Document Information

Date: 1869-05-28
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1st Parl, 2nd Sess, 1869 at 473-479.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

THE NORTH WEST

On motion of John A. Macdonald [Kingston],

George E. Cartier [Montreal East] rose to move the House into Committee on the resolutions respecting the acquisition of the North West Territory.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] desired to take the opportunity of obtaining an explanation from the Ministry regarding the recent accession to their ranks, in the person of the President of the Council. He had been unwilling to ask those explanations hitherto, because for some time that hon. gentleman was not in his place, and when he did take his seat was obviously not in the best possible trim for giving the required explanations. But before entering on the important subject before them, it was quite evident that the House ought to be furnished with a statement of the circumstances which had induced the hon. member for Hants to enter the Cabinet. It would be remembered that last year the President of the Council, then sitting on the Opposition side of the House, took very strong grounds against the acquisition of the North West Territory. Speaking, as he then said, not from a purely Nova Scotian point of view, but from a Canadian aspect, the hon. gentleman advanced very strong reasons for taking that position—reasons which ought to exclude the hon. gentleman from holding office in any government proposing to deal with this subject, as the present administration proposed to do. And when so radical a change had taken place in the character of the government, or the position of the hon. gentleman joining them, it was due to the House that some explanations should be given. There was another point to which he also wished to direct attention, and that was that the Government had not yet given the House an opportunity of pronouncing on the new terms made with Nova Scotia. Had they done so, he would before this have asked for the explanations. The hon. gentleman might recollect that on the floor of that House, he contended that Nova Scotia had been despoiled of half a million dollars by the Union Act. He stated, while it was a matter of concern that these revenues should be taken by Canada under an enforced Union, that was nothing compared with the other outrage that she had been robbed of her liberties. It was certainly due to the country that the hon. gentleman should state how it was that, having held and uttered such sentiments, he subsequently became a member of the Government which was not only responsible for the initiation of that robbery, but for

[Page 474]

its maintenance. For his part, he (Mr. Mackenzie) never could see the precise point where the robbery took place or where the liberties of that Province had been lost, but he had been touched while the member for Hants, with moist eyes and uplifted face, alluded so feelingly to the departed liberties of his country. Tears started unbidden to the hon. gentleman’s eyes on that occasion, and finding him claim that his country would suffer the loss of all her liberties in consequence of this Union, he (Mr. Mackenzie) felt bound to vote for the appointment of a Committee to find out where we could relieve that Province from the oppression spoken of. And now that the member for Hants had become President of the Council, it was fair to conclude that in some mysterious way the liberties of that country had been restored. It was possible that the hon. gentleman had joined the Government as others had done before him in violation of all his political proclivities (Hear, hear.) Then it was only another step in that political dependence which seems to be a dogma of the Government of this country every day—a step which in the interests of public morality was very much to be regretted. When men holding the most diverse opinions, politically, find a safe refuge in a Government we are driven to believe that these gentlemen after all attach more value to obtaining office than maintaining their patriotic impressions. (Hear, hear.) Was it to be supposed that the hon. gentlemen carried with them into the Cabinet all their conflicting views of public policy on almost every conceivable subject? Or were they all subordinated by the views of the Minister of Justice? He (Mr. Mackenzie) confessed his astonishment at the position taken by the President of the Council, and thought it was evident that the hon. gentleman’s country-men generally looked on his accession to office as a purely personal matter. That accession had produced not conciliation and contentment, but merely changed the channel through which the stream of discontent poured. Annexation doctrines were now openly advocated in the very House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, and most scandalous speeches and resolutions, from a British point of view, were daily made in that body. These facts were significant of political degradation, and for that hon. gentleman’s own sake, as well as for that of the Government and the country, it was exceedingly to be regretted that such events should transpire, as they could not possibly strengthen the Government, but would weaken it and destroy the bonds of political morality which binds together in this country, men holding sentiments

[Page 475]

in common. Holding these views, he felt bound to ask some explanation.

Joseph Howe [Hants] thanked the member for Lambton in not raising this debate till his (Mr. Howe’s) strength had been somewhat restored. He thought it due to the House and hon. gentleman opposite, to state candidly and fairly the reason why he occupied his present position. He would say to them in all frankness that perhaps he might not have been on the Ministerial side at all, had the member for Lambton and the hon. gentlemen acting with him made the other side of the House at all habitable. (Laughter.) When he (Mr. Howe) attended the House and spent forty days on that side, had he as an old Reformer, and an old Liberal, found that sympathy and support he thought himself entitled to, perhaps he might have remained with them. (Laughter). The men on the Ministerial side had accepted the situation—were committed to it, were the executive instruments by which it was to be carried out, and on the other side of the House almost every member, including the member for Lambton himself, was equally committed to the act of Confederation. If he understood the member for Lambton then he (Mr. Howe) was to place himself in this position: he was to attend that House, obey the law, and submit to the Act of Confederation, which had been gained by the pressure of both parties in Canada—and to occupy an isolated position, in such a happy position, commanding no sympathy on the one side of the House nor the other, he was to spend the remainder of his days for the edification and amusement of hon. gentlemen on both sides (Hear and laughter). Had he devoted himself to an isolated existence of that kind he should certainly be a martyr to a very high sense of honour, but if he needed such justification he might almost make an excuse for occupying his present position by saying that he was only following the custom of the country. (Laughter.) Were he to believe the half of what he heard, and he was free to say he did not, were he to believe the charge which he had heard flung by public men at each other across the floor of the House during the forty days he had first attended it, he could consider that the tone of political morality was so high in Canada that he had violently transgressed it in crossing the floor of the House. (Laughter.) He came there a stranger and would do hon. gentlemen the justice to say that he

[Page 476]

had been treated with all courtesy. His complaints of the Dominion Act might, for a time, have been querulous and declamatory, but he had been treated with courtesy and respect by both sides, and so far he had no thing to complain of. But he certainly did expect some hon. gentlemen on the Opposition benches to have arisen and said that Nova Scotia had been hardly used, that there was good ground for the excitement in that Province, and to have sympathised with him in his efforts on behalf of that Province, not to the extent, perhaps, of releasing Nova Scotians from this political arrangement. What took place during the second part of the session he did not know, for he was not in the House then, but during the time he was present, his cause received so little sympathy from the member for Lambton, or his party, that he (Mr. Howe) did not feel at all trammelled as to which side of the House he would sit on hereafter. The hon. gentleman then detailed his subsequent agitation for repeal. How he spent nine months in England, backed by petitions from 30,000 people. How the Act passed in spite of every remonstrance. How, on his return to Nova Scotia, so strong was the dislike to Confederation, that during the election the Unionists were almost completely swept out of political existence. How, along with others, he subsequently went to England to induce the Imperial authorities to reconsider the question of Repeal. How, when the question came up in the House of Lords, only two out of 400 spoke in favour of it, while in the House of Commons only 87 could be found to favour, not the repeal of the Act, but the enquiry into its workings. How, under these circumstances, he returned to his home feeling convinced that repeal was hopeless; but not before warning the British Minister that one result would be the generation of an annexation feeling, as the member for Lambton had asserted that an annexation feeling had sprung up. It was not to be attributed to his changed position, but a feeling of soreness on account of the treatment received from the British Government. He had not succeeded in his mission. What then was he to do? To sit down and do nothing? The member for Lambton seemed to think that he (Mr. Howe) would escape from the public position he had assumed. But he had been elected. His constituents and countrymen looked to him for advice and action. What was he to do? To go screaming out for repeal? To advise the people to break the laws, and resist the power and authority of the Imperial Government? He would not undertake to say what he would have done had he the power, (hear, hear), but the power

[Page 477]

and force brought to bear against his position was too great to resist. Therefore he felt that there was nothing to do but to accept the situation or enter into a hopeless, dreary contest, which could have but one result. (Cheers.) Just at that time, when we tried everything else and failed, hon. gentlemen from this side of the House came down to us and said—”We cannot repeal this Act, and do not wish to do so, but we are willing to re-examine the financial part of the scheme, and if it is shown that by it injustice has been or is to be done to Nova Scotia, we will endeavour to repair the injustice.” His first policy was to test the sincerity of these professions. Negotiations went on, and bye and bye it was quite apparent to the Finance Minister of Canada and the Auditor General that a gross injustice had been done Nova Scotia; and when this acknowledgement was made there was a fair ground for negotiations for better terms. Shutting out for the present any reference to these better terms, as that branch of the subject would come up in a few days, he would merely say that the negotiations were brought to a close and Mr. McLelan and himself were satisfied that justice would be done Nova Scotia. The Ministry by that act established a larger claim to his respect and confidence. The Minister of Justice then did him the honour to renew an offer made months before to take a seat in the Cabinet. He felt they had established a claim on him, and said frankly, “if you think it will strengthen your hands in carrying this measure through Parliament to have my aid and assistance in the Cabinet, you can have it. As far as I am concerned, I would rather continue as I am.” He made one reservation, however. He had no hope from the new Government established in England, but many in Nova Scotia hoped to get repeal from them. The reservation he made was this: The moment the Local Government got their answer from the Gladstone Government, if it was unfavourable, as he expected, he was to consider himself free to take office. The answer came, was unfavourable, and he had then no hesitation. As to his opposition to the purchase of the Hudson’s Bay Territory, he had opposed that purchase with all sincerity, believing that it should have been the work of the Imperial authorities, and not of the Dominion, but the policy of the majority of the House opposed to that was carried out. The delegates went to England, the purchase was made, and arrangements completed almost before he entered the Cabinet. Now, what would the member for Lambton have him to do? Was he to regard that as a stumbling-block in the way of entering the

[Page 478]

Cabinet? That would be a most extraordinary doctrine, from the day he entered the Cabinet he held himself responsible for the acts and policy of the gentlemen with whom he was associated, but for anything before that period, for any of their sins of omission or commission he did not hold himself responsible.

Luther Holon [Châteauguay]—How about the resolutions today?

Joseph Howe [Hants]—They are merely carrying out a policy from which none of us can go back with honour. No public man can get up and ask to have that purchase repealed. Ail he could say was that he entered the Cabinet covered to a large extent by revolutionary arrangements which he resisted, and if it were to be made a rule that none of us opposing Confederation and its concomitants should ever enter the Cabinet, then Nova Scotia would have very slight representation there. (Hear, hear.) For his part, as long as he found the gentlemen with whom he was associated sincerely anxious to carry out a policy conducive to the welfare of the Dominion, he should act with them, and sustain them; and the moment he could not do so conscientiously, he would tender his resignation.

Charles Tupper [Cumberland] said that the subject which had been brought forward was well worthy of the earnest attention of the House. On a former occasion he had followed the hon. member for Hants in debate, and stated that he deeply deplored that that hon. gentleman occupied a position which prevented him giving the country the benefit of his services in the administration. With equal sincerity, and an equal sense of public duty, he now felt it right to express his gratification that the hon. gentleman had at last been enabled to take a more prominent and responsible position in the conduct of public affairs. He had never

[Page 479]

believed that repeal would be successful, but what he had felt was that the vital interests of the Dominion required that the difficulty as respects Nova Scotia should be removed, and the Union enabled to present an unbroken front to the world. He had no hesitation, however, in saying that the difficulty in that Province was very much exaggerated from the outset. He had never looked upon the issue of the elections of 1867 as evincing the desire of the people for Repeal. He had believed and had stated in the House the circumstances which warranted him in coming to the conclusion that by a moderate and judicious course of action all the difficulty might be removed. He had, indeed, always pressed upon the administration the necessity of making such arrangements. He felt that the sooner the representatives of Nova Scotia were able to work out the constitution, the better for the interests of the whole Dominion. Some time ago the Government had done him the honour of offering him a high and responsible position in the administration, but having given that subject the fullest consideration, he felt it his duty to decline. And he had done so on the ground that he should consider how far the acceptance of office would leave him free to advance the interests of his country. He had considered that the acceptance of such a position would mar his usefulness in connection with measures that might reconcile the people to the Union. He did not hesitate to advise the Government—to say to them that he believed it was a solemn duty which they owed to the whole people of the Dominion to exhaust every means consistent with the honour and rights of the country, to bring representatives of the people of Nova Scotia into harmony—not with the Government of the country so much as with the institutions of the Dominion. The House would remember that in the most impassioned appeal he had made on the question, he had implored the anti-Union representatives, instead of standing outside of the constitution, to come forward and assist in perfecting these institutions. The Government had done him the honour to delegate him in England, for the purpose of giving the British Government all the information he possessed on the question.