774 COMMONS DEBATES
March 30, 1870
Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald give back to Nova Scotia what she had
spent since the Quebec Conference. Thank God the Dominion was rich enough
to be honest. Gentlemen opposite did not always adhere to the
Quebec Resolutions. Last session when the resolutions respecting Newfoundland
were before the House, although it was provided by these Quebec
Resolutions that the Dominion should buy up all the Crown Lands, gentlemen
on the opposition benches supported an amendment against that
arrangement respecting Newfoundland. They did not think the Quebec
Resolutions were so sacred that they could not be amended. How did the
Parliament of the United Kingdom treat Ireland after 1800? Every one of
the arrangements entered into respecting revenue, had since been altered, as
he showed by the report of the special committee appointed to
investigate the matter. It was well known with what difficulty the Union
had been carried, and yet the arrangements were altered shortly after. That
this Parliament had acted wisely and justly was evidenced by the decision of the Imperial
Parliament as well as by the
altered tone of the representatives of Nova Scotia in dealing with
general interests and entering heartily into their consideration, even although
many would still be anxious to be separated. But they would all confess
they had been treated justly here. All had heard of the struggles of nations
for liberty; and of English patriots not fearing to wade through blood
and war. They saw how the Colonial system had grown up from a bureaucracy
to responsible Government, won by persistent exertions. But history was silent
on any case but this, where a people said they had too much liberty and
were not fit to be trusted with their own money, like the lunatic,
feeling the fit coming on him, asking to be manacled. A people which considers
itself a nation which some thought fit to walk alone, they asserted was
not fit to spend its own money. That was what was said by the hon. member
for West Durham. When Fox said that the Prince of Wales was Regent by Right
Divine, Pitt said, "Then marry him." They could not unwhig the mover for
bringing forward a motion to deprive the people of their
liberty, which might have been expected from an old Tory like himself,
(laughter). Had he brought forward such a motion, how many stones would
have been thrown at his head. He held that he and his friends were the exponents
of the wishes of the people, and would maintain their
liberty. Then, of what use was the motion? The mover says that the alteration
would have been obtained by an Address to the Imperial Parliament. It
would not, therefore, prevent all the log-rolling, and all they would
obtain by this was a mess of pottage. The Imperial Parliament had handed over
all power
to the Dominion, except the treaty-making power and that of making peace and
war. Everything asked for would be given, just as was done in 1841, when
everything asked for was given at once, and all the changes at once
acceded to, even the Civil list. And so the attack upon the Constitution was
useless, worse than a crime—it was a blunder. Nobody knew this better
than the member for Lambton. He did not know how he was going to
vote, but if he supported the motion of Mr. Blake, he would vote against
all his recorded opinions. He declared that the salary to the Governor,
fixed at ÂŁ10,000, was an infringement on the rights of the people, and would
not be satisfied till the stain was removed by asserting the duty of
maintaining the right of this House to deal with its own money.
Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald—So good that he would follow
it. He would move an amendment in the very words of that motion, that
it is the undeniable privilege of Parliament to fix and determine the
amount of all expenses chargeable to the public funds of the country,
(cheers and laughter.)
Mr. Mackenzie said it was a mistake of the Minister of
Justice if he thought he would embarrass him by this amendment. His amendment then
was to the motion of the Minister of Justice, who
maintained that the Imperial Parliament had a right to expend any
money of this country that it chose for civil Government. He was,
however, compelled by indignant public opinion, as expressed by the members of
the House, and was compelled to accept his motion. He was amused by
hearing the Minister of Justice refer to a book with which he
was less familiar than with the Statute Book. He charged the member for West
Durham with troubling Israel. If he was satisfied to occupy the position
of the other parties to the parallel, that gentleman need not be dissatisfied.
He did not seem to be aware that the quotation
776 COMMONS DEBATES
March 30, 1870
referred to the meeting between Ahab and
Elijah, before the false prophets were put to
the sword. The prophet Elijah when accused of
troubling Israel answered, "I have not troubled
Israel but thou and thy fathers house in that
thou hast forsaken the Commandments of the
Lord and followed Baal" (loud laughter and
cheers). The Minister of Justice had followed
Baal, and it took the prophet in the shape of
the member for West Durham to bring him
back to reason and righteousness, (renewed
laughter). When the Minister of Justice lacked
argument it was always made known for he
made up for it by being voluble, noisy and
declamatory. His first point was that they had
a perfect right to do what they pleased with
their own. He denied this. They could only do
with it according to the usages of civilized
society. If every one could do as he liked with
his own, why had Ontario been prevented from
doing so with its own? The Minister of Justice
told that Government they had no right to vote
$1,000 to the judges because it was against the
Act. (Hear, hear.) If the Legislature of Ontario
were bound by that Act, the Dominion Government were bound in the same way to the
Imperial Government. (Hear, hear.) But the
hon. gentlemen would not get off with the
mere statement that as he did what he pleased
with his own, so they had a right to vote a
certain sum of money. He (Mr. Mackenzie) was
a little surprised that the hon. member for
Colchester should have been so disingenuous
as to have put the matter in that way. It was
more than that. The wording of the resolution
passed last year, followed very closely the
words of the 114th section of the Confederation
Act. The section stated that Nova Scotia should
be liable to Canada for the amount by which
its debt exceeded $8,000,000, but the words of
the statute passed by the hon. gentleman—for
he assumed the responsibility of it—were in
the first clause "that Nova Scotia shall be
liable to Canada for the amount by which its
debt exceeds $9,160,000", so that the very words
of the Union Act were changed, and they were
told in the succeeding section that this Act
shall be considered as amending the 114 and
115 sections of the Union Act. (Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Minister here assumed the responsibility of deliberately amending an Imperial
statute settling the amount of debt by which
that Province was to come into the Union. The
hon. gentleman had alluded in defence of that
to the fact that the Parliament of England and
Ireland had changed the terms of the debt upon
which the two countries had become united;
but there was no analogy since there was no
superior power in that case to appeal to, or that
had given them their existence as a Union.
Here they lived under a Constitution furnished
them by the Imperial Government itself with
their own consent, and there still existed that
authority without which they could not move;
and unless the hon. gentleman could prove that
they were in a position to alter the Union of
the four Provinces without reference to the
Imperial Government, his argument was
extremely worthless. With regard to the high
opinion expressed of the law officers of the
Crown, and the respect they were to pay them
according to the hon. gentleman, it was absolutely not a week ago that he had sneered
at
men who occupied much higher position in the
Government of England than the Attorney
General. He seemed to make them just as it
suited him, making them great or mean as
necessity required. (Laughter.) He even called
the Under Secretary of State, on the receipt of
some despatches, very destructive to the credit
of himself as a statesman, "a mere understrapper"; but now they were to bow down to
his
opinions. (Laughter.) Another Minister had
declared that he would never yield to the opinion of any English Minister, and perhaps
he
would show the House how far the Minister of
Justice was wrong when he yielded to the
dictation of the Attorney-General. (Hear,
hear.) The Minister of Justice said that Mr.
Blake did not accept the decision of the House
last year. In so far as that was considered to be
inevitable they accepted it; but they took their
ground, not that Nova Scotia was not entitled
to some consideration of her claims, for they
supported an amendment that the House
should go into Committee to consider their
grievances, but the hon. gentleman took opposite ground, and the attempt to go into
Committee failed. The Honourable Secretary of
State had not had manliness yet to acknowledge the efforts made by the Opposition
on
that occasion.
Hon. Mr. Howe said he was not there at the time, and he
knew nothing about it.
Mr. Mackenzie said the hon. gentleman had a convenient
lubricity of memory occasionally. The hon. gentleman did not fail to make
enquiry when he returned from England.
778 COMMONS DEBATES
March 30, 1870
Mr. Mackenzie—Well, you have got it now, and I hope you
will profit by it. Another thing the Minister of Justice made a great point of
was that they were a great people. That they had rights and should
protect them; but it was not a week since they were told that Canada was
so petty a country that if we were to send a delegate to any foreign country
they would not know where he came from. It suited the hon. gentleman's
purposes to make them out now a powerful country, but another time and
they were a very weak and contemptible people indeed. (Great laughter.) He did
not consider it necessary to go over the able arguments of the
hon. member for West Durham, because not a single one had been referred to
by the Minister of Justice. He imagined that they acted inconsistently in
objecting to the terms of Newfoundland, because it had been adopted at
the Quebec Conference. It was unnecessary to go over arguments on
this point brought forward last session. The resolutions were agreed to
at Quebec on an understanding that they were to be accepted at that time, and
the whole were to be as a treaty, to be either wholly accepted, or not.
Newfoundland, however, refused to accept those terms; but when
they sent a delegation to this place, he (Mr. Mackenzie) felt most anxious that
such arrangements should be made as would lead to her entry. He believed
that the proposition which they made would have been accepted by that
people; but the resolutions which the Government insisted on passing,
ensured their rejection at the polls. The hon. gentleman had made one
statement—he said that the course they proposed was precisely the same, except
in name, such as if they had proposed to pass an Address to Her Majesty,
in order that they might pay that sum to Nova Scotia. The ground they
took was that that was a union of the four Provinces, and they could not alter
the Act of Union without the sanction and agreement of those four parties
to the agreement; that an appeal to England should be made, which, if
favourable, then the Act could be passed; but if the Government could alter the
114th section of the Act, they could alter any part of it, and could, for
instance, give a larger representation to any of the Provinces in that House by
the same means.
Hon. Mr. Howe said that Nova Scotia would have been
compelled, without the compromise of last session, to resort to direct taxation
to enable her to maintain her local services, whereas Ontario had a large
surplus on hand, so that the Premier of that Province could, as he had
been informed he did, sometimes, carry [...]
This individual participated in:
