740 COMMONS DEBATES June 11, 1869
Hon. Mr. Dunkin [...] constitutional barrier in the way of their
adding to those grants. Stress had been laid on the words "for the public
service of Canada." These were not to be interpreted too
rigidly. They could not be held as restricting them from voting a sum for the
relief of public distress abroad. We could not withhold what
the Union Act gave Nova Scotia; but we could give more if we pleased. The
member for West Durham had referred to an Act of the Ontario
Government voting money to Judges as
ultra
vires; but what was the main objection to that Act? He did not understand that it was
said a Provincial Legislature could
vote money only for provincial purposes; but the objection was that
it had contravened a great object of public policy by putting Judges in
the position of serving two masters. The Ontario and Quebec Legislatures had both
of them voted money for the relief of distress in Nova
Scotia and at Red River. No one could say that their so doing was
unconstitutional.
Sir John A. Macdonald said those who were in favour of
Confederation would vote against the amendment. (Loud cries of No, No). It
was well that the veil should be removed and the position exactly
understood. It was well that the member for Lambton, by seconding this amendment,
had at last revealed his true position as an enemy to
Confederation. (Cries of No, No, and ironical cheers.) That hon.
gentleman had claimed to be a friend of Confederation and had made all kinds of
professions on the subject. But when he found the key-stone of
Confederation was about to be put in its place, without which all other
efforts were useless, the hon. gentleman for party considerations, negated all
his previous professions. Rather than see Confederation carried out by the present
Government, to which he was opposed, he would
insidiously, if not openly, oppose it. (No, No.) The object of Confederation was to
bring all British North America
into one Union. We were now incorporating the North-West, we were about
to admit Newfoundland. All that remained was this measure to pacify Nova Scotia
and hon. gentlemen opposite were found opposing it. If the gentlemen
opposite were successful, then there would be a jubilee among anti- Unionists,
and such classes in Nova Scotia, throughout Canada,
and outside of the Dominion as well. Let them reconcile Nova Scotia
—the very keystone of the Dominion. The people of that Province at first
refused to come into the Union, but now were about to be reconciled.
Sir John A. Macdonald—The whole action of the Local
Legislature showed that they accepted it. This very day the Treasurer of
Nova Scotia had telegraphed that he hoped the grant was made, that he might get
the money. (Great laughter.) There might be some few fossils like his
hon. friend from Richmond, old tories like himself who did not care to
change, but except a few like him the people of Nova Scotia had accepted it. A
majority of the representatives of Nova Scotia in this House had accepted
it, and the Government of Nova Scotia had accepted it. The
simple question raised by this amendment was Confederation or no Confederation.
Sir John A. Macdonald—It was settled by law in 1867
against the desire and vote of that hon. gentleman and ever since he had
done all in his power to obstruct it. The member for Durham West had
contended that this matter was one to be settled by England. Hon.
gentlemen would give up to the Imperial Parliament the control of our money and
a different doctrine was laid down in the discussion on the
Governor-General's salary. It was then decided by the member for Oxford
South that for the Imperial authorities to interfere with us in that
matter was to trample on the liberties of the people of Canada.
Mr. Mackenzie—Order. If the hon. gentleman seeks
to make out his argument by dragging in matters foreign to this
debate, I ask the interference of the Speaker.
The Speaker pro tem., Hon. Mr. Blanchet,
said the Minister of Justice was out of order
in alluding to a previous debate.
Sir John A. Macdonald said any gentleman going to the
library and looking over the newspapers, would find that such words were
used in a certain Colonial Parliament with reference to the Governor's salary:
but the question was whether this arrangement was a right one or a wrong
one. If they admitted it was a right one they should place it in the
hands of the Government to carry it out. This amendment was a mean motion—an
attempt by a side wind to prevent the success of Confederation,
instead of fairly meeting the question. The argument of the member
for West Durham was hardly worth replying to. His
742
COMMONS DEBATES
June 11, 1869
answer to it was that as a Parliament they had a right to do what they
pleased with their own. They might draw it away if they pleased. It
constituted the difference between a free and a servile people to retain or
give up the control of their own money. Recently the colonists
of Red River had been afflicted by a plague of locusts. Suppose a similar
disaster were to happen Ontario, causing a failure of its crops and a
state of famine, and it was proposed to vote money to relieve the distress;
such a vote could not be made according to the argument which had been
presented from the other side. He repeated that this was a blow at the
Union, and looking at the division on the Newfoundland resolutions yesterday,
there would be found the same lurking desire to impede the wheels of
Confederation. If this motion carried there would be a jubilee among the
avowed anti-Confederate rebels, and Annexationists of Nova Scotia,
and it would be the cause of corresponding depression to those in
that-Province who desire the Union to be successful. If the hon. gentlemen
repudiated this arrangement which had been entered into with Nova Scotia,
they would give a death-blow to Confederation, and on them, not on him,
would rest the responsibility of so suicidal an act.
Hon. Mr. Holton made a motion of adjournment to
allow a reply to be made by the gentlemen attacked by the Minister of
Justice.
Mr. Mackenzie desired to say a few words in reply to the
very extraordinary attack made by the Premier on himself, and also on those
with whom he usually acted. He had never witnessed a more unjustifiable
attack made in this House. It was no new thing, however, for the hon.
gentleman to make such attacks. It was part of his tactics. Those who had sat
in Parliament with that hon. gentleman so long as he had done could
recall many instances in which, when worsted in argument, when he found
the sense of the House was against him, and the leading men of his own party
forced to take ground against the position he occupied, he
tried to simulate passion and attempted to cover his weakness by
hurling unfounded reproaches at his opponents. The hon.
gentleman and his satellites had sought to defeat him at his election in '67 by
calling him a disunionist; but, when he came here and assisted
the Government in carrying the very measure necessary to the completion of
Confederation, they complimented him as a friend of Union.
Now, however, because he did not choose to accept the hon. gentleman's mode of
settling this difficulty, which he looked upon [...]
This individual participated in:
