394
WEDNESDAY, February 22, 1865.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Before the debate
is resumed, I would enquire whether it is
the purpose of the Government to bring
down the promised measure on the subject
of education in Lower Canada, before the
House is invited to pass finally the scheme
of Confederation now under discussion ? I
need not say to honorable gentlemen that
this is a matter which is regarded with a
great deal of interest by a very large portion
of the people of Lower Canada, and I think
that before my honorable friend for Montreal
Centre (Hon. Mr. ROSE) proceeds to take
part in this debate. the position of the
Government upon that question should be
clearly defined.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Although the question is not put regularly,
I have no hesitation in answering the
honorable gentleman. My answer is the
answer which has already been given by my
honorable friend the member for Sherbrooke
(Hon. Mr. GALT).
 HON. MR. HOLTON—The honorable
member for Sherbrooke has not stated to the
House—
HON. MR. HOLTON—I think I am quite
in order, on the calling of the Orders of the
Day, to put a question of this kind. But I
rise again, simply to give notice to the
honorable gentleman that I shall renew the
question on the Orders of the Day being
called tomorrow evening. I do think it is
dealing slightingly with the House and with
the country for honorable gentlemen to
refuse to state explicitly what are their purposes with regard to this important question
—whether or not their measure is to be
brought down before a final vote is taken on
Confederation. I shall renew the question
to-morrow.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—The question has been answered twice, but the
Government are ready to answer it again,
if the honorable gentleman so desires.
HON. MR. ROSE then resumed the
adjourned debate. He said—Before I proceed, Mr. SPEAKER, to offer any observations
on the motion in your hand, I wish to
acknowledge very cordially the consideration
which the House evinced last evening during
my absence, and especially to acknowledge
the courtesy of my honorable friend from
Lambton (Mr. A. MACKENZIE), my honorable friend from Chateauguay (Hon. Mr.
HOLTON), and my honorable friend the member for Brome (Mr. DUNKIN). I certainly
feel indebted to them for the manner in
which they yielded me precedence, at the
request of the honorable member for Montmorenci (Hon. Mr. CAUCHON) ; and I shall
endeavour to shew my sense of the kindness
of the House, by not trespassing on its indulgence any longer than I can possibly
help.
And, before I offer any remarks on the
tion itself, I would premise this, that I hope
in the course of them I shall not give utterance to a single expression which would
seem to reflect upon those who entertain
strong opinions adverse to the proposition
now before the House. Far be it from me
to deprecate discussion—discussion of the
amplest, widest, and most searching character, on this important question. And
far be it from me, by the use of a single
word, to impute to those honorable members,
who feel it their duty to oppose this measure.
any absence of patriotism. I believe they
are actuated by the same ardent desire for
the good of the country, which I claim for
myself. (Hear, hear.) It is right that the
question should be considered in all its
details—not merely in its hearings on the
present state of parties, but as respects its
influence in all time to come on the country
at large. And with that view I think it
ought to be calmly, deliberately and patiently
investigated, and instead of deprecating the
fullest and most ample discussion, I trust
the opportunity will be afforded to every
honorable member of this House to speak on
it in his own way and at his own time.
(Hear, hear.) Well, sir, I presume there
are few who, in the abstract, would not favour
the idea of a union between a number of
small states adjoining each other, rather
than that they should remain isolated under
separate governments. To the idea of union
in the abstract between states so circumstanced, I take it no one would be op osed.
But the principal ground of the opposition
which is made to the present scheme by a not
unimportant class, is this—that the mere
abstract principle of union does not apply
with full force to colonies circumstanced as
Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince
Edward Island, and Newfoundland—the five
colonies that are parties to this scheme. It
is feared by many that it is the first step
towards independence—that it must tend to
loosen the ties now existing between this and
the mother country—that it changes our
relations, and will produce a strength incom
395
patible with Imperial sovereignty—that it
may probably result in not only severing our
connection with the Mother Country, but in
forcing us to a union with the neighbouring
republic. That 1 have heard urged as the
greatest and most important objection which
strikes at the root of the proceedings of the
Quebec Conference. I know that many of
the opponents of the scheme entertain the
apprehension—perhaps the conviction—that
that will be the result. (Hear, hear.) Far
from deprecating, then, the discusion of that
question in its broadest aspect, I think all of
us who desire to perpetuate our connection
with England, should listen calmly and anxiously to the objections which are urged
by
those who conscientiously entertain these
opinions which are not only blameless, but
entitled to respect. (Hear, hear.) Now, I
do not deny that the effect of the present
movement may be to change the character of
the actual relations which subsist between
this province and the Mother Country.
Hon. MR. ROSE- I do not deny that the
result may be to change the character of
these relations. But I maintain, and I hope
1 shall be able to satisfy the House of the
soundness of the position I take, that the
change will be of that character, that, instead
of loosening or weakening or diminishing the
connection with the Mother Country, it will
tend to put it on a footing which will make
it stronger and more enduring. (Hear,
hear.) Though I believe these relatibns will
be somewhat changed, and we may have to
consider what new aspect they will present,
I believe this measure is forced upon us by
the necessities of our position. The irresistible force of passing events will not
allow
us to stand still. But, whether by this
inevitable change the country shall gradually
lose its dependent or protected character and
assume more of the Federal relation, constituting this a territorial division of the
Empire, I believe it will result in placing those
relations on a surer and more steadfast footing, and that we will still acknowledge
the
same Sovereign, owe the same fealty, and
maintain the same veneration for the English
Constitution and name. (Hear, hear.) It
cannot be denied that there is a state of public opinion growing up in England just
now
—not confined, as it was a few years ago, to
a class of extreme theorists—that the connection which subsists between the colonies—
Canada especially—and the Mother Country,
is a source of expense and danger. It cannot be denied that that kind of opinion has
obtained a good deal more force within the
last few years, than those of us who desire to
maintain the connection between these colonies and England would like that it should
have obtained; and we cannot ignore the
consequences which that increasing volume
of public opinion may have upon the legislation of England. Then there is another
consideration which makes this subject stand
out more prominently before the people of
England at the present time than otherwise
it would do, and that is, the state of its
relations with the republic adjoining us, and
the enormous military power which the
United States have shewn, within the last
two or three years, that they possess. In
consequence of this, the state of opinion in
England which might have been confined
for many years perhaps to mere theory, has
been brought to a head. It is not now
merely a question of abstract opinion, whether
under such and such circumstances it would
be better for this and other colonies to assume
a more independent attitude towards England. But it has been pressed with unexpected
abruptness to a practical issue before
the people of England, and they have now
to consider what the relations of Great
Britain to these colonies would be, in the
event of war with the United States; how
far, in that event, it would be possible to
protect this remote dependency of the empire, to avoid disaster to the English flag,
and at a distance of 3,000 miles to maintain
the prowess of the English name. It is this
which has forced public opinion so strongly
in England to a consideration of the actual
relations between this country and the Mother
Country, and it is this state of facts with
which we must deal now. It is, I repeat,
past discussing as a mere abstract matter of
doctrine. We must look our situation in
the face. We must consider the eventualities which press themselves on our notice,
and it is our bounden duty to see whether
we cannot find in the union of these colonies
security to ourselves and a source of strength
to the Empire at large. (Hear, hear.)
With respect, then, to the objections urged
by those who consider that this scheme may
be leading us along a new and untrodden
path towards independence, or at least to a
more independent relation with reference to
England than that in which we now stand
towards her, I say we cannot forget that our
396
surroundings are of a peculiar kind. I
would grant that there would be much force
in the argument that it might sever our ties
with England, if we were circumstanced as
some of the smaller states of Europe—if we
had, for example, a state like Switzerland on
the one side and any of the German Principalities on the other. If we had, as our
neighbours, states like Belgium or Denmark—if, so situated, we were one of a number
of small states, I grant you that, if a union
of all these provinces were to take place, it
might lead possibly to that independence
which those who oppose the scheme now fear,
and which for one, I hope from my heart,
may never occur. (Hear, hear.) No
doubt, if situated in that way—if we had no
powerful and over-awing neighbor, such a
political combination as we now propose
might lead to practical independence. of
England. If we were a mere congeries of
small states, with no powerful neighbor, that
result which we so much deprecate might
possibly follow. We should, probably, in
time aspire to have foreign relations of our
own, to have our own army and navy, and to
seek for that complete emancipation which
with communities as with individuals, maturity prompts. But independence in a state
must always be relative, and none of us can
expect to live to see the day when the British
dominions in this part of the world will be
peopled to such an extent, and become so
powerful, that they can afford to be independent of England. We must, from the
necessities of our geographical position—so
long as the United States continue to be as
powerful as they are ; and even if they were
divided into two or three portions—we must
always find in them a source of danger
which must force upon us a dependence on
England. We find, I repeat, in our position
towards the United States, and in the great
preponderating power they possess, a
guarantee that we need not apprehend that
there will be anything like practical
independence of England asserted by the
colonies of North America ; because, from
the very necessities of our position, we shall
always have to look up to her for protection
and aid. I say nothing of the sentiment of
loyalty, of that attachment to the British
Crown, that love for the person of the
Sovereign which we all possess so strongly
and try to instill into our children. I do
not speak for the moment of the pride we all
have in the constitution of England, and in
our being identified, in all our associations
and feelings, with the glory of the English
name. I put aside, for the moment, the
instinct of attachment to the Mother Country,
and I put the case on this ground alone,
that the necessity of self-preservation will
for centuries—for generations at all events—
prevent the possibility of these colonies
asserting their independence of England,
unless it were, indeed, to become a portion
of the republic which adjoins us, and to
which, I think, it is neither the interest nor
the inclination of any member of this House
to become united. (Hear, hear.) Whatever fate may be in store for us, that is a
destiny to which no one looks with favor.
The genius and instincts of our people are
monarchical and conservative—theirs levelling and democratic. But, sir, though I
have said that I was disposed to look upon
this question—the danger of Federation
rendering us independent of England, quite
apart from the considerations that spring out
of sentiments of loyalty, yet I believe that
those attachments will be increased tenfold
by this proposed union. We will have a
sentiment of nationality among ourselves ;
and I consider it to be one of the first duties
of a statesman to inculcate that national
feeling that gives the people a strong interest
in their country's welfare. We will feel that
we have something here, in the way of
constitutional blessings due to our union
with England, and that we have stable
material interests which we can transmit to
our posterity. We shall feel very differently
from what we now do as colonists, apart and
alienated from each other, and in some
respects jealous of one another. With a
stable government and a strong central power
controlling an immense territory, we shall be
able to enter upon a well considered, well
devised and attractive system of immigration.
(Hear, hear.) We will be enabled shortly,
I trust, to commence to bring from the
Mother Country a constant stream of immigration by which those sentiments of attachment
to home and devotion to the Crown will be
perpetuated. And in this continuous
recruiting of our population I see one of
the great elements we will have to look to
for the perpetuation of the attachment of
this country to the Crown. We have not,
in time past, been able to devise or carry
out any extensive system of immigration.
We could not, in our divided and isolated
condition, offer those attractions which we
397
will be enabled to offer to emigrants when
we can throw open to them the choice of a
large country, a country which will have a
name and a nationality—a country in which
they and we can all feel an honest pride.
(Hear, hear.) They will not feel as we have
hitherto done, doubtful how long our system
of constitutional government, and the blessings flowing from it, were to last. I trust,
therefore, that the formation of a stable
government, and the devising of a system
of emigration that will be attractive to the
people of England, Ireland and Scotland,
will do a vast deal to keep up that constant
attachment to the Mother County which we
all desire to see strengthened. (H ear, hear.)
We shall then not only have the ordinary
motive to present to emigrants, of self-
interest—the opportunity to make money
merely, but the other interest of attachment
in a permanent way, to the soil, without a
desire to go back to the Mother Country after
a competence shall have been gained—for
the sentiment of nationality will soon take
root among us. Now, sir, I think that so
far as the danger of union leading to
independence is concerned, those who are
most earnest in desiring to perpetuate the
union, need not have much apprehension.
But, it may be said, that from the necessity
of our position there is danger that we shall
feel our material and commercial interests
so strongly bound up with the United States,
and feel so reliant in our own strength as a
great country, that we will eventually form a
closer alliance with that republic than any
of us desire, and that the formation of the
present union is the first step towards
annexation. I do not think we need have
any tears on that score. I do not think our
interests would lead us in that direction. At
the present time we are almost entirely
dependent upon the United States commercially. We are dependent upon them for
an outlet to the ocean during the winter
months. If they choose to suspend the
bonding system, or by a system of consular
certificates make it practically useless ; if
they abolish the reciprocity treaty, and
carry the passport system to a greater degree
of stringency, we should feel our dependence
upon that country even in a greater and
much more practical way than we do at the
present time. And perhaps, sir, it is worth
our while to consider whether this may not
be the real motive which dictates the policy
they are now pursuing! (Hear, hear.) But,
give us this Intercolonial Railway, affording
us communication with Halifax and St
John at all seasons of the year, and we
shall be independent of the United States
commercially as we now are politically. We
may not find this route to the ocean more
economical, especially in the winter season,
than to go through the United States, but if
we have a route of our own to which we may
resort, in case of necessity, our neighbors
will find it to their interest to give us the
use of their channels of communication at
a cheaper rate. (Hear, hear.) They will
not do that if they find we have no other
outlet ; but if we are prepared with an opening for our produce, all the year round,
they
will not act so foolishly as to deprive themselves of the opportunity of carrying
our
goods through their territory. It we had
this railway built, we should have no need
to fear the withdrawal of the bonding system,
or the continuance of the passport system,
because they would be inflicting upon themselves a greater injury by so doing than
upon
us. Let me say then once more that I can
perceive no one element of danger to us in
this union. I certainly did try, during the
many months in which the process of incubation of Federation, if I may so speak, was
going on—I certainly did try to bring as
unprejudiced and dispassionatc a consideration to its various phases as I possibly
could.
I looked upon it, I confess, with suspicion at
the outset; I felt it was launching us into
an unknown future, and that we were
changing a system, that we got along with
in comparatively a satisfactory manner, for
one that was, in some of its aspects, new
under the British Constitution. I say now,
however, after giving to it the fullest consideration I am capable of giving, that
I do not
see, in any one respect, how the cementing
of these colonies together in the bonds of
government can tend to make us independent
of Great Britain If I did, I should feel it
my duty to offer it a most uncompromising
opposition, and to endeavor to defeat it by
every means in my power. But, sir, I do see
a great danger the other way. I see that if
we remain a mere congeries of isolated colonies, hostile in some degree to each others'
interests, there is danger ahead. I see
that danger existing and threatening us in
the United States. I see that if we do not
unite and form one Central Government,
giving it the power to direct all the physical
energies of this country in whatever direction may be necessary, that we are liable
to
be overrun by that power. And this I con
398
ceive to be one of the very strongest arguments in favor of the Confederation of the
provinces, that it enables us to prepare
appropriate defences along the whole frontier
of our country. I believe I shall be able to
show in a very few words, that if we are
united, we shall afford to England sufficient
inducements for undertaking those works of
defence that are essential to our own security
and to the maintenance of her flag on this
continent for all time to come, and that if
we do go into this union, as I believe we will
we shall be placed in a position to defend ourselves snccessfully from attack. And
this,
sir, unfortunately, is not a contingency
which we can hope will never occur. his
not now a more vague possibility in a far
distant future which we have to consider.
So long as the present civil war continues,
it is impossible for any man to foresee that
such national complications will not arise as
may at any day or hour involve us in
actual hostilities. It is impossible for any
prudent man to disregard that dark threatening cloud that has been gathering upon
our borders, ready at almost any moment to
burst upon us. It behoves us therefore to
lose no time, if we believe that union offers
a guarantee of safety against the dangers that
threaten us—it becomes important that we
lose no time to consummate the proposed
union, in order that the General Government may put us at once in a preper state of
defence. The public opinion of England,
as we unhappily know, does not at the present time tend very much to warrant the
Imperial Government in making any large
expenditure for colonial purposes. There
must be some reasonable prospect, that if
expenditure is incurred in erecting necessary
works of defence, those works will be actually
available, when constructed, to protect the
country upon whose frontier they are established. We cannot expect England to enter
upon a course of expenditure for fortifications on our frontier, unless she has the
assurance of our ability with her aid to hold those
works against attacks from a hostile power.
I believe that if the proposed plan of union
breaks down—fails to get the assent of the
several provinces—and we go back to our
old condition of separate colonies, we shall
so discourage the statesmen of England in
reference to us, that they will feel very much
embarrassed with the prospect before them.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. ROSE—I believe that the
formation of a government, having the power
to direct the whole strength of five colonies
would greatly add to our security. Who
doubts that there is greater security in such
a union than in isolation, each with separate
interests and having no common action ? I
think the advantages of union for purposes
of defence are not properly appreciated.
(Hear, hear.) What would be the strength
of Great Britain if there was a separate
government for England, another for Wales,
another for Ireland, and another for Scotland ; each directing its owns military and
naval power ? If one national government
had not called forth all the national materials
and elements of strength, would the prowess
of her fleet or of her armies have been what
it is ? Is there no benefit in having a power
that can bring to bear the whole military
strength at any point desired ? If there is
not, t then I am willing to say that this argument which carries conviction to my
mind
is of no value whatever.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Then what stronger
could we be by merely having a mere political connection with others ? It would give
us no more men.
HON. MR. ROSE—Does my honorable
friend think that if each province had control of its own militia force, Nova Scotia
and
Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island control over the seamen, and Canada the direction
of her own militia, that the military forces
of these five provinces could be brought to
bear with the same advantage as if they
were under the control of one central power ?
We could not take them out of their own
provinces contrary to the laws of those provinces. Is it of no importance to make
the
hard seamen of Newfoundland, or the
people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
feel, that if a hostile force lands at Sarnia
in Upper Canada, their territory and their
soil are invaded, or their independence
threatened ! We should have embroilment
and dificulty among ourselves at the very
moment when united action in presenting a
bold front to the enemy was necessary to
our safety. If we go back to our old condition of isolation, now that the solemn
approval of the Mother Country has been
399
given to this proposition of Federation (and
her statesmen see in this a great source of
strength in enabling her to avert a war, and
a ready means of defending the country)—
do you believe that those statesmen will look
kindly upon the act? Even my honorable
friend from Hochelaga has admitted that
there must be in that case a dissolution of
the union between Upper and Lower Canada.
That honorable gentleman stated in his
speech the other night, that if this measure
failed there must be Federation between the
Canadas ; and what, I would ask, is that but
a dissolution of the present union ? It is
certainly a dissolution of the present union
to adapt some new Federative system as between Upper and Lower Canada. But does
the honorable gentleman think that he will
find in the separation of these provinces an
element of strength ?
HON. MR. ROSE—No, Mr. SPEAKER, I
do not propose to do anything of the kind,
as my honorable friend will acknowledge, if
he will but bring his mind, dispassionately
and earnestly, to the consideration of the
question. There is no one more capable of
seeing and appreciating the important features of this scheme than he. But my hon.
friend has strong feelings, and sometimes is
led away by preconceived jealousies or fears;
I say that if my honorable friend will bring
his strong intellect to bear on this scheme,
he will find in it none of those dangers
which ordinarily attach to the Federal form
of government. I must now say a few more
words in reference to the question of our
ability to provide for the defences of the
country. I have already stated—and I
must apologise to the House for the digression which has been forced upon me—that
I do not believe that, if we reverted back to
our original condition, the Imperial Government would be as much disposed to aid us
in the construction of the works necessary
for our defence, as if they found that in the
presence of a common danger we were united
together to repel the common enemy. I say
the Imperial Government would not in such
a case be actuated simply by a regard to
the expense of constructing these works—in
which I understand the Lower Provinces
will have to bear a share—but she would be
deterred from so doing by the further consideration, that when built, these works
would be less likely to serve the purpose
they were designed to accomplish, namely,
to enable the country to be efficiently defended. It is one thing to have a population
of four millions united under one common
head, and enabled to direct all their energies to the point of danger ; and it is
another
thing to have a number of separate units,
with no common action—each under a
different government, and distracted and
separate at the very time when they ought
to be most united. (Hear, hear.) What
we have to guard against is this : a sudden
conquest or surprise, for which we might be
unprepared. I believe myself that, if works
can be constructed, by means of which we
can effectually defend the country against
sudden attack, no one will grudge the expense. Of course they will cost no inconsiderable
sum ; but I hope, as I believe my
hon. friend the Finance Minister, although
he may be pressed for other purposes, will
not hesitate to recommend the appropriation
necessary for the purpose, and to impose
increased taxation for that purpose. (Hear,
hear.) For I am sure that no member of
this house, nor man in this country , would
hesitate, if need were, to put their hands in
their pockets and give a tenth of their substance for the construction of the works
required to protect the country from the ravages of the aggressor, and to secure to
ourselves a perpetuation of the inestimable
blessings derived from our living under the
British flag. (Hear, hear.) I am the more
earnest in this question on account of the
observations which have been made by my
honorable friend the member for Hochelaga,
(Hon. Mr. DORION) observations which I
am sure he did not mean to have such an
effect, but which nevertheless have a most
mischievous tendency. That hon. gentleman
stated that our true policy was, in fact, neutrality ; that it was hopeless for us
to attempt
to defend ourselves against the overwhelming
force which the United States could bring to
bear against us, and that with our small
population we would be very much in the
same position as Denmark when opposed to
the armies of Austria and Prussia. Indeed,
he almost went as far as a gentleman who no
longer holds a seat in this House, when he
said that " the best armament for Canada
was no armament at all." I am sure that
had the honorable gentleman felt that any
injury would he done—any false impression
produced on the public mind—by the use of
observations like these, he would not have
employed them at all. But I may say that
they all tended to this end—the taking away
400
of that - confidence we should have in our
energy and resources, by telling us that the
prospect before us is practically a hopeless
one—that there is no use undertaking public
works for our defence—no use in organizing,
training, and arming our militia—that all
attempts to hold our own would be fruitless
on account of our inability to bring sufficient
able-bodied men in the field to cope with the
force to which we might be opposed. Why,
sir, is it by such a tone as that, that you can
keep up the spirit of the people for the
defence of the country, by telling us that
four millions of British subjects could offer
no resistance whatever, even when backed
by the power of England, against the United
States or the greatest military nation on
earth ? I assert that even were we to be put
in the unfortunate position ot Denmark,
ninety-nine out of every hundred of our
population would be prepared to make a
stand, hopeless though it might be far them,
and to resist until the last foot of ground
was wrested from us. (Hear, hear.) But
if England, in case of war, should, for the
first time in her history, decline to come to
the aid of her colonies, future generations
would not glory in the name of being Englishmen, as the past had such just reason
to do.
Sure I am, however, that we should occupy
no hopeless or isolated position. It is in
order that the observations of my honorable
friend the member for Hochelaga may in
some respect be counteracted, that I would
yet trespass upon the indulgence of the
House for a few minutes more on this head.
We know that in modern warfare, if you
can erect certain works which will compel
an enemy to sit down before them, so as to
prevent him from making progress into the
country, you may by such means defend it
for many months. I do not know what the
scheme of the defence commissioners may
be. But it is well known that they express
the conviction that by the construction of
certain works at various points, the manning
of which is quite within the compass of our
power, we can arrest the progress of an
invader for many months, we can compel
him to expend and exhaust his strength
before these works, and we could throw
embarrassments in his way such as would
take an invading force many months to overcome. Because honorable members must
remember that it is impossible to have more
than a six months' campaign in this country.
And supposing you were to erect works
before which an enemy was compelled to sit
down in the month of May, it would take
him fully three months before he could
bring up his supplies and siege train and
protect his communications, and by the time
he was ready to make a determined attack,
he would be overtaken by winter, be compelled to raise the siege and go into winter
quarters. In truth our winters are our
safeguard and defence. Such, at any rate,
is the opinion of military men. During six
months only are military operations practicable in this country, and thus whatever
is
done one season has to be abandoned on the
approach of winter and begun again the
following spring. If therefore we can only,
by manning certain salient points in the
country, prevent the progress of invasion, we
are safe. Sudden conquest would be impossible—delay and impediments are everything.
Every one knows the history of the celebrated lines of Torres Vedras, which extended
thirty miles, and by means of which the
invasion with which Napoleon terrified Europe was first rolled back. These lines
were defended by but a small number of
men, and they compelled Napoleon to retire
before them. Then, on this continent we have
the experience of Richmond, which has
forced the army of General Grant to become
a mere corps of observation, and of Charleston which has fallen at last, but after
what
delay and at what cost ! Going to the
Crimea, we see Sebastopol defying for
months and months the joint efforts of England and France. If we therefore can keep
the invader from our doors for a certain
number of months, our Canadian winter will
do the rest, whilst English ships would be
engaged in harassing their coasts and in the
destruction of American commerce in every
sea. I, therefore, entreat those who are disposed to take a desponding view of the
question to consider these things. An aggressive warfare in this country is one thing,
and a defensive warfare another, and a very
different. (Hear, hear.) Our country is
well adapted for defensive purposes, and it
is next to impossible to subdue us. The
badness of our roads, the difficulties presented
by our winters, our deep, broad and unfordable rivers, and the means we could establish
for keeping an enemy in check at certain
points for the necessary time, would enable
us to resist the United States with all their
power and resources. No man can have a
greater appreciation of the enormous re
401
sources, of the courage , of the varied a appliances, of everything in fact which
tends to
success in war than I have of the American
nation. I have seen them in the field, and
seen them at sea. They certainly have come
out as amilitary nation in such a way as
almost to astonish the world. But, sir, let
us consider a little more closely what their
circumstances are in other respects. No
doubt they have an enormous navy, but that
very navy would not be more than sufficient
to defend their harbors in case of a war with
England. It is not because I imagine their
ships could not cope singly with British
ships—it is not because I believe their men
are lacking in skill or courage, or that they
are unable to build sufficient vessels—but
they lack this—and it is a consideration
which we cannot and ought not to forget—
that they have not a single harbor in any
sea, except on their own coast, to refit their
vessels. (Hear, hear.) Supposing them to
send a fleet of 20 or 30 ships to England.
HON. MR. ROSE—If they went to Ireland, they would have a very warm reception
indeed. (Hear, hear.) No doubt they could
get there with the coal they could carry;
but where would they get the coal to bring
them back or to carry on operations there?
Sailing vessels now-a-days can do nothing;
all vessels of war have to be prepelled by
steam; and there is no neutral port in the
world where in time of war with England,
the navy of the United States would be able
to obtain assistance. For I take it for granted that in the event of a war with England
the United States would have few allies.
And, as I before remarked, there is not a port
in the world where they could get an ounce of
coal or any addition to their armament. In this
would consist our great safety. They have
no ports in the Indian Sea, in the east Atlantic, the Mediterranean or China seas,
and it is
simply because men of war could not exist
without coaling and refitting that the navy
of the United States would be placed at so
great disadvantage. It is contrary to international law, as the House is well aware,
that
the ships of a belligerent nation can be
received in a neutral port and assisted,
beyond what is required by the dictates
of humanity, to enable them to face
the elements. They would be unable, I say,
to get a single man, a ton of coal, an
ounce of gunpowder, or a pound of iron, in
any neutral port, and I would like to know
what the United States could do in a war
with England so circumstanced? (Hear,
hear.) Well, air, this is one state of things.
But there is yet another view to be taken of
the question. Do we not know that in the
event supposed, we should fled the Atlantic
coast swarming with English vessels carrying
m'oveable columns of troops, menacing and
landing at every point. The navy of England, the arsenals of England, the purse of
England, and all the appliances and requirements of war would be brought to bear upon
and be available to us in such a struggle. We
should not suffer from the lack of the material
of war, which is perhaps the ver thing of all
other things the most essential. In all respects
we should be in a very different position from
the Confederate States at the present day.
We should simply be required to hold our
own, while the United States were being
harassed on the seaboard, and then when
the winter came we should be comparatively safe. Think of the exhaustion to
the United States of such a war! I have
ventured to say thus much with a view
of counteracting, so far as my feeble
observations will enable me to do, the
remarks of the hon. member for Hochelaga the other night, because I think it
was a most pernicious, unmanly, and unpatriotic view of the case to he allowed to
be disseminated, when we ought to do all
we can to encourage and evoke a military
spirit on the part of the youth of this
country. Neutrality has been spoken of.
But how could neutrality be possible in a
struggle between England and the United
States? The country which cannot put
forth an effort to defend itself occup'es a
despicable position, and ti rfeits on the score
ot' weakness, even the wretched privilege
of being neutral. How is it possible, I
again ask, that we could maintain a neutral
position in such a war? We could not.
We should have to make common cause
with one or the other. Do you suppose
the United States would allow us to stand
aside?
HON. MR. HOLTON—It is the Minister
of Agriculture's opinion that we should
hold a neutral position.
HON. MR. ROSE—I have listened with
pleasure to many speeches from my hon.
triend the Minister of Agriculture, but I
have never heard one in which it was
402
implied that we ought to remain neutral
in the event of a war between England and
the United States. My hon. friend is
well able to speak for himself; but I must
say I have no recollection of hearing him
utter so unpatriotic a sentiment.
HON. MR. ROSE—I have no doubt
that what my hon. friend meant by neutrality was this, that we, as part of the
British Empire, were bound to remain
neutral as between the two warring sections
of the neighboring states.
HON. MR. HOLTON—No; the hon.
gentleman expressly gave it as his Opinion
that the neutrality of this country should
be guaranteed by treaty, the same as is the
case with Belgium and Switzerland.
HON. MR. MCGEE—I had this idea
once. It was shortl after my hon. friend opposite (Hon. Mr. HOLTON) declared in favor
of annexation. (Laughter.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—The sentiment
has been expressed by the hon. gentleman
within the last two or three years.
HON. MR. ROSE—Events have changed
very much within the last two or three
ears, and we have got to deal now, not with
mere party questions only, but wrth events
that are transpiring. I will not say anything further on this point, however, as my
hon. friend from Hochelaga is not in his
place, although the hon. member for Chateauguay chivalrously defends him in his
absence. I say then, Mr. SPEAKER, that
while I do not wish to exaggerate the danger, I cannot be insensible to it. It is
a
danger, dark, imminent and overwhelming,
and if it was on that consideration alone, I
say that I find in this question of defence
sufficient not only to justify me in voting
for the scheme now before the House, but to
demand of me every effort to carry it into
effect. (Hear, hear.) If we show that we
are in earnest on this question of defence,
England will be encouraged to come to our
assistance in time of danger, knowing that
she can look to us not only to contribute
towards the construction of works, but effectually to defend them. when constructed.
(Hear, hear.) If we show England that
she can depend on a population of four millions, with a strength wielded from a common
centre, she will be encouraged to aid-us
with both men and material of war, and will
lend us the assistance necessary to protect
ourselves both now and in time to come.
Let me repeat then, sir, that were there
nothing in addition to the great considerations to which I have adverted, I should
go
heartily for these resolutions, and I should
be disposed to overlook many inequalities
and some objectionable features which I see in
the scheme. I do not intend to advert in
detail to these, for I feel that I have to consider this question as a whole, and
that
unless I see objections to it, so great and
numerous as to make me vote against it as a
whole, it is useless to criticise that which I
cannot mend. The scheme is in the nature
of a treaty. It will not do to cavil at this
or at that; we must either accept it or
reject it. (Hear, hear.) I see the difficulties of the scheme, and the inequalities
of
it; but we must not complain if one colony
gets a few thousand dollars more than
another, or if one colony has to assume more
of the debt than another. Unless I saw
enough in the whole scheme to make me
vote against it, I think it would be a mere
waste of time to cavil at these small matters.
Because without the consent of all the other
colonies they cannot be altered, and on the
whole there is no reason why the whole
scheme should be rejected, and these slight
inequalities will soon right themselves.
(Hear, hear.) There is one thing I would
ask the House to consider —apart from the
higher consideration of defence; apart from
the cementing of our union with England,
which I believe is involved in the adoption
of this measure, and apart from the chance
of our falling a prey to the United States—
and it is this: are we prepared, looking at
Canada alone, to go back to the old state
of things of twelve or eighteen months ago ?
Are we willing to revert to the chronic state
of crisis in which we constantly found ourselves for years past? (Hear, hear.) This
House and the whole Government had lost
the confidence of the country, and the most
lamentable recriminations and dificulties existcd on the floor of this chamber. Indeed
at the time of which I speak affairs were in
such a state as to make every man with any
feeling of self-respect disposed to abandon
public life. I think we see in this alone
enough to reconcile us to the change, and I
believe I should see sufiicicnt cause in this
to induce me to Vote for a change in our
political system. The dread of going back
to the past, the apprehension lest old party
cries should be' revived, and the fear lest
difficulties in which we found ourselves
might be perpetuated, would impel me to vote
for the scheme now in our ha nds. (Hear, hear.)
403
Having said so much on the general
policy of the union, I might have been disposed to enter at greater length into it,
were it not that I wished to keep faith
with my honorable friend from Lambton;
but, having said so much on the higher
grounds which recommend this scheme,
I will now say a few words in reference to
the objections which have been urged against
its character, vis., because it embraces those
elements of disruption which are to be found
in every federal union. That is the objection of many who, while they would be willing
to go for a purely legislative union, object
to one of a federal character. They see in it
that which tends to a disruption, and collision
with the Central Government. Now, sir, I
do not deny that if a legislative union, pure
and simple, had been practicable, I, for one,
would have preferred it; but I cannot disguise from myself that it was, and is at
present, utterly impracticable, and I cannot help
expressing my astonishment and extreme
gratification, that five colonies which had been
for many years separate from each other,
had so many separate and distinct interests
and local differences, should come together and
agree upon such a scheme. Remembering the
difficulties that had to be encountered in the
shape of local interests, personal ambition, and
separate governments, I certainly am surprised at the result, and I cannot withheld
from the gentlemen who conducted these
negotiations, the highest praise for the manner in which they overcame the difficulties
that met them at every step, and for the
spirit in which they sunk their own personal
differences and interests in preparing this
scheme of Confederation. (Hear, hear.) It
is remarkable that a proposition having so
few of the objections of a Federal system,
should have been assented to by the representatives of five distinct colonies, which
had
heretofore been alien, practically independent, not only of each other, but almost
of
and almost hostile to each other.
(Hear, hear.) There had been very much
to keep these colonies apart, and very little
to bring them together, and the success
which has attended their efforts speaks well
for those statesmen who applied their minds
earnestly to the work of union. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. ROSE—I quite understand
the ironical spirit of my honorable friend—
but the work of Confederation was no less
one of vital importance to the country. I
cannot help saying that I had no sympathy
with the hon. member for Hochelaga (H on.
Mr. DORION), the other evening, in his
historical detail of all the antecedent difficulties which existed in our political
position.
That honorable gentleman told us what were
the opinions of this member and of that one
at different periods,—commented on their
inconsistency , and claimed that he himself
had always been firm in his opposition to the
project. Well, sir, I do not care what may
have been the views of one member or of
another, or how inconsistent he may have
been. What we have to consider is the
scheme which is now presented to us. Let
us forget the past; let us forget former
differences; do not let us revive former
animosities! Let us consider that we are
starting fresh in life, or as the term has
been used, that we are entering upon a new
era of national existence. (Hear, hear.)
Let us cast aside past recriminations and look
at the merits of this scheme. I have only
to say that a man who does not change his
opinions is a very unsafe man indeed to
guide the affairs of a nation. Such a man
is like an old sign-post on a road that is no
longer used for travel. The sign-post is
consistent enough, it remains where it had
been placed, but through a type of consistency
it is an emblem of error. (Hear, hear.) The
hon. member for Hochelaga spoke of his
consistency and the inconsistency of others,
but he was like the sign-post which pointed
out a road that existed twenty years ago, but
which no one could now pass over. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) I think, therefore,
that instead of endeavoring to find objections
to this scheme because it does not give as a
legislative instead of a federal union, we
ought to acknowledge the sacrifices of those
men who came together and prepared it.
(Hear, hear.) Whatever may be said of our
desire to get out of our own constitutional
difficulties in Canada, that objection cannot
be urged against the public men of the
Lower Provinces. Newfoundland has not
been in estate of crisis like us, and New
Brunswick has been tolerably faithful to
Mr. TILLEY for the last ten years ; a short
time ago the Premier of Nova Scotia had a
majority of thirty in a ver small house—
everything went on swimmingly there, and
even Prince Edward Island was not much
embarrassed.
404
HON. MR. ROSE—Let us attribute no
motives, but rather give to every man who
has had anything to do with this measure
the credit of being actuated by the utmost
patriotism and singleness of purpose. Such,
believe, is the feeling of nine-tenths—yes,
ninety-nine hundredths of the people of this
country. What inducement, except those
of a public kind, had my hon. friend the
President of the Council, or the Attorney
General West to enter the same Government,
if it was not with a view to bring about a union
of the colonies? And even if they had only in
view to heal the constitutional difficulties of
the past, we ought to be doeply thankful to
them. (Hear, hear.) I stated that I would
not criticise many of the features of this
scheme; but there are two main features
which to my judgment commend themselves
to the attention of every one who has any
doubts as to the stability of the system, and
which give us a sufficient guarantee, that
guarantee which federal unions have heretofore wanted, namely : that it establishes
a
central authority which it will not be within
the power of any of the local governments
to interfere with or rise up against. It
appears to me that they have avoided the
errors into which the framers of the American Constitution not unnaturally fell. They
have evidently learnt something from the
teachings of the past, and profited by the
experience afforded in the case of our American neighbors. They have established
this Central Government, giving it such
powers, and so defining the powers of the
local governments, that it will be impossible
for any Local Parliament to interfere with
the central power in such a manner as to be
detrimental to the interests of the whole.
The great advantage which I see in the
scheme is this, that the powers granted to
the local governments are strictly defined
and circumscribed, and that the residuum
of power lies in the Central Government.
You have, in addition to that, the local
governors named by the central authority—
an admirable provision which establishes
the connection of authority between the
cental power and the different localities ;
you have vested in it also the great questions
of the customs, the currency, banking, trade
and navigation, commerce, the appointment
of the judges and the administration of the
laws, and all those great and large questions
which interest the entire community, and
with which the General Government ought
to be entrusted. There can, therefore, be
no difficulty under the scheme between the
various sections—no clashing of authority
between the local and central governments
in this case, as there has been in the case of
the Americans. The powers of the local
governments are distinctly and strictly defined, and you can have no assertion of
sovereignty on the part of the local governments, as in the United States, and of
powers
inconsistent with their rights and security of the
whole community. (Hear, hear.) Then, the
other point which commends itself so strongly
to my mind is this, that there is a veto
power on the part of the General Government over all the legislation of the Local
Parliament. That was a fundamental element
which the wisest statesmen engaged in the
framing of the American Constitution saw, that
if it was not engrafted in it, must necessarily
lead to the destruction of the Constitution.
These men engaged in the framing of that
Constitution at Philadelphia saw clearly, that
unless the power of veto over the acts of the
state legislatures was given to the Central
Government, sooner or later a clashing of
authority between the central authority and
the various states must take place. What
said Mr. MADISON in reference to this point ?
I quote from
The Secret Debates upon the
Federal Constitution, which took place in
1787, and during which this important
question was considered. On the motion of
Mr. PINKNEY " that the National Legislature shall have the power of negativing all
laws to be passed by the state legislature,
which they may judge improper," he stated
that he considered " this as the corner stone
of the system, and hence the necessity of
retrenching the state authorities in order to
preserve the good government of the National
Council." And Mr. MADISON said, " The
power of negativing is absolutely necessary
—this is the only attractive principle which
will retain its centrifuga1 force, and without
this the planets will fly from their orbits."
Now, sir, I believe this power of negative,
this power of veto, this controlling power on
the part of the Central Government is the
best protection and safeguard of the system;
and if it had not been provided, I would have
felt it very difficult to reconcile it to my
sense of duty to vote for the resolutions.
But this power having been given to the
Central Government, it is to my mind, in
conjunction with the power of naming the
local governors, the appointment and payment of the judiciary, one of the best-futures
405
of the scheme, without which it would certainly, in my opinion, have been open to
very serious objection. (Hear, hear?) I
will not now criticize any other of the leading features of the resolutions as they
touch
the fundamental conditions and principles of
the union. I think there has been throughout a most wise and statesmanlike distribution
of powers, and at the same time that
those things have been carefully guarded
which the minorities in the various sections
required for their protection, and the regulation of which each province was not
unnaturally desirous of retaining for itself.
So far then as the objection is concerned
of this union being federative merely
in its character, and liable to all the difficulties which usually surround federal
governments, I think we may fairly consider
that there has been a proper and satisfactory
distribution of power, which will avert many
of those difficulties. (Hear, hear.) But,
sir, there is another objection made to it,
and one upon which, from my stand-point,
I desire to make some observations, and that
is with reference to the manner in which the
rights of the various minorities in the provinces have been protected. This is unquestionably
a grave and serious subject of consideration, and especially so to the minority
in this section of the province, that is the English-speaking minority to which I
and many
other members of this House belong, and
with whose interests we are identified. I
do not disguise that I have heard very
grave and serious apprehensions by many
men for whose opinions I have great
respect, and whom I admire for the
absence of bigotry and narrow-mindedness
which they have always exhibited. They
have expressed themselves not so much
in the way of objection to specific features
of the scheme as in the way of apprehension
of something dangerous to them in it—
apprehensions which they cannot state explicitly or even define to themselves. They
seem doubtful and distrustful as to the consequences, express fears as to how it will
affect their future condition and interests,
and in fact, they almost think that in view
of this uncertainty it would be better if we
remained as we are. Now, sir, I believe
that the rights of both minorities—the
French minority in the General Legislature
and the English-speaking minority in the
Local Legislature of Lower Canada—are
properly guarded. I would admit at once
that without this protection it would be e
to the gravest objection ; I would admit thatÂ
you were embodying in it an element of
future difficulty, a cause of future dissension
and agitation that might be destructive to
the whole fabric ; and therefore it is a very
grave and anxious question for us to consider
—especially the minorities in Lower Canada ;
—how far our mutual rights and interests
are respected and guarded, the one in the
General and the other in the Local Legislature. With reference to this subject, I
think that I, and those with whom I have
acted—the English speaking members from
Lower Canada—may in some degree congratulate ourselves at having brought about a
state of feeling between the two races in
this section of the province which has produced some good effect. (Hear, hear.) There
has been, ever since the time of the union,
I am happy to say—and everybody knows it
who has any experience in Lower Canada—a
cordial understanding and friendly feeling
between the two nationalities, which has
produced the happiest results. Belonging
to different races and professing a different
faith, we live near each other ; we come in
contact and mix with each other, and we
respect each other ; we do not trench
upon the rights of each other ; we have,
not had those party and religious differences which two races, speaking different
languages and holding different religious beliefs, might be supposed to have had ;
and
it is a matter of sincere gratification to us, I
say, that this state of things has existed and
is now found amongst us. (Hear, hear.)
But if, instead of this mutual confidence ; if,
instead of the English-speaking minority
placing trust in the French majority in the
Local Legislature, and the French minority
placing the same trust in the English majority in the General Legislature, no such
feeling
existed, how could this scheme of Confederation he made to work successfully? Hear,
hear.) I think it cannot be denied that
there is the utmost confidence on both sides ;
I feel assured that our confidence in the
majority in the Local Government will not
be misplaced, and I earnestly trust that the
confidence they repose in us in the General
Legislature will not be abused. (Hear, hear.)
I hope that this mutual yielding of confidence
will make us both act in a high-minded and
sensitive manner when the rights of either
side are called in question—if ever they
should be called in question—in the respect
406
ive legislatures. This is an era in the history
of both races—the earnest plighting of each
other's faith as they embrace this scheme.
It is remarkable that both should place such
entire confidence in one another; and in
future ages our posterity on both sides will
be able to point with pride to the period
when the two races had such reliance the
one on the other as that each was willing to
trust its safety and interest to the honor of
the other. (Hear, hear.) This mutual confidence has not been brought about by any
ephemeral or spasmodic desire for change on
the part of either; it is the result of the
knowledge each race possesses of the character of the other, and of the respect each
entertains for the other. (Hear, hear.) It is
because we have learnt to respect each other's
motives and have been made to feel by experience that neither must be aggressive,
and
that the interests of the one are safe in the
keeping of the other. And I think I may
fairly appeal to the President of the Council,
that if, during the ten years in which he has
agitated the question of representation by
population, we the English in Lower Canada
had listened to his appeals—appeals that he
has persistently made with all the earnestness
and vigor of his nature—if we had not turned a deaf ear to them, but had gone with
those of our own race and our own faith, the
people of Upper Canada, who demanded this
change, where, I would ask him, would have
been our union to day? Would not a feeling
of distrust have been established between the
French and English races in the community,
that would have rendered even the fair consideration of it utterly impracticable?
(Hear, hear.) Would the French have in
that case been ready now to trust themselves
in the General Legislature, or the English in
the Local Legislature of Lower Canada? No;
and I pray God that this mutual confidence
between two races which have so high and
noble a work to do on this continent, who are
menaced by a common danger, and actuated
by a common interest, may continue for all
time to come! I pray that it may not be
interrupted or destroyed by any act of either
party; and I trust that each may continue
to feel assured that if at any time hereafter circumstances should arise calculated
to infringe upon the rights of either, it will
be sufficient to say, in order to prevent any
aggression of this kind—" We trusted each
other when we entered this union; we felt
then that our rights would be sacred with
you; and our honor and good faith and integrity are involved in and pledged to the
maintenance of them." (Hear, hear.) I believe this is an era in our history to which
in
after ages our children may appeal with pride,
and that if there should be any intention
on either side to aggress upon the other, the
recollection that each trusted to the honor
of the other will prevent that intention being
carried out. (Hear, hear.) Feeling as I do
thus strongly that our French follow-subjects
are placing entire confidence in us—in our
honor and our good faith—we, the English
speaking population of Lower Canada, ought
not to be behind hand in placing confidence
in them. I feel that we have no reason as a
minority to fear aggressions on the part of
the majority. We feel that in the past we
have an earnest of what we may reasonably
expect the future relations between the two
races to be. But although this feeling of
mutual confidence may be strong enough in
our breasts at this time, I am glad to see that
my hon. friend the Attorney General East,
as representin the French majority in Lower
Canada, and the Minister of Finance, as representing the English speeking minority,
have each carefully and prudently endeavored
to place as fundamental conditions in this
basis of union such safeguards and protection
as the two races may respectively rely
upon. (Hear, hear.) I feel that it has
been carefully considered and carried out,
and with the same amount of mutual confidence in the future working as in the past,
we need not have any apprehension in trusting the interests of the two races either
in
the Federal or Local Legislature. (Hear, hear.)
But although we here, and as members of
this House, feel this confidence in each
other, no doubt those who prepared these
resolutions were conscious that the powers
must be so distributed, and the reservations
of power so made, as to commend them to
the people of the country at large. You
must carry the people with you in this
movement, for you cannot force a new
Constitution, a new state of political
being, upon a people, unless their own judgment and their own convictions as to its
safety go alon with it.
Hon. Mr. ROSE—You cannot, I say,
force a new Constitution upon an unwilling
people, but in this instance I believe a very
great majority ve of, and are earnestly
desirous of the change. I know you must
407
satisfy them that their interests for all time
to come are safe—that the interests of the
minority are hedged round with such safeguards, that those who come after us will
feel that they are protected in all they hold
dear ; and I think a few observations will
enable me to show the House that that has
been well and substantially done in this case.
(Hear, hear.) Looking at the scheme, then,
from the stand-point of an English Protestant
in Lower Canada, let me see whether the
interests of those of my own race and religion
in that section are safely and properly guarded. There are certain points upon which
they feel the greatest interest, and with
regard to which it is but proper that they
should be assured that there are sufficient
safeguards provided for their preservation.
Upon these points, I desire to put some
questions to the Government. The first
of these points is as to whether such
provision has been made and will be carried out that they will not suffer at any
future time from a system of exclusion
from the federal or local legislatures, but
that they will have a fair share in the representation in both ; and the second is,
whether such safeguards will be provided for
the educational system of the minority in
Lower Canada as will be satisfactory to them?
Upon these points some apprehensions
appear to exist in the minds of the English
minority in Lower Canada, and although I
am free to confess that I have not shared in
my fear of injustice at the hands of the
majority, as I consider that the action of the
past forms a good guarantee for the future,
yet I desire, for the full assurance of that
minority, to put some questions to my hon.
friends in the Government. I wish to know
what share of representation the English-
speaking population of Lower Canada will
have in the Federal Legislature, and whether
it will be in the same proportion as their
representation in this Parliament ? This is
one point in which I think the English inhabitants of Lower Canada are strongly interested.
Another is with regard to their
representation in the Local Legislature of
Lower Canada—whether the same proportion
will be given to them as is now given to them
in this House, that is to say, about one-fourth
of the Lower Canadian representation, which
is the proportion of the English speaking to
the French speaking population of Lower
Canada, the numbers being 260,000 and
1,100,000 respectively. Now, the spirit of
the resolutions as I understand them—and I
will thank my hon. friend the Attorney General to correct me if I am in error in regard
to them— provides that the electoral districts
in Lower Canada for representatives in the
first Federal Legislature shall remain intact as
they now are; and, although the resolution
is somewhat ambiguously expressed, I take
that to be its spirit.
HON. MR. ROSE—The 23rd resolution
reads : " The Legislature of each province
shall divide such province into the proper
number of constituencies, and define the
boundaries of each of them." Then the
24th resolution provides that " the Local
Legislature may from time to time alter the
electoral districts for the urpose of representation in such Local Legislature, and
distribute the representatives to which the
province is entitled in such Local Legislature,
in any manner such legislature may see fit."
In these resolutions I presume that power is
given to the Legislature of each province to
divide the province into the proper number
of constituencies for representation in the
Federal Parliament, and to alter the electoral districts for representation in the
Local
Legislature. Now, to speak quite plainly, the
apprehension which I desire to say again I
do not personally share in, but which has
been expressed to me by gentlemen in my
own constituency, is this, that with respect
to the Local Legislature, it will be competent
for the French majority in Lower Canada to
blot out the English-speaking minority from
any share in the representation, and so to
apportion the electoral districts that no English speaking member can be returned
to the
Legislature. That is an apprehension upon
which I would be very glad to have an expression of opinion by my hon. friend the
Attorney General East. As I read the resolutions, if the Local Legislature exercised
its
powers in any such unjust manner, it would
be competent for the General Government to
veto its action, and thus prevent the intention
of the Local Legislature being carried into
effect—even although the power be one
which is declared to be absolutely vested in
the Local Government, and delegated to it as
one of the articles of its constitution.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—There is
not the least doubt that if the Local Legislature
of Lower Canada should apportion the electoral
districts in such a way as to do injustice to
the English-speaking population, the General Government will have the right to vet
408
any law it might pass to this affect and set it
at nought. Â
HON. MR. ROSE—I am quite sure my
hon. friend would do it rather than have an
injustice perpetrated. There is another
point upon which I would like to have from
the Attorney General East an explicit statement of the views of the Government. I
refer to the provision in the 23rd resolution
which I have just read ; what I wish to know
is whether the Legislature therein spoken of
means the Legislature of the province of
Canada as it is now constituted, and whether
it is contemplated to have any change in the
boundaries of the electoral districts for representation in the first session of the
Federal Legislature?
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER — With
regard to Lower Canada, it is not the intention to make any alteration in the electoral
districts, because there will be no change in
the number of representatives sent to the
General Parliament. But with regard to
Upper Canada, there will be a change in the
electoral districts, because there will be an
increase of members from that section.
HON. MR. ROSE—So that I clearly understand from the statement of the hon. gentleman that in Lower
Canada the constituencies, for the purposes of the first election
to the Federal Legislature, will remain as
they are now ?
HON. MR. ROSE—And that as regards
the representation in the Local Legislature,
the apportionment of the electoral districts
by it will be subject to veto by the General
Government.
HON. MR. ROSE—I have to thank the
hon. gentleman for the manner in which he
has answered the questions, and for the assurances he has given on these two points—
assurances which, I feel persuaded, will remove some apprehension felt in the country
with regard to them. An hon. gentleman
who sits near me (Mr. FRANCIS JONES) asks
me to enquire who is to change the electoral
districts in Upper Canada.
HON. MR. ROSE—The hon. gentleman
wants to know if it is the present Parliament of Canada ; but I am quite willing
to let Upper Canada take care of itself,
and I think its representatives are able to
do so. One minority is quite enough for
me to attend to at present. (Laughter.)
I trust the Attorney General East, from my
putting these questions to him, will not infer
that I have any doubt as to the fair dealing
that will be accorded to the minority by
the majority in Lower Canada. But it is
very desirable, I think, that we should receive a clear, emphatic, and distinct declaration
of the spirit of the resolutions on
those points, in order that the minority may
see how well their rights and interests have
been protected. (Hear, hear.) I am fully
persuaded that in the past conduct of the
majority in Lower Canada there is nothing
which will cause the minority to look with
doubt upon the future ; for I will do my
hon. friend the justice of saying that in the
whole course of his public life there has not
been a single act on his part either of executive, administrative, or legislative
action,
tinged with illiberality, intolerance, or
bigotry. (Hear, hear.) I say this to express my belief that in the future, wherever
he has control, there will be no appearance
of bigotry or illiberality, and I feel that the
confidence I repose in him in this respect is
shared in by many others in this House and
throughout the country. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—Will my hon.
friend allow me to interrupt him ? Perhaps
it would be well, while he is asking questions
of the Government, to elicit an answer to the
question I have put once or twice touching
the proposed measure of the Administration
on the subject of education in Lower Canada,
as it affects the English-speaking minority.
Perhaps he will ascertain whether it will be
submitted to the House before the final
passage of the Confederation scheme.
HON. MR. ROSE—I intend to come to
that presently, and to put a question to my
hon. friend the Attorney General East in
reference to that subject. What I wish to
do now is to point out the objections I have
heard on the part even of some of my own
friends to this scheme—objections which, as
I have said, are grounded on an undefined
dread of evil rather than on anything that
they actually now see obnoxious in the
scheme itself. These fears, I have said, are
vague and undefined, and difficult therefore
to combat. If I go among one class and ask
409
them what they fear, I am told—" Oh, you
are going to hand us over to the tender
mercies of the French ; the English influence will be entirely annihilated ;
they will have no power in the community ; and all the advantages we have
gained during the past twenty-five years by
our union with the people of our own race in
Upper Canada will be entirely lost." I can
but answer—" What are you afraid of ?
Where is the interest affecting you that is
imperilled ? You have, in conjunction with
a majority of your own race, power in the
General Legislature to appoint the local governors, administer justice and name the
judges, to control the militia and all other
means of defence, and to make laws respecting the post office, trade, commerce, navigation
; and you have all the great and important
interests that centre in the community I
represent—all matters that affect the minority
in Lower Canada—within your control in the
Federal Legislature. The French have surrendered the questions relating to usury,
to
marriage and divorce, on which they hold
pretty strong opinions, to the Central Government. What, then, are you afraid of in
the
action of the Local Legislature ?" " Well,"
I am answered, " all that may be true enough ;
but we shall not gets single appointment ; the
administration of local affairs in Lower
Canada will be entirely in the hands of the
French majority, and they will control all the
patronage." You say to them again—" ls it
the exercise of patronage you are afraid of ?
Is not the appointment of the judges, the
patronage of the post office, the customs, the
excise, the board of works, and all the other
important branches of the administration in
the hands of the Federal Government?
What is there, then, but a few municipal
officers to be appointed by the local legislatures ; and for the sake of this petty
patronage, are you going to imperil the success of
a scheme that is fraught with such important
consequences to all the Provinces of British
North America? Is it for this that you will
oppose a measure that contains so many
merits, that possesses so much good, and that
is calculated to confer such lasting benefits
upon these provinces, if not to lead to the
formation of a territorial division of the
British Empire here ?" Well, these questions I have put, and these explanations I
have made, but some still seemed to entertain an undefined dread that they could not
realise to themselves—a dread which to a
great extent appears to be shared by my hon.
friend opposite (Hon. Mr. DORION) in regard to the General Legislature. Well, if
we look to the history of the past twenty-
five years and see how we have acted towards
each other, I think neither party will have
any cause for apprehension. Has there been
a single set of aggression on the part of my
hon. friend the Attorney General East on us
the English minority, or a single act of
aggression on our part towards the race to
which he belongs ? (Hear, hear.) Has
there not been mutual respect and confidence,
and has there been an act on either side to
destroy that feeling? (Hear, hear.) I
think the past gives assurance to us that no
such difficulty will arise in the future, and
that we shall continue to live and work harmoniously together, each holding the other
in respect and esteem. (Hear, hear.) But
we are told—and it is urged as an objection
against the scheme—that works of improvement will be obstructed by the Local Government
in Lower Canada. Now, I think the
day has long gone by when acts which were
formerly committed could possibly be repeated—when, for instance, before the union,
the work carried on by the Montreal Harbor
Commissioners could not he proceeded with
because Mr. PAPINEAU opposed it. The days
of progress and advancement have come since
that time. This is an age of progress, the
very spirit of which is hostile in the strongest degree to such a state of things.
It is
impossible for either race to treat the other
with injustice. Their interests are too much
bound up together, and any injustice committed by one would react quite as injuriously
upon it elsewhere ; and I believe that
the mutual confidence with which we are
going into this union ought to and will induce us all to labor together harmoniously,
and endeavor to work it out for the best.
(Hear, hear.) I do not disguise from myself that the minority in Lower Canada has
always been on the defensive. That is a
condition which is natural under the circumstances ; for we cannot be in a minority
without being more or less on the defensive.
But I think that under this scheme the
French minority in the General Legislature
and the English minority in Lower Canada,
will both be amply and satisfactorily protected. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I come to
the
question adverted to by the hon. member for
Chateauguay, in reference to the education
measure which the Government has promised
to bring down to the House. I believe this
is the first time almost in the history of
410
Lower Canada—and I call the attention of
my hon. friends from Upper Canada to the
fact—that there has been any excitement, or
movement, or agitation on the part of the
English Protestant population of Lower Canada in reference to the common school
question. (Hear, hear.) It is the first time
in the history of the country that there has
been any serious apprehension aroused
amongst them regarding the elementary education of their children. I am not aware
that there has ever been any attempt in
Lower Canada to deprive the minority of
their just rights in respect to the education
of their youth. I do not state this simply
as my own opinion, or as the result of observations which I have made alone. I have
received letters from those who have been
cognizant of the educational system in Lower
Canada for many years, confirmatory of this
in the strongest degree. It was also observed and commented upon by the three commissioners
who came out from England to
this country in 1837, and who in their report said it was one of the most remarkable
circumstances that came under their notice,
that they found two races, speaking different
languages and holding different religious
opinions, living together in harmony, and
having no difference or ill-feeling in respect
to the education of their children. Now we,
the English Protestant minority of Lowe
Canada, cannot forget that whatever right of
separate education we have was accorded to
us in the most unrestricted way before the
union of the provinces, when we were in a
minority and entirely in the hands of the
French population. We cannot forget that
in no way was there any attempt to prevent
us educating our children in the manner we
saw fit and deemed best ; and I would be
untrue to what is just if I forgot to state that
the distribution of State funds for educational
purposes was made in such a way as to cause
no complaint on the part of the minority.
I believe we have always had our fair
share of the public grants in so far as the
French element could control them, and not
only the liberty, but every facility, for the
establishment of separate dissentient schools
wherever they were deemed desirable. A
single person has the right, under the law,
of establishing a dissentient school and
obtaining a fair share of the educational
grant, if he can gather together fifteen children who desire instruction in it. Now,
we
cannot forget that in the past this liberality
has been shown to us, and that whatever we
desired of the French majority in respect to
education, they were, if it was at all reasonable, willing to concede. (Hear, hear.)
We
have thus, in this also, the guarantee of the
past that nothing will be done in the future
unduly to interfere with our rights and interests as regards education, and I believe
that
everything we desire will be as freely given
by the Local Legislature as it was before the
union of the Canadas. (Hear, hear.) But
from whence comes the practical difficulty of
dealing with the uestion at the present moment? We should not forget that it does
not come from our French-Canadian brethren
in Lower Canada, but that it arises in this
way—and I speak as one who has watched
the course of events and the opinion of
the country upon the subject—that the
Protestant majority in Upper Canada are
indisposed to disturb the settlement made
a couple of years ago, with regard to
separate schools, and rather to hope that the
French majority in Lower Canada should
concede to the English Protestant minority
there, nothing more than is given to the
minority in the other section of the province.
But still it must be conceded that there are
certain points where the present educational
system demands modification—points in
which the English Protestant minority of
Lower Canada expect a modification. I
would ask my honorable friend the Attorney
General East, whether the system of education which is in farce in Lower Canada at
the time of the proclamation is to remain and
be the system of education for all time to
come ; and that whatever rights are given
to either of the religious sections shall continue to be guaranteed to them ? We are
called upon to vote for the resolutions in
ignorance, to some extent, of the guarantees
to be given by subsequent legislation, and
therefore my honorable friend will not take
it amiss if I point out to him where the
Protestant minority desire a change, with a
view of ascertaining how far the Government
is disposed to meet their views by coming
down with a measure in which they may be
embodied. The first thing I wish to mention has caused a good deal of difficulty in
our present system, and that is, whether
non-resident preprietors shall have the same
right of designating the class of schools to
which their taxes shall be given as actual
residents. That is one point— whether a
person living out of the district or township
411
shall not have the same privilege of saying
that his taxes shall be given to a dissentient
school as if he resided upon the property.
A second point is with reference to taxes on
the property of incorporated companies. As
it is now, such taxes go in a manner which
is not considered satisfactory to the minority
of Lower Canada. What I desire to ascertain
is whether some equitable provision will be
made, enabling the taxes on such property
to be distributed in some way more satisfactory to the owners—perhaps in the same
way
that the Government money is. Some have
urged that it should be left to the directors
of such companies to indicate the schools to
which such taxes should be given, while
others think that each individual shareholder
should have the power to say how the taxes
on his property should be applied. I am
inclined to think the latter method would be
found utterly impracticable. I confess it is
an extreme view, and I do not think we
could expect that. But I do think there
ought to be some more equitable way of
appropriating the taxes on such property.
These are two points, of perhaps inferior
importance to the third, and that is, whether
a more direct control over the administration
and management of the dissentient schools
in Lower Canada will not be given to the
Protestant minority ; whether in fact they
will not be left in some measure to themselves. I am quite well aware that this is
a
question that concerns both Catholics and
Protestants, for I believe that about one-
third of the dissentient schools are Catholic
schools.
HON. MR. CARTIER—Well, not on account of language ; there is no difficulty on
account of that.
HON. MR. ROSE—The question relates
to all dissentient schools, from whatever
cause they may have been led to dissent. The
remedy can be made to apply equally to all.
I do not ask what precise measure will be
brought down, but I do think they ought to
have more control than they now possess.
The final question is one relating somewhat
to the finances, and therefore belongs more
properly to my hon. friend the Minister of
Finance.
HON. MR. CARTIER—Mr. SPEAKER,
as usual, I am ready to answer categorical
questions, and I will answer my hon. friend
in such a way as to satisfy both the House
and my hon. friend. With regard to the
first point, respecting non-residents in the
townships, I may say that it is the intention
of the Government, in a measure which is
to be introduced, to give those who are in a
minority ower to designate to what dissentient schools their assessment shall be
paid.
HON. MR. CARTIER—Everywhere. Not
to Catholics alone either. With regard to
the second question—the distribution of
money raised from commercial companies—I
am well aware that to this day there has been
a complaint with regard to the distribution
of those moneys. It is the intention of the
Government to have in the measure a provision which will secure a more equitable
distribution of those moneys, distributing
them in such a way as to satisfy everyone.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, with regard to the third enquiry, I am ready also
to answer my honorable friend from Montreal
Centre, that it is the intention of the
Government that in that law there will be a
provision that will secure to the Protestant
minority in Lower Canada such management and control over their schools as will
satisfy them. (Laughter and cheers.) Now,
with regard to my hon. frind from Chateauguay, who said that there were dissentient
schools on account of language.
HON. MR. HOLTON—The hon. gentleman must have misunderstood what I said.
The honorable member from Montreal Centre
was saying that there were dissentient schools
on account of religion. I merely suggested
that there might be dissentient schools on
account of language. There was nothing in
the law to prevent it. There might be
Catholic dissentient schools in municipalities
where the majority was Protestant.
HON. MR. CARTIER—The honorable
member for Chateanguay has the laws of
Lower Canada in his possession. Well, he
will not find there that there is any such
thing as Catholic or Protestant schools
mentioned. What are termed in Upper
Canada separate schools, come under the
appropriate word, in Lower Canada, of dissentient. It is stated that where the majority
412
is of either religion, the dissentient minority
—either Catholic or Protestant—have the
right to establish dissentient schools. In
the cities the majority being Catholics, the
dissentient schools are Protestant, but in the
townships, the majority is sometimes Protestant and the dissentient schools Catholic.
MR. POPE—What will be the provision
made, where the population is pretty sparse,
as in some parts of my county ? Will you
allow the minority of one township to join
with a neighboring township for the purpose
of establishing a dissentient school ?
HON. MR. CARTIER—Yes. There will
be a provision enabling the minority to join
with their friends in a contiguous municipality in order to make up the requisite
number.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—While the
Government is in a communicative mood—
(laughter)—I think it is of some importance
that we should know whether it is the intention of the Government to extend the
same rights and privileges to the Catholic
minority of Upper Canada that are to be
given to the Protestants of Lower Canada?
HON. MR. CARTIER—I cannot do my
own work and the work of others. The
Hon. Attorney General for Upper Canada
is not present, but I have no doubt that on
some future occasion he will be able to
answer my honorable friend from Cornwall.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—In the absence of the Hon. Attorney General West,
perhaps the Hon. President of the Council
will be kind enough to give us the desired
information ?
HON. MR. BROWN—If my hon. friend
wants an answer from me, I can only say
that the provisions of the School bill relating to Upper Canada have not yet been
considered by the Government. As soon as
a bill is framed there will be no delay in
laying it before the House.
HON. MR. ALLEYN—I sincerely hope
that the Government feel disposed to grant
to the Catholics of Upper Canada the same
privileges they have just promised to the
Protestants of Lower Canada.
HON. MR. ROSE—The manner and spirit
in which the Government have given explanations on the subject ought to be satisfactory
to the people of Lower Canada of the
Protestant religion. The liberal manner in
which they have been dealt with in the past
gives us every reason to be convinced that
we will receive justice. (Hear, hear.) I
have no hesitation in saying that I have full
confidence that the Lower Canada section of
the Administration will deal with us in a fair
and liberal spirit. I have confidence in my
hon. friend the Minister of Finance, and in
my hon. friend the Attorney General East,
and I am glad to learn that he will give all
proper consideration to that financial question, the distribution of the assessment
of
commercial companies in a satisfactory manner. I hope the Minister of Finance will
be disposed to go further, and deal in a
similar spirit with the endowment of colleges.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Bring the pressure
to bear, and you will get it. Now is the
time, before the Confederation scheme comes
to a vote.
HON. MR. ROSE—Well, it happens that
my honorable friend from Chateaugnay and
myself hold very dissimilar views respecting the importance of Confederation. If
I were disposed to follow such tactics,
I might possibly profit by his advice. But
I am inclined to overlook a great many
things on which my honorable friend
would hesitate, for the purpose of seeing so
important a measure carried out. While I
have every confidence in the present Government, I feel that we may expect as much
justice at the hands of the Lower Canada
Local Parliament as from any Government
of United Canada that we ever had. We
have never yet had occasion to appeal to the
Protestant majority of Upper Canada for help,
and if we ever should deem it proper to do
so, I have no reason to believe that we should
receive more attention than our wants received at the hands of the Catholic majority
of Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) Now,
sir, so far as the three questions to which I
have made allusion are concerned, the apprehensions of being shut out from the General
Government—being handed over to the
French in the Local Parliament of Lower
Canada, and our educational rights being
interfered with, I feel every assurance that
the spirit of the answers just given will be
carried out. I will now say a few words
respecting the argument presented by my
hon. friend from Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION) in the course of his speech the other
evening—that the plan for Federation would
inflict great financial injustice upon Canada,
and that it would, through the Intercolonial
Railway and works of defence, entail such
enormous burdens upon the people of Canada
413
as to ultimately lead them to rise up against
and overthrow it. Well now, for the life of
me I cannot see how it is to increase our
expenditure. I cannot see how it can go
beyond what the Minister of Finance stated
—that it could not in any case add to the
present cost more than the expenses of the
General Government. The Local Governments cannot be more expensive than the
present Government, and therefore all we
need to add at the very most is the expense
of the General Government. I do not see
how it is possible to add any more. I would,
however, ask the attention of the House to
another statement made the other evening
by the hon. member from Hochelaga. He
said that we were making a mistake in supposing that we were discussing a question
of
colonial union. Confederation, he said, was
simply tacked on to the Intercolonial Railway at the suggestion of Mr. WATKIN, and
that the whole arrangement was merely a
nicely planned scheme for the benefit of the
Grand Trunk Railway.
HON. MR. ROSE—Well, does any one
suppose that my hon. friend the President
of the Council could be duped in that way?
Is it possible that my hon. friend from Hochelaga believes he has so little astuteness
as not to see through such an attempt as that?
The argument was used to get the support
of the opponents of railways in this House
against the Federation. Sir, it would appear
that the hon. President of the Council, and
the hon. Provincial Secretary and the other
members of the Government, who are anti-
railway in their views, have been altogether
mistaken, and that we are merely going to
build up another gigantic railway monopoly
for fraudulent purposes. They may all be
deceived by this imaginary project, and it
would seem too, sir, that Mr. WATKIN, possessing the wiles of MEPHISTOPHELES, had
hoodwinked the Governor General, and the
Colonial Secretary, and caused them to fall
into the trap also. Nay, further, it would
appear that his wiles had reached the Throne
itself, for Her Majesty has expressed herself
in the speech to Parliament in favor of the
scheme. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. ROSE—Can it be supposed
that a grave and important matter of this
kind would have received such consideration
from the Home Government, if it were
nothing more than a Grand Trunk job? My
hon. friend opposite sonorously cries "Order,"
when I come to deal with his late colleague's
arguments as the only answer he can give.
Does he suppose I am going to allow a grave
charge of such a nature to go unanswered ?
HON. MR. HOLTON—If I clled "Order,"
it was because I considered that Her Majesty
ought not to have been mentioned in connection with the term " hoodwink." Her
advisers were the responsible parties. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. ROSE—I repeat that the Speech
from the Throne which we have received today, and to which I have a perfect right
to
refer, does not treat this measure as anything
akin to a Grand Trunk job. It is really presuming too much on the part of my hon.
friend from
Hochelaga to get up and say in effect to the
members of this House : " You know nothing
about this scheme ; you cannot see or understand what it really is; but my astuteness
enables me to see that it is nothing more than
a mere railway job." (Laughter.) Does
the hon. member really believe what he
has stated ? Does he really believe that the
whole project is l'or the benefit of the Grand
Trunk ? It is a most unworthy course for him
to pursue to endeavor to bring old prejudices
against the Grand Trunk Company, to bear
in the manner he has been doing ; prejudices
and animosities based upon stories that have
been repeated until a further reference to
them seems almost childish. But it is not
possible that any honorable member's judgment can be carried away by those little
appeals to side issues, on a question of this
important nature. What does the Speech
from the Throne say :—
Her Majesty has had great satisfaction in giving
her sanction to the meeting of a conference of
delegates from her several North American Provinces, who, on an invitation from Her
Majesty's
Governor General, assembled at Quebec. These
delegates adopted resolutions having for their
object a closer union of those provinces under a
Central Government. If those resolutions shall
be approved by the Provincial Legislatures, a bill
will be laid before you for carrying this important
measure into effect.
(Loud cheers.) This is the language used
by our Sovereign when addressing the
Imperial Parliament, and are we now
to be urged to under estimate the value
of the great project by mere appeals
to the prejudices of the people at large
against the threatened monopoly of the
Grand Trunk Railway. The opinion of Her
Majesty is shared in, too, by some of the
414
greatest statesmen of England, whose names
are identified with the history of the nation.
What said Lord DERBY in reference to
Confederation ? Does he consider it to
emanate from a mere clique of railway
speculators ? Speaking of the relation of
Canada to the United States—and his remarks
come in most opportunely in connection
with the observations I made at the outset—
speaking of defending the upper lakes with
armed vessels, the noble lord says:—
I do not ask Her Majesty's Government what
steps they have taken, but I do say this, that they
will be deeply responsible if they are not fully
awake to the position in which this country is
placed by these two acts of the United States. If
the preponderating force upon the lakes should be
in the hands of the United States, it could only be
used for purposes of aggression. (Hear, hear.)
An attack on the part of Canada upon the United
States is a physical impossibility. The long frontier of Canada is peculiarly open
to aggression ;
and assailable as it is by land, unless there be a
preponderating force upon these lakes, you must
be prepared to place the province of Canada at
the disposal of the United States.
I prefer the appreciation of Lord DERBY,
and his opinion of the state of these affairs, to the ironical cheers or opinion
of my honorable friend from Chateauguay.
I place what the noble lord has said as to
the Confederation question in its relation to
the defence of these provinces and the
strength to be thereby added to the Government of England, before anything which he
or the other opponents of this scheme can
express. The noble lord says with regard
to the great measure itself :—
Under the circumstances I see, with additional
satisfaction, the announcement of a contemplated
step— I mean the proposed Federation of the
British North American Provinces. I hope I may
regard that Federation as a measure tending to
constitute a power strong enough, with the aid of
this country, which, I trust, may never be withdrawn from these provinces—to acquire
an importance which separately they could not obtain. If
I saw in this Federation a desire to separate from
this country, I should think it a matter of much
more doubtful policy and advantage ; but I perceive with satisfaction that no such
wish is entertained. Perhaps it is premature to discuss at this
moment resolutions not yet submitted to the different legislatures ; but hope I see
in the terms
of that Federation an earnest desire on the part
of the provinces to maintain for themselves the
blessing of the connection with this country, and
a determined and deliberate preference for monarchical over republican institutions.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Now, sir, could there
be anything more opportune ? This is the lan
guage of one of the ablest statesmen of England. Be united, he says, that you may
be
strong, and depend upon it you will have the
whole power of England to sustain you. Can
there be anything more cheering or encouraging to those who have taken an interest
in the
subject, than the language I have just quoted,
and which was uttered in the House of
Lords not three weeks ago ? (Hear, hear.)
And yet my honorable friend from Hochelaga
presumes to stand up here and tell us, in
effect, that we are so many children—that we
are deceived with the idea that we are going
to establish a great nation or Confederation of
provinces, and that there is nothing of that
kind in it; and he appeals to prejudices formerly entertained by members on this side
of
the House, in order that he may induce them
to withdraw their support from the important
measure which the Government has brought
down, and which the greatest statesmen of
England have stamped with their approval.
(Hear, hear.) Perhaps the House will indulge
me if I read a few more words from the discussion in the House of Lords upon the Speech
from the Throne. Earl GRANVILLE, the
President of the Council, said :—
And what ought to make us still more proud
of the good govemment which must undoubtedly
have prevailed amongst us, is to find that our
North American colonies, in expressing their
wish to continue their connexion with this country, and in adopting the new institutions
they
have been considering with such calm and prudent
statesmanship, have thought it desirable to keep
as close as possible to the constitution and institutions under which we so happily
live.
(Loud cheers.) He does not belittle the men
who have sacrificed so much, as honorable
gentlemen opposite are inclined to do. He
does not sneer at those who have gone into
the matter with the honest view of carrying it out ; but, on the contrary, he praises
their " calm and prudent statesmanship,"
and says that it is a matter of which they
may feel proud, and I say that those who
have taken part in originating and bringing this project to the present advanced
stage, may well feel proud of their work,
when the greatest statesmen of the world commend it as a thing of wonderful perfection,
considering the dificulties with which it is
surrounded. And these opinions were not
confined to any one party, but were uttered
by both liberals and conservatives. Lord
HOUGHTON said in the course of the same
debate :—
On the other side of the Atlantic the same impulse has manifested itself in the proposed,
amal
415
gamation of the Northern Provinces of British
America. I heartily concur with all that has
been said by my noble friend the mover of this
address in his laudation of that project. It is,
my lords, a most interesting contemplation that
that project has arisen and has been approved by
Her Majesty's Government. It is certainly contrary to what might be considered the
old
maxims of government in connection with the
colonies, that we should here express, and that
the Crown itself should express satisfaction at a
measure which tends to bind together in almost independent power our colonies in North
America.
We do still believe that though thus banded
together they will recognize the value of British
connection, and that while they will be safer in
this amalgamation we shall be as safe in their
fealty. The measure will, no doubt, my lords,
require much prudent consideration and great attention to prevent susceptibilities.
It will have
to deal with several British provinces, but with a
race almost foreign in their habits and origin. I
do hope it will ultimately succeed, and that the
French-Canadians forming part of this great integral North British American empire
will have
as much security and happiness as they can
attain.
Those who say that the people throughout
the country are opposed to this measure, I am
satisfied, know very little what the sentiment
of the country is. I believe there is a deep-
rooted sentiment of approbation of the steps
that have been taken. I know that those
who are perhaps most fearful with reference
to it, and whose interests are perhaps most in
jeopardy—the English speaking minority in
Lower Canada—have considered it carefully,
and with all their prejudices against it at the
outset, are now warmly in its favor. I speak
particularly of those who have great interests
at stake in the community which I represent
—the great and varied interests of commerce,
trade, banking, manufactures and material
progress generally, which are supposed to
centre in the city of Montreal. These men—
and there are none more competent in the
province—have considered the scheme in a
calm and business-like way, and have deliberately come to the conclusion that it is
calculated to promote the best interests and greatly
enhance the prosperity of this country. (Hear,
hear.) Well knowing that they are to be in a
minority in the Local Legislature, and to be cut
off, as it were, from those of their own race
and religion in Upper Canada, yet, after considering how the change is to affect the
important interests which they have at stake,
they are prepared to cast in their lot with the
measure, and endeavor to make it work harmoniously. (Hear, hear.) And I believe,
Mr. SPEAKER, that we have not a day to lose
in carrying out the project. I believe the
question of preparing for the defence of this
country is an imminent one. (Hear, hear.)
There is not, I repeat, a day or an hour to be
lost, and I believe that if this country is put
into a proper condition of defence, the union
will be the best safeguard we can have. If
our neighbors see that we have the means of
causing them to sit down on our frontier and
spend a summer before they can hope to make
any impression upon the country, we will then
be in a pretty good condition to defend ourselves. I trust that the blessings of peace
may long be preserved to us, that the good
feeling which ought to subsist between Canada and the United States may never be interrupted
; that two kindred nations which
have so many ties, so many interests, and so
many associations in common, may never become enemies, and I think that we ought to
make
every honorable concession in order to avert
the calamities of war. No man can appreciate the blessings of peace more than I do,
and no one is more alive to the horrors of war
than I am. But at the same time we cannot
conceal from ourselves the fact that within
the last three or four years we have several times been seriously threatened. It
is not in the power any of any man to say
when the cloud, which so darkly overshadows us, may burst in full fury on our
heads, and those who have the direction of
the destinies of this country ought to be prepared to do all that in them lies to
place it in
a position to meet that event. We cannot
recede from the position we have assumed.
We cannot go back, we must go forward ;
and it is certain to my mind that if what has
now been undertaken is not consummated, we
will regret it in years to come. I have but to
add one word more, and I must apologize to
the House for the time I have already occupied. (Cries of "Go on.") I am afraid I
have very much transgressed the limits I had
assigned to myself. There is but one point
more, and I have done. My honorable friend
opposite (Hon. Mr. DORION) says that this
scheme is ing to ruin us financially—that it
is financially unfair. But he has failed to
point out in what feature this can be regarded
as financially injurious to any particular section. There can be nothing fairer to
my
mind than that, in forming a partnership between these five provinces, the amount
of the
debt should be equalised at the time the partnership is formed, and that whatever
one is
short should be made up by an annual grant
to the other, not an increasing one but a fixed
416
sum. There can be nothing unfair in the
application of such a principle as that. Of
course the interest on the debt, whatever it
may be, must be met by taxation. " And,"
says my honorable friend, " the Lower Provinces are less able to pay taxation than
we
are, and therefore the great bulk of the taxation will have to come out of the inhabitants
of Upper and Lower Canada, and particularly
the merchants of the city of Montreal." Well,
sir, is not this just ? Is it not fair that the
richest portion of the community should pay
the most taxes ? Does my honorable friend
mean to say that those who consume most
ought not to pay most to the revenue ? And
if the people of Upper and Lower Canada are
larger consumers than the people of the Lower
Provinces, ought they not to contribute according to their consumption to the revenue
?
"But, oh," says my honorable friend, "the
people of the Lower Provinces get their
80 cents per head, and we get no more,
although we are much larger contributors
to the revenue." And, he adds, "the
amount to be derived from the contributions to the revenue by the Lower Provinces
will be very infinitesimal." But granted, for argument's sake, that this is so, I
think
we ought not to undervalue in this discussion
the collateral advantage which the control of
the fisheries will give to the united government in the union to be formed. Remember
that these fisheries will form an important
part in the future negotiations with the United States in reference to reciprocity,
which
Upper Canada attaches so much importance
to. Hence Canada in this union will have
the control of the policy in regard to the concession of fishing rights to the American
Government. And it is in this respect that
the future commercial position of the Upper
Canada farmer and the Lower Canada merchant will be enhanced by the fact that the
concession of the fisheries will procure for
them advantages in other branches of trade ;
for I repeat that the future policy will be directed in a great measure by the influence
wielded by Canada in the Confederation.—
(Hear, hear.) My honorable friend, however,
goes on to say, "But you are about to incur a
large amount of debt. Lower Canada entered
into the present union with a debt of only
$300,000 or $400,000, and the united debt
of the two provinces is now $67,000,000."
Well, sir, this is quite true. But Lower
Canada, when she entered the union, had only
a population of 600,000, and Upper Canada
a population of 400,000. There was not at
that time a mile of railway ; now there are
upwards of 2,000. (Hear, hear.) There was
hardly a light-house, and see how the St. Lawrence and lakes are lighted now from
Lake
Superior to Belleisle. (Hear, hear.) She went
into the union without a canal, and she has
now the finest canal system in the world.
(Hear, hear.) She had no educational system, and look at the state of education among
us at the present time. (Hear, hear.) She
was without a municipal system, and look at
the municipal institutions of Lower Canada
as they are to be found to-day. (Hear, hear.)
She went into the union with the seigniorial
tenure grinding as it were the people, and
weighing down the industry and enterprise of
the country ; and has not the seigniorial tenure
been abolished ? (Hear, hear.) Does not my
honorable friend see the advantages of all
these reforms and improvements ? And does
not my honorable friend know that of the
$62,000,000 which is regarded as Canada's
proportion of the joint debt, $49,000,000 and
more have been actually expended in and are
now positively represented by public works of
that value ?
HON. MR. ROSE—My honorable friend
says " Not in Lower Canada." But does he
not see that the chain of canals which have
been constructed to bring down the trade of
the West to Montreal and Quebec, is a benefit
of the most substantial kind to Lower Canada ?
(Hear, hear.) What but these very facilities
have increased the shipping of Montreal some
five hundred per cent. within the last few
years. Does my honorable friend mean to
say that the connection of the Grand Trunk
with the western railways of the United
States is not a benefit to Lower Canada?
Does he mean to assert that the slides constructed on the Ottawa so as to bring lumber
to Quebec is of no advantage to Lower Canada ? Surely he does not measure everything
that is done in the way of improvement by a
petty, narrow, sectional standard, which would
exact that unless a pound of money laid out
in a particular spot or locality benefited that
particular place, it was thrown away. Is
this the policy which he would like to see introduced into the new
régime ?
HON. MR. ROSE—Yes, we have also the
Victoria Bridge. And does my honorable
friend think that we would have had this
417
great work had the views he enunciates been
acted upon ?
HON. MR. ROSE—We cannot be left as
we are. I should be content, Mr. SPEAKER,
were I to live for twenty-five years after the
union now contemplated is consummated, I
should be content to know that I had taken a
humble part in bringing it about, if the prosperity of the country during the next
twenty-
five years under it were o y as great as during the twenty-five years that have past.
( Hear, hear.) My honorable friend seems to
think that the Intercolonial Railway is an undertaking of doubtful advantage, if it
is not
one of positive uselessness. But does my hon.
friend think we can safely continue in our
present position of commercial dependence on
the United States? Shall we be denied access to the seaboard for a bale of goods or
a
bag of letters ? Are we to be for all time to
come dependent on the fiscal legislation of the
United States ? Is it to come to this, that in
the winter season the Upper Canada farmer
shall have no means whereby he can send a
barrel of flour, or the Lower Canada merchant a bale of goods, to the seaboard, without
the leave of the United States ? Is my
honorable friend disposed to leave us in this
condition of commercial d dency for ever ?
I can hardly believe he will deliberately say
that we are to continue in such circumstances
as these—that under no conditions shall the
expense of constructing the Intercolonial Railway be incurred. I believe with him
that
that work is a great and grave undertaking,
and one that will involve a serious charge on
the wealth of the country. But then I contend that it is one which we cannot avoid—
it is a necessity. We must have it. It is
called for by military reasons and commercial
necessity, and the date of its construction cannot safely be postponed. Why, what
have we
not seen within a very recent period ? Restrictions have been put on goods sent through
the United States, by the establishment of
consular certificates, to such an extent that
you could not send a bale of goods through
the States without accompanying it with one
of these certificates, the cost of which I am
told was nearly $2—perhaps more than the
worth of the package, or more than the cost
of the freight. (Hear, hear.) Still further,
the Senate of the United States had also before them a motion to consider under what
regulations foreign merchandise is allowed to
pass in bond through the neighbouring counÂ
try ; and this was evidently done with an in
tention of abolishing the system under which
goods were permitted to pass in bond from
England through the United States. I do
not hesitate to say that if the bonding system
were done away with, half the merchants
in Canada would be seriously embarrassed
if not ruined for the time. (Hear, hear.)
In the winter season you could not send a
barrel of flour to England—you could not
receive a single package of goods therefrom.
The merchants would have to lay in a twelve
months' stock of goods, and the farmer would
be dependent on the condition of the market
in spring, and would be compelled to force
the sale of his produce at that moment,
whether there was a profitable market for it
then or not, instead of having as now a market at all seasons, as well in England
as the
United States. So that whatever sacrifices
attach to the construction of the Intercolonial
Railway, we must have it, seeing that it is
impossible for us to remain in our present
position of isolation and suspense. It is one
of the unfortunate incidents of our position
which we cannot get rid of. It will be a
costly undertaking, but it is one we must
make up our minds to pay for, and the sooner
we set about its construction the better.
HON. MR. ROSE—I have just done. I do
not hope to convert my honorable friend ; but
I desired to show how indispensable and how
desirable those communications are, and how
necessary it is that they should be effected.
No one can foresee what the future of the
neighboring States will be—whether they will
be reconstructed as one union, or split up into
two or more confederacies. They have a
dark and uncertain future before them, for
no one can doubt that no matter what their
condition as regards reconstruction may be,
they will have an enormous load of debt
weighing upon them, and that they will have
to encounter great difficulties before they
finally settle down into the same state of permanent security as formerly. If we are
alive
to the natural advantages of our position,
unless we deliberately throw them away, we
can, whatever that future may be, secure a
profitable intercourse with them. Unless the
St. Lawrence and Ottawa cease to flow, and
the lakes dry up, those roads to the ocean are
the natural outlets for the west, and we can
turn them to good account. We know some
418
thing of the great productiveness of the Western States. There is, in fact, no limit
to that
productiveness, and the necessity of their having another outlet to the sea, without
being
altogether dependent upon New York and Boston, is to my mind very plain. This necessity
of the powerful western interests must
have a controlling influence in the commercial policy of the United States ; and if
we
can direct the trade of the Western States
down the St. Lawrence by giving them additional facilities, it cannot be doubted that
we shall find therein a great element of security for the future peace of the two
countries.
This House will remember the resolutions, of
a couple of years ago, of the states of Wisconsin and Illinois in reference to this
question. These resolutions contained one or two
facts which are of the greatest importance,
as showing the necessity existing in the Western States for a channel of communication
through the St. Lawrence. The memorial
founded on it stated these facts :—
With one-tenth of the arable surface under cultivation, the product of wheat of the
North-Western States in 1862 is estimated at 150,000,000
of bushels ; and from our own State of Illinois
alone there has been shipped annually for the
last two years, a surplus of food sufficient to feed
ten millions of people. For several years past a
lamentable waste of crops actually harvested has
occurred in consequence of the inability of the
railways and canals leading to the seaboard to
take off the excess. The North-West seems already to have arrived at a point of production
beyond any possible capacity for transportation
which can be provided, except by the great natural outlets. It has for two successive
years
crowded the canals and railways with more
than 100,000,000 of bushels of rain, besides
immense quantities of other provisions, and vast
numbers of cattle and hogs. This increasing
volume of business cannot be maintained without
recourse to the natural outlet of the lakes. The
future prosperity of these states bordering on the
great lakes depends in a great measure on cheap
transportation to foreign markets ; hence they
are virtally intemsted in the question of opening
the St. Lawrence, the great natural thoroughfare
from the lakes to the ocean, through, and by
which the people of England may enlarge their
supplies o breadstuffs and provisions, greatly exceeding the quantity heretofore received
from
the United States, at one-fourth less cost than it
has heretofore been obtained. From actual experience derived from shipments of Indian
corn
from Chicago to Liverpool, it is shown that the
freight charges often covered seven-eighths of the
value of the bushel of corn at Liverpool ; more
than one-half of the cost of wheat is also often
consumed by the present very inadequate means
of transportation. The European customer for
our breadstuffs determines their price in all our
markets. The surplus of grain derived from the
North-West is fifty or sixty millions of bushels
beyond the demand of the Eastern States, and
when that surplus is carried to their markets, the
foreign quotations establish the value of the entire harvest. The interior of North
America is
drained by the St. Lawrence, which furnishes for
the country bordering upon the lakes a natural
highway to the sea. Through its deep channel
must pass the agricultural productions of the
vast lake region. The commercial spirit of the
age forbids that international jealousy should interfere with great natural thoroughfares,
and the
governments of Great Britain and the United
States will appreciate this spirit and cheerfully
yield to its influence. The great avenue to the
Atlantic through the St. Lawrence being once
opened to its largest capability, the laws of
trade, which it has now been the policy of the
Federal Government to obstruct, will carry the
commerce of the North-West through it.
I say, then, give us the Intercolonial Railway,
give us the command of the St. Lawrence,
give us a government by which we can direct
our national policy, give us the control of the
fisheries, and we will be able to secure such
reciprocal trade with the United States for
Upper Canada as it requires. But if we are
disunited—if the Lower Provinces retain the
control of the fisheries, and Canada has nothing
to give in exchange for the concession she
seeks from the United States in the way of
commercial intercourse, in breadstuffs and
otherwise—I say that in such a case as this
we are very much hampered indeed. I have
detained the House very much longer than I
intended, and I fear that I have exhausted
the patience of honorable members. (Cries
of " No, no," and "go on.") I have fallen
into the same error which has been attributed
to others. But there is a single observation
I desire to offer in conclusion, and it has
reference to the demand made by some honorable members, that there should be a dissolution
before the question is finally decided.
Well, sir, time presses. We have, and I cannot repeat it too often, not a day or an
hour
to lose in undertaking those great works of
defence which may be absolutely necessary to
our existence.
HON. MR. ROSE—Does any honorable
gentleman know, or, if he does know, ought
he to say publicly where they are to be ? All
we know is that there must be a large outlay
419
on the defences of the country, of which the
Lower Provinces will bear their share and
the Imperial Government will bear its share ;
but how do I know, or ought any honorable
gentleman here to enquire if I did, whether
these works will be at Point LĂ©vis, at Montreal, at Kingston, at Toronto, or where?
But that there are to be works, and extensive
works necessary to be constructed, so as to
check sudden conquest or invasion, does not
admit of a doubt. Does not the honorable
gentleman know that there have been out
here time and again eminent military officers,
under directions from the Imperial Government, to ascertain where would be the best
points for the erection of those fortifications?
HON. MR. ROSE—I hope as much as
may be necessary and fair. (Cheers.) For
my part—and I know that this feeling is
shared in by every honorable member who
hears me— I am prepared not only to stake the
money of others, but, if necessary, to expend
my last shilling on these works, if they are
declared to be essential for the defence of the
country. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I consider such precautions as much a necessity
as
insuring one's house against fire. If the honorable gentleman means to say that, in
providing for the continuance of our national existence, the people would bargain
whether they
should give a hundred pounds or a thousand
pounds, I can assure him he knows very little
of the spirit of the country. The people are
prepared to tax themselves to the extent of
their last shilling in order to defend themselves
against aggression. (Hear, hear.) I do not
pretend to know anything of military operations, but any man with a head on his shoulders
must see that there must be works of some
kind constructed to enable us to resist aggression.
MR. WALLBRIDGE—I pretend to have
a head on my shoulders as well as the honorable gentleman, and I would ask him whether
the railway, which is made part of the Constitution, is considered part of the works
he
alludes to or not?
HON. MR. ROSE—I do not think the
Intercolonial Railway is part of the Constitution, but its construction is provided
for, and
a railway from such point as shall be considered on the whole best, both in reference
to commercial considerations and military considerations, is indispensable ; and what
is
more, I believe the country will cheerfully
bear the expense. (Hear, hear.) But in
regard to the question of an appeal to the
people, I would just ask, is there a single
member of this House who does not already
know what is the feeling of his constituents
on this question, who is not aware whether
they are or the union or against the union ?
Is there a member who does not know what
his constituents desire in respect to it, and
who is not himself prepared to take the responsibility of his vote ? I believe there
is
not. And does any honorable gentleman
think that if there was to be a dissolution and
an appeal to the country on this question, the
elections would turn upon the scheme itself,
that there would not be individual predilections, personal questions, and local questions
affecting the elections, far more than Confederation ? And would it not be most anomalous
to elect a Parliament, the first vote given by
which would be its own death ? The sole
business of the new Parliament would be to
agree upon a Constitution which should
annihilate itself. There is something so
anomalous, almost unconstitutional and absurd
in such a step, that I think it could not commend itself to the common sense of the
country. I think we are already sufficiently
aware of what the feeling—the mature and
dispassionate feeling—the calm conviction
and views of the country are, and that too
after an intelligent appreciation of it in all its
bearings, and I do not think there is anything
to be gained, but on the contrary much to be
imperilled by the expense and delay of an
election. I know that in my own constituency
—not the least important in the province—this
conclusion has been come to, not from any inconsiderate love of change—not from any
ardent and temporary impulse or vague aspirations to be part in name of a future nation,
at the risk of imperilling their relations with
England or of injury to their interests, but I
believe the scheme is stamped with their approval, because their reason and judgment
convince them that it is not only desirable but
a necessity of our condition. (Hear, hear.)
I again apologise for the time I have occupied
the attention of the House, and express my
thanks for the kind consideration honorable
members have extended to me. (Loud cheers.)
HON. MR. HOLTON—I would like to say
a word, and only a word, before the motion
to adjourn the debate is put. I have listened
with very great attention to the speech of my
honorable friend from Montreal Centre, a
large portion of which was devoted to the
420
subject of the defences of the country. I admit to the full the importance of that
subject,
but I maintain that as yet we are not in a
position to give the proper weight to the arguments of my honorable friend and of
other
honorable gentlemen on that question, that
in fact we are hardly in a position to consider
the subject at all ; and I do maintain that it
is hardly fair to introduce it as an element
into this discussion, so long as the Government
withhold from us the official information
which may be assumed to be in their possession on that subject. I have risen, therefore,
to express the hope that the honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches will see
the
propriety of submitting to this House the
fullest possible information on that subject.
(Hear, hear.) I am sure my honorable friend
who has just taken his seat will himself admit
the force of what I am now urging, and that
we cannot give the consideration he asks to
that branch of the general subject of Confederation without having the amplest information
that the Government can give us with
regard to it. I would, therefore, express the
desire—which I am sure is shared by a large
number of the honorable members who sit
around me—that at once, before we proceed
further in this debate, this important information should be submitted to the House
in a
distinct form. (Hear, hear.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—My
honorable friend from Chateauguay (Hon. Mr.
HOLTON) has very properly called the attention of the Government to the necessity
of
having laid before this House information as
to the amount we shall have to appropriate
for the defences of the country. It is well
known that Imperial officers were sent out
some time ago to make a survey, and report
on the defensive condition of this country,
and the best points at which to build fortifications—the
points d'appui, where in cases of
disaster we should be obliged to take shelter,
if the enemy drove us into our garrisons. The
report of these offficers was made before I left
office, more than a year ago. Surely during
that time, with such a loyal administration as
that composed of the honorable gentlemen
now on the Treasury benches, the secret of
the amount of the appropriation that will be
required at our hands has not been kept from
them. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me that
this is a branch of the question to which we
must address ourselves, before we are in a
condition to deal satisfactorily with the general subject. It is a principle of the
British
Constitution that the appropriation of any
moneys from the taxes paid by the people,
shall be at the disposal of Parliament. We
have a right therefore to know, at the earliest
possible period, before we go blindly into this
scheme of Confederation, what we are called
upon to appropriate in connection with this
matter. (Hear, hear.) And there is another
point on which, as yet, we have had no information, beyond what was given tonight
when
the hon. member for South Oxford answered
me in his curt way. The Government may as
well at an early date—I mean the portion of
the Government who will have to speak for
Upper Canada, and who are especially responsible for the acts of the Administration
with
reference to that section of the province—
give their attention to the question how far
the Catholics of Upper Canada are to be
placed in the position of maintaining their
schools and claiming their portion of the
public funds, and enjoying generally the
same privileges which are to be enjoyed, according to the declaration of the Honorable
Attorney General East, by the Protestants of
Lower Canada. I express no opinion at this
time as to the propriety of the demands made
by the Protestants of Lower Canada, or as to
what I shall be prepared to do when that question comes up. Nor do I express now any
opinion as to the propriety of giving the Catholics of Upper Canada more rights than
they have got. But I say the Government
ought to address themselves at once to the
question, whether they are to make the same
provision for the Catholics of Upper Canada,
as for the Protestants of Lower Canada. This
is a matter which comes home to the feelings
of the Catholics of Upper Canada, and they
have here at this moment delegates to express
their opinions. No doubt, to enforce what
they conceive to be their own rights, they
will use as a lever the proposition to extend
to the Protestants of Lower Canada the privileges which they claim as their due. And
depend upon it, that when the time comes for
the Protestants of Lower Canada to ask what
they assert to be their rights, they will be expected to stand up also for the Catholics
of
Upper Canada, and to deal out to them the
same justice which they expect the Catholics
of Lower Canada to extend to them.
HON. MR. BROWN —My honorable friend
from Cornwall does not of course agree himself with the views he is now urging . I
think
he ought to wait till the parties he speaks for
ask him to express their views, or allow them
to get as their advocate one who does share
their views. He surely does not want to urge
421
views upon us in which he does not sympathise
himself.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—Is my honorable friend ignorant of the resolutions which
have been passed by the Catholics of Upper
Canada ? Is he ignorant that Vicar-General
MCDONNELL of Kingston is here at the
Palace, to give effect to them ? And does he
say that whatever opinions I may entertain on
the question, I must not presume to ask the
Government to state their intentions with
regard to it ? Their answer should not be
delayed on the plea set up to-night by the
President of the Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN),
that they are to consider the matter. It is a
matter worthy of consideration, and I press it
on the attention of the Government in order
that they may be prepared, for it must come.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I want the
gentlemen on the Treasury benches, when
the question is brought up and put to them,
to be prepared to say what they are to do with
reference to the Catholic minority of Upper
Canada, as the Attorney General East has
manfully stated what he will do for the Protestant minority of Lower Canada. (Hear,
hear.) I have never come to this House to
act as the champion of any religious sect. I
have come to do justice to all parties, and I
claim that we are entitled to understand, when
it is intended to make distinctions for the
benefit of the minority in one section of the
province, whether similar distinctions are to
be made also for the benefit of the minority
in the other section. (Hear, hear.)
The motion for adjourning the debate was
then agreed to.
This individual participated in:
