived at than there could be from this bargain and sale between the Minister of Justice and the member from Hants. (Hear, hear.)

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] said, when the President of the Council rose to address the House, he had hoped that that hon. gentleman was at last to enlighten them as to the real history of his entering the Cabinet, and that they would obtain from him some assurance that this measure was to be regarded as a final settlement of the Nova Scotia question; but the

[Page 818]

honourable gentleman sat down without having said anything that he had not said before. The House was, in fact, in this position, that they were asked to pass the measure without having any authority for believing that the people of Nova Scotia would accept it as a settlement. Members from Nova Scotia in this House and the Provincial Government had stated, in fact, that they did not so accept it. Last session, the member for Hants declared that the people of Nova Scotia were loyal; now he stated that there were many rebels and annexationists in that Province. The honourable gentleman’s attempts at settlement had resulted in this, that a few evenings ago a club formed in Nova Scotia to obtain repeal had only escaped by a very narrow majority from being hurried into an annexation club. In ancient times Joseph was sold by his brethren into Egypt; in modern times it was Joseph who had sold his brethren. (Laughter.) They had found at all events that the brethren in this House declared in the most explicit terms, publicly and privately, that they had been sold by the accession to office of a distinguished member of that party. This did not look very much like quieting Nova Scotia: and not only was Nova Scotia not quieted, but there were symptoms of discontent springing up in the other Provinces. He had understood the Premier of Quebec to say that, while he did not at present consider it necessary to apply for a change in the terms so as to make them more favourable to Quebec, it was quite possible that the time would come when Quebec would apply for such a revision, and the President of the Council frankly announced, and, of course, the whole Government were responsible for his utterances, that the time might come when he would be prepared to ask more for his own Province or to concede more to the other Provinces. Where was this to end? Could we have a stable Government if our Constitution was in this state? He was glad to hear the member for Sherbrooke object to the mode in which this was proposed to be done; but he regretted to find him supporting what he believed to be improper. If this measure could be defended logically it condemned the arrangement to which that hon. gentleman was a party in 1865. If the honourable gentleman was right then, he must be wrong now. Last session, the member for Sherbrooke, the member for Cumberland, and every member of the Government defended the arrangement with reference to Nova Scotia provided in the Union Act, as all that could be desired and as just between that and the other Provinces. How was it that all this was changed now? The member for Cumberland had stated in this

[Page 819]

debate that a Commission was to have been appointed which should have the arbitrament in their hands of all difficulties of a financial character. He had anxiously waited to hear whether the member for Sherbrooke or any member of the Government would contradict that extraordinary statement, but the statement still remained uncontradicted that there was a secret article of the treaty, whereby a Commission was to be appointed to make such a revision of the financial arrangement as the circumstances of the Provinces might demand.

Alexander Galt [Town of Sherbrooke]—There was no secret understanding that I ever heard of, and I did not understand the member for Cumberland to say so.

Charles Tupper [Cumberland]—I repeat most emphatically and distinctly the statement that from time to time, from the Quebec Conference down to the close of the Conference at Westminster Palace, I did understand that the financial adjustment between the Provinces was to be the work of a Commission. This has, to some extent, been done by gentlemen representing the Governments of Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick, and the Government of the Dominion.

Alexander Galt [Town of Sherbrooke] said this statement did not bear the construction put upon it by the member for Lambton.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] said, if his remarks and those of the other gentleman were reported, the public would judge whether it was now asserted that it was understood a Commission would be appointed, which would have something to do with enquiring into, and reforming the financial arrangements between the Provinces.

Alexander Galt [Town of Sherbrooke] said the only reference he had heard made as to a Commission was with regard to the public property brought by various Provinces into the Dominion. It was never contemplated to disturb the financial arrangement.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston] said this matter was a suggestion made by the member for Cumberland and favourably entertained in order to prevent serious disputes between the Local and General Governments.

Luther Holton [Châteauguay]—With respect to the property and buildings only.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston]—With respect to the assets generally.

[Page 820]

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] said that was an entirely different matter. The statement of the member for Cumberland was as to the finances. The arguments of the member for Cumberland was really the old Jesuitical argument that the end justified the means.

Alexander Galt [Town of Sherbrooke]—The hon. gentleman is not quite correct. The end is the pacification of Nova Scotia, the means are those that are applied by the Bill.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] could not see the force of the hon. gentleman’s argument distinctly. If the House did not adopt the mode proposed by the Government Nova Scotia would not get the money. But the member for Sherbrooke further stated that certain further negotiations were to take place. These should not of course be with the President of the Council, as he was now in the Government, nor with the member for Colchester (Mr. McLelan), who was about also to be placed in a position in which he should not negotiate. The House was, therefore in this ridiculous position that they were revising the terms of Union without having entered into negotiations with the parties who they really represented. The majority of the members from Ontario, the largest Province in the Union, had voted against it; the majority of the members from New Brunswick had voted against it. The members from Nova Scotia had declared they did not accept it as a final settlement. It was carried merely to please the President of the Council, who did not control a single Nova Scotian, and who had so little influence with the Local Government that his letters were returned unanswered.

Joseph Howe [Hants]—I beg to correct the hon. member. I have never written a letter to the Local Government.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton]—Then it was clear the hon. member could not answer for a body to whom he did not dare even to write a letter, and what was the attitude of that Government as their answer to the resolution passed here on Friday night. To pacify Nova Scotia, we had a resolution unanimously passed by the Legislature instructing their Government to sell the Province building to the highest bidder. (Hear, hear). Those who voted against this amendment voted against the people, on which this Union was founded. He did not agree with a statement which had been made on his side of the House, that Nova Scotia in this report was in a different position from the other Provinces. The Legislature of Nova

[Page 821]

Scotia, like the Legislatures of the other Provinces approved of the basis of Union and their resolutions were the strongest of all in giving unlimited power to their delegate to negotiate the Union on any terms they thought best.

Charles Tupper [Cumberland]—After the Union Act passed the Legislature of Nova Scotia ratified it, which was not done by any other Province.

Isaac Le Vesconte [Richmond] and William Chipman [Kings] rose simultaneously and made some angry remarks, but as they both spoke together the purport of what they said was not heard in the gallery.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] said this was a specimen of the conciliation this measure was to produce. Every member from Nova Scotia was a living protest against the conduct of the President of the Council whose idea was that if he got certain terms and went into the Government, all would be serene. He (Mr. Mackenzie) had never expected anything of the kind; he had never yet seen any good accomplished by an hon. gentleman abandoning his party and his political position for the sake of taking office. This measure was in his (Mr. Mackenzie’s) opinion, fraught with extreme danger, to every one of the Provinces interested. If this were allowed, and made a precedent, there was nothing to prevent a com- bination of interests at any time, in the Parliament of the Dominion, to overturn the Constitution. If they could touch it in one point, they could touch it in all, for one clause of the Union Act was as sacred a part of the compact as any other. For these reasons he felt himself bound to vote for the amendment, and to do all he could to prevent the passage of an Act which was a violation of the Constitution, and which was a step towards anarchy—from the consequences of which this country might perhaps never recover. (Cheers.)

Archibald McLelan [Colchester] expressed himself much sur- prised at the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton, in reference to Nova Scotia. It was certainly strange that a gentleman, professing to be favourable to the Confederation, should have manifested so much delight in referring to the past history of this question, and to the differences between Nova Scotia and the Dominion. The hon. member for South Wentworth had said that when the Nova Scotia members were in the House last session, they could get no consideration from

[Page 822]

the Government. They were then seeking for a repeal of the Union, and the Government and their friends, being desirous of preserving the Dominion intact, said they could not listen to the former as long as they held such a position. Then, soon afterwards, delegates went to England to endeavour to sever the connection between Nova Scotia and the other Provinces, but they were told by the British Government and Parliament that they should go back to their own country, and the Government of the Dominion would redress their grievances. So it would be seen that the British Parliament itself had referred the settlement of the differences to the Government of the Dominion. But it was said that the members of the Local Government had not been a party to this arrangement. In answer to this he would state that Mr. Annand and his friends replied, when the British Parliament referred them to Canada, that they doubted whether the Parliament of the Dominion was willing to arrange such terms as would be satisfactory to Nova Scotia, but they also added that if such could be done, the decision of the British Parliament was a wise one. Then the delegates returned, and the Canadian Government, feeling the responsibility thrown upon them, entered into negotiations with the view of reconciling Nova Scotia. Mr. Annand, and other members of the Local Cabinet, for some personal reasons or other, did not take part in these negotiations; but, nevertheless, a result was arrived at, which, he would state the information of some gentlemen around him, he was persuaded would be gladly accepted by the people of his Province (cheers).

Isaac Le Vesconte [Richmond]—Richmond, for instance.

Archibald McLelan [Colchester]—The county of Richmond was thrown open before terms of the arrangement were thoroughly understood, and the hon. member was selected as a candidate upon the platform, that he was to stay at home; but when the terms were fully explained to the people, and the elections were over, the hon. gentleman felt he must go up to Ottawa (cheers).

Isaac Le Vesconte [Richmond] explained that he had been afraid that his health would not permit his attendance in the first instance.

Archibald McLelan [Colchester] had understood it as he stated it; and the same might be said of the county of Yarmouth, where it had been at first proposed that no representative should attend; but when the negotiations in question were made public, the people of the

[Page 823]

county had changed their opinions, and elected Mr. Killam expressly on the condition that he was to go to Ottawa and serve his constituents. He had gone through his own county, and addressed public meetings, and found the people everywhere prepared to accept the terms. He had also assisted his friend, the President of the Council, in the county of Hants, and the House knew the result of the election in that constituency (hear, hear). He believed that in every county of Nova Scotia, where the terms were explained, the same verdict would be given by the majority of the people. He was confident that the arrangement did justice, financially, to Nova Scotia, and was resolved, as far as he was individually concerned, to do all he could to conciliate the people of the Province, and assist them in working out the Union. Mr. McLelan then went on to say that he would not attempt, at that stage, to make any lengthy observations on the financial features, but would confine himself to some points raised by some gentlemen. If we took the Customs and Excise revenue for 1863, it would be found that the Province of Canada was only entitled to $35,000,000 for her debt, in proportion to $8,000,000 for Nova Scotia. He assumed that it was the intention of all the delegates at the Conference that none of the Local Governments should be burthened by a debt without some asset or income to meet that burthen (hear, hear). If it had been known that Nova Scotia was over $9,000,000 in debt, that sum would have been provided for under the Act, without interfering with the local revenues. In the printed papers before the House, it was shown that Nova Scotia had expended three or four millions, after the Quebec Conference, upon public works which became the property of the Dominion, whilst the Province of Canada had not made any proportionate expenditure. If Canada had expended in proportion with Nova Scotia, upon railways, she would have made herself liable for $24,000,000. At the time of the Quebec Conference, Nova Scotia had expended only some $5,000,000 and even during the elections it was not supposed she was more than $8,000,000 in debt. In the arrangement of the debt, then, it would have been unfair not to have taken into consideration the fact that Nova Scotia had expended so large an amount of money in public, property after the Quebec Conference-on property which came into possession of the Dominion. As respects the statement that Nova Scotia did not contribute to the Dominion, during the past year, as much as she had received, he would point out that 1868 was an entirely exceptional season. From various

[Page 824]

causes the trade of the Province had been unusually depressed. Looking at the trade returns he found that the falling off last year was one-third compared with the average trade of the previous four years. Last year the imports were only $8,000,000, whereas the average for four years was $12,000,000. Under these circumstances it was impossible to expect that the Province of Nova Scotia could give as large a revenue exhibit as would be expected in a more favourable state of trade. He must come to the conclusion that if the Province were restored to its normal condition of commercial prosperity, we would collect duty on four millions of imports more than came in last year. It would be urged, he knew, that there was a large trade now between the old Provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia, but at any rate, his argument was not weakened. Either the imports would be $4,000,000 greater, or the people of Nova Scotia would purchase more largely from Canada. As respects the comparisons drawn between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick by the hon. member for Carleton, he said that the people of the former Province, living on the Bay of Fundy, had considerable trade with St. John, and in that way the relative proportions of the importations were affected. As regards taxation, the tables before the house would show that there had been more revenue collected last year upon the same value of goods than there had been previously before the Union. In answer to the statement that Nova Scotia would resort to direct taxation if she had not revenue for her local wants, he would say that it was impossible for the Legislature to adopt any such measure, in view of the state of the public feeling. Had the Province not entered the Union, she would have been obliged, in order to keep up her local services, to raise a revenue by taxation, in the shape of a higher tariff, or otherwise. Now he and his friends had been willing that there should be a more economical expenditure for local purposes than hitherto, and they had therefore taken the average for several years, and the whole sum provided under the Union Act as well, and when they had done this they had found that there was still a deficiency as respects her local requirements. In view, then of the expenditure on her public property, of her increased taxation, of the insufficiency of the existing grant to supply her local wants, Nova Scotia was entitled to receive more consideration from the Dominion Government. He believed the people of Nova Scotia fully understood the liberality of the Dominion Government, and would cheerfully accept the offer in the same spirit in which it was made

[Page 825]

—that they would accept the Union and give it a fair trial (cheers). He expressed his surprise at the remarks of the hon. member for Lambton, in reference to the changed position of the hon. President of the Council. As far as that gentleman and his friends were concerned, there had been no desertion of party in the Commons of the Dominion. When they entered the House they knew nothing of Canadian parties-they supposed that all were agreed on the common platform of working out the Union harmoniously. He and his friends had first presented themselves simply with the object of bringing about a repeal of the Union as far as it touched Nova Scotia. As respects deserting the party in question, he must say they did not see it was a party at all (hear). They knew that the eminent leader of these gentlemen had attempted, when the Act of Union was as it were on trial—when it was before the people at the elections-to work up old party feeling; and the hon. member for Chateauguay had also attempted to drag up buried prejudices and animosities; but he could not photograph the ghosts of the past (laughter). When the negotiations with the Government of the Dominion were closed, he had advised the member for Hants to become a member of the Cabinet; as he felt that justice was then at last being done to Nova Scotia, and that there should be some connection between the administration and the popular party in that Province (hear, hear). If the Bill was rejected he said in conclusion, then, (just as he gave his hon. friend advice previously,) he would advise him to leave the Council; and he knew that the hon. member for Cumberland would take a similar position, because he had consented to the Union under the belief that the excess of debt was to be provided for on equitable terms after the adoption of the Act. It had been the first consideration with him for months-he might say for years-to settle the difficulties in Nova Scotia and reconcile the people of that Province to the Union. He felt convinced that the issue of the arrangements which the House was called upon to sanction that night would have the result to which he alluded.

Edward Blake [Durham West] replied to the member for Colchester. He repudiated that honourable gentleman’s assertion with reference to the desertion of the President of the Council. The desertion alluded to by the member for Lambton, and commented on by the member for Colchester, was not a desertion from the party with which he (Mr. Blake) acted. As

[Page 826]

to the proposition before the House, he heartily concurred in both branches of it, and would support it. By the proposition of the Government, not only was a present injustice done, but the hands of Parliament were weakened for future action. If the basis of Union had to be reconsidered it ought to have been done in a statesman-like manner, such a manner as would involve the final settlement of these terms. He objected to the Government arrangement because it was made by bill, because we are arranging with one Province in a way which pledges us when they are brought forward to admit the claims of the other Provinces, and because it was not the correct course to take if they sought the pacification of Nova Scotia. In seeking that pacification it was the bounden duty of hon. gentlemen opposite to have applied to the Government of that Province. The hon. gentleman alluded to the course taken by the member for Hants, and contended that that hon. gentleman did not rise but sank into office. (Hear.) The pacificatory negotiations carried on by that hon. gentleman had resulted in pacifying two people, for when the House was assured by the President of the Council that these arrangements would make an end of the whole question, they could place but little reliance on that statement, for the man from Hants was not now, as of old, the representative of ail Nova Scotia, but merely President of the Council for the Canadian Parliament. He (Mr. Blake) said that if this were the end of the whole question, could he believe that, he would at once abandon ail his objections to the Bill! But so far from believing he feared that the financial and constitutional difficulties would be greatly increased in the other Provinces. This arrangement would not satisfy the one Province, and would set at variance ail the four.

Joseph Howe [Hants] said he would not reply to the personal insinuations of the member for Lambton. He could offer his whole public life of thirty years as a full answer to ail the insinuations that had been made against him. The member for West Durham had been too ingenious. He had forgotten the example of his great apostle, and the apostle of his party, or he would not have taunted him for having accepted office. Did the Hon. Mr. Brown, when he changed his base on this very question, go back to his constituents without office? Did he not sit down in the same council room with those he had vilified and abused, and accused of all sorts of crimes in the management of public affairs (hear, hear). The member for West Durham should have remembered this example. He (Mr.

[Page 827]

Howe) had two reasons for accepting office. He had to give a guarantee to ministers that he would share the responsibility of this arrangement, and give a guarantee to Parliament, that he would do his duty in securing the acceptance of that arrangement by the people of his own Province (applause).

Timothy Anglin [Gloucester] maintained that New Brunswick had been hardly dealt with under the Confederation Act, and that Nova Scotia also had suffered. He was disposed to go as far as he could towards securing full justice for the latter Province, and believing that the House was asked by the Government to take a course on this question, which would violate the Act of Union, he was disposed, so far as that went, to support the position taken by the member for West Durham. Still he could not deny the instalment of justice asked for Nova Scotia, and would therefore vote against the amendment of the member for Chateauguay, and for the Bill.

Isaac Le Vesconte [Richmond] believed that a majority of the people of Nova Scotia would endorse his statement that the arrangement now submitted to the House was not a f air and honourable one. It was one to which they submitted only by force. He stood there as a living evidence that the people of Nova Scotia had not submitted to these terms, and so did the hon. gentleman on his right, (Mr. Killam).

The House then divided on Mr. Holton’s amendment, which was lost. Yeas, 52; Nays, 97.

Division on amendment (Holton’s):—

Yeas—Messrs. Béchard, Blake, Bodwell, Bolton, Bourassa, Bowman, Burpee, Cameron (Huron), Cheval, Connell, Coupal, Crawford (Leeds), Dorion, Ferguson, Fortier, Geoffrion, Godin, Hagar, Holton, Kempt, Little, Macdonald (Glengarry), McFarlane, Mackenzie, Magill, McCallum, McConkey, McMonies, Metcalfe, Mills, Morison (Victoria), Munroe, Oliver, Pâquet, Pelletier, Pickard, Pozer, Redford, Ross (Prince Edward), Ross (Wellington), Rymal, Scatcherd, Smith, Snider, Stirton, Thompson (Ontario), Tremblay, Wells, Whitehead, Wood, Wright (York, Ont., W. R.), Young—52.

Nays—Messrs. Abbott, Anglin, Archambeault, Ault, Beaty, Beaubien, Bellerose, Benoit, Bertrand, Blanchet, Bown, Brousseau, Burton, Cameron (Inverness), Carling, Caron, Cartier (Sir G. E.), Cartwright, Cayley, Chamberlin, Chauveau, Chipman, Cimon, Coffin, Colby, Costigan, Crawford (Brockville), Daoust,

[Page 828]

Dobbie, Dufresne, Dunkin, Forbes, Fortin, Galt, Gaucher, Gaudet, Gendron, Gibbs, Grant, Gray, Grover, Harrison, Heath, Holmes, Howe, Huot, Hurden, Jackson, Jones (Leeds and Grenville), Keeler, Killam, Lacerte, Langevin, Lapum, Lawson, Le Vesconte, Macdonald (Cornwall), 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, Pinsonneault, Pope, Power, Rankin, Ray, Read, Renaud, Robitaille, Rose, Ross (Champlain), Ryan (Kings, N.B.), Ryan (Montreal West), Shanly, Simard, Simpson, Sproat, Stephenson, Street, Tilley, Tupper, Wallace, Walsh, Webb, Willson, Workman—97.

The member for Haldimand did not vote, having paired with the member for Peel.

Motion for the second reading was carried on a division. Yeas, 97; Nays, 50.

On this motion the member for South Bruce did not vote, as he had paired with the member for North Wellington.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the Bill—Mr. Morris in the chair.

On the 5th clause, Mr. Blake moved to add to it the words: “That the grants and provisions made by this Act, and the British North American Act of 1867, shall be in full settlement of all demands on Canada by Nova Scotia.”

The Government accepted the amendment, and it carried.

David Mills [Bothwell] moved that the following be added to the 6th clause: “That this Act shall not take effect until ratified by the Imperial Parliament.” Lost.

Committee rose, and the amendment was read a first and second time.

On motion for the third reading Isaac Le Vesconte [Richmond] objected, but withdrew his objection to make way for a motion of Mr. Killam’s, which was seconded, that the Bill be not now read a third time, but he recommitted, to strike out the 5th clause.

Thomas Ferguson [Cardwell] said that as honourable members wished to have their votes recorded he would give them a chance. He moved in amendment that the Bill be not now read a

[Page 829]

third time, but be read a third time this day six months.

The latter amendment was ruled out of order.

Thomas Killam [Yarmouth]’s amendment was then put and lost. Yeas, 8; nays, 124. The Bill was then read a third time and passed.