Arthur Aimé BRUNEAU

BRUNEAU, Arthur Aimé

Personal Data

Richelieu (Quebec)
Birth Date
March 4, 1864
Deceased Date
December 1, 1940

Parliamentary Career

January 11, 1892 - April 24, 1896
  Richelieu (Quebec)
June 23, 1896 - October 9, 1900
  Richelieu (Quebec)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
  Richelieu (Quebec)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
  Richelieu (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 6)

April 14, 1905

Mr. A. A. BRTJNEAU (Richelieu).

(Translation). Mr. Speaker, the constitution grants us the right to speak French in this House, and I hasten to avail myself of this privil-edge, for, considering the turn political events are taking in this country, if we are to believe Mr. Crawford, who spoke the other day at the Annual Banquet of the Orangemen in Toronto, it is evident that our right to speak French in this House will before long be questioned. When that time comes, in order to justify such an injustice, the constitution will not be appealed to : but it will be stated that we speak English as readily as French, that we are not in the habit of speaking French here and that it is a source of expense to publish a French edition of the ' Hansard.' Of course, the proposal will be rejected, but the occasion will be a favourable one to stir up national prejudices against the so-called French domination ; for. as soon the rights of our race are acknowledged, the cry of French dom-

and it will thus render at least improbable any of those complications which have harassed the political discussions of the last few years. With the form of government settled in advance, and with the machinery provided for its coming into practical operation without further legislation, and by the force simply of advancing settlement any immigrant settling in the country will do so with the full knowledge of the institutions under which he is to live, and will assume, therefore, a voluntary allegiance to those institutions. But if it is wise to do, as Mr. Mackenzie proposes doing then it would certainly be wise to allow rmple time for the consideration of the measure by which he proposes to do it. The establishment of the system of government which in the future is to prevavl in these vast territories is a work which cannot be ether than difficult. At the very outset we bed evidence of how important this delay is.

In the Bill, as prepared, the government had omitted all reference to the important subject of education, and all provision for the avoidance of those difficulties which at this moment an- doing so much harm in New Brunswick. True after it was printed Mr. Mackenzie dis-covei'ed the omission and submitted a manuscript clause to cover it.

The ' Gaz tte ' wanted time to consider the measure ; but it approved of its principle, and even, as may be seen, ot the clause establishing separate schools. According to that newspaper other matteis such as those dealt with in the clause relative to separate schools had possiblj been overlooked, and for that reason it wanted the discussion of the measure to be postponed until the session of 1870.

Under the heading 'The Work ot the session,' the ' National ' on the date ot April 10th', 1875, referred once more to the question in the following terms :

Peace is restored in the Northwest Territories and hence it has deemed necessary to organize them. The government has set to work at once, and to-day there is m our stat ute books, an Act which grants to that vast territory a constitution providing tor its lm mediate requirements. The headquarters of the government will be Fort Pelly. Those of cur readers who follow closely what appears fn our columns will remember that in the constitution granted to these provinces is mclud-ed-and we called attention to the fact some time ago-a clause establishing separate

schools.8 However, Conservative newspapers

in the province of Quebec have refrained from commenting on the subject. Of course they refer to the policy of the government only when an opportunity offers for abuse , and one of the leading organs of the Conservative party, the Toronto 'Leader,' has viciously assailed the hon. Mr. Mackenzie and the Catholics, bv contending that the Prime Minister was being led by the latter who were not worthy of life rope of the hangman. When we read such stuff published in a Conservative newspaper, we cannot but be surprised a \\ nessing in our times this alliance e vv Catholics and Orangemen.

On the first of April, 1875, in the couise of a violent article against French domin-Mr. BRUNEAU.

ation, the ' Daily Telegraph,' of St. John, N.B., stated r

It is owing to their influence that we see the best lands in Manitoba reserved for a few half-breeds, and the new province of Saskatchewan saddled with the perpetual curse or a separate school system.

The Ottawa ' Citizen ' did not at the time make such a fuss, as it is doing to-day. On the Otli of April, 1875, the day following the prorogation of parliament, it expressed itself in these terms :

The Bill to amend and consolidate the laws respecting the Northwest Territory received very little opposition, the chief objection to it involved a very large annual outlay for officials, &c.

Was 'the chief objection' separate schools ? No. In 1875 and 1878, at the time of the general election, the Mackenzie gov -ernment was accused of having prematurely taken up the task of organizing the Northwest Territories, with a view to finding positions for their friends.

But 1 shall request hon. members to look into the ' Mail,' which was the organ of Sir John Macdonald at the time, and, to their great satisfaction, no doubt, they will find that the legislation of 1875 was highly approved of by the great Toronto newspaper.

' Tempora mutantur ! '

The 'Mail' of April 19th, 187o, approved of the Mackenzie Act in the following terms.

separate schools in the northwest territory.

It is amazing that to some men experience brings no wisdom. There is Mr. George Brown who used to ride so high a Protestant horse in the old days in Upper Canada. He wound un his agitation against separate schools by guaranteeing their continued existence and support by means of a clause of the British North America Act based upon one of the resolutions of the Quebec conference to which ho was a consenting party. By their Northwest Territories Bill the present government provide that separate schools may he established in those Territories. The proposal we regard as eminently wise, and with the expedience which he bad had, Mr. Brown should have been the last man to oppose it. Yet he had not only opposed the principle itself, but appealed to the British North America Act as containing sound legal objections to the course proposed to be taken by the government. He said- He thought this provision was quite contrary to the British North America Act. Nothing w-as more clear than that each province should have absolute control over education He thought that was the only principle on which this Union Act could continue If ,)ie Dominion government interfered with local matters we should get into inextricable confusion with the provinces. The safe way for us was to let each province suit itself in such matters. This country was filled by people of all classes and creeds, and there would be no end of confusion if each class had to have its own peculiar school system. It had been said this clause was put in for the protection of the Protestants against the Catno-


-lies, the latter being the most numerous. But he, speaking for the Protestants, was in a position to say that we did not want that protection. In this case it was proposed that the national machinery should be used for the imposition and collection of taxes upon persons of peculiar denominations for the support of schools of their kind. It was an attempt to enforce upon that country peculiar views with regard to education.

Tlie ' Mail ' goes on :

We fear Mr. Brown is no better lawyer than his friend Mr. Alexander Mackenzie. We do not doubt that Senator Miller took the correct view when he said that the clause referred to by Mr. Brown applied only to the provinces which were in the union at the time the Act was passed. Every one may see how fortunate a thing it would have been if the school question had been put on a stable basis in New Brunswick, and if by the Northwest Act the government should have prevented future burnings on educational matters in the great new country which belongs to us in the far west, they will have done a good work indeed. We cordially endorse their action in this matter. .

Such was Sir John Macdonald's policy ; such was the policy he stood up for in 1890, when in this House, on the 17th February, he uttered the following words which I find at page 748 of the Hansard :

You might remember, Sir, that when the Hon. George Brown brought his immense force and ability and unsurpassed energy to lead the Reform party of old Upper Canada, his whole aim was oppression to the French. Every speech he made, every article that he wrote in the ' Globe,' every resolution almost which he moved, was a denunciation of the French law, the French language and the Catholic religion ; and because we, the Conservatives, opposed him with all our might and all our vigour, we were in a minority in our province. Again and again have the best and the strongest of our Conservatives been defeated at the polls, simply because we would not do injustice to our French fellow-countrymen. Again and again have we been put in a minority because we declined to join in that crusade against the French Canadians, against the Catholic religion, and against French Institutions. Again and again have I been misrepresented and called the slave of popery, and told that I had sold myself to the French of Lower Canada and was sacrificing my own race, my own religion and my own people, because, without a moment of hesitation, without swerving for an instant, I and those who followed me-for even when I was not the nominal leader, I greatly directed the course of the Conservative party-declined, from no personal motive or desire of popularity-the popular cry was raised against the French Canadians in Upper Canada then as it is in Ontario to-day-to do an injustice to our French Canadian fellow-citizens.

And a little further on, same page :

Does the hon. gentleman not remember when the agitation was raised in Upper Canada on a very specious cry-the question of representation by population .... that the Conservative party opposed that cry, specious and

popular as it was ? And why did we oppose it ? Because the avowed object was to crush and oppress our French Canadian subjects.

On the day following the pulication of the article in the ' Mail ' to which I have just referred. The Toronto ' Daily Leader ' published a letter from one Charles Durand, a French Protestant, presumably in answer to the ' Mail,' under the heading : ' Is the

Conservative party in favour of the separate schools in the Northwest ? ' In Mr. Durand's opinion, the ouly good political deed to he put to the credit of Mr. Brown since 1875, was the vote he had cast in the Senate against that clause of the Bill granting separate schools to the Northwest. That extremest even went so far as to blame Mr. Brown for permitting the establishment of denominational schools in Ontario, at the time of confederation. It is useless to add that this correspondent severely criticised those poor separate schools.

On the 21st of April, 1875, the ' Leader ' took up once more the subject of separate schools in the Northwest, stating that the Conservative party of Ontario was in great majority opposed to such an objectionable system.

Oil the other hand, the Chatham ' Planet ' expressed itself at the time in the same sense as the lion Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) did a few days ago.

Separate schools was a vexed question for twenty years, and now let us have peace.

On April 23rd, 1875, the ' Minerve,' that good principled organ, fearing lest it should lose its old vantage ground, religion, and forgetful of ministerial responsibility, claimed for the Conservative party credit and honour for having established separate schools in the Northwest Territories. The article reads as follows

Liberal newspapers are endeavouring to take advantage of the fact that separate schools are in existence in the new western province, and are claiming credit on this account for their leader. They forget that this clause was strongly objected to in the Senate by the leaders of the Grit party, Messrs. George Brown, Christie and Letellier, and had it not been for the assistance given by Conservative senators it would have been defeated.

The Toronto ' Mail ' and the majority of the Conservative newspapers in Upper Canada have approved of this clause and of the principle of separate schools therein contained. The ' National ' quotes from the ' Mail,' the organ of Sir John, in the following terms :

The article of the ' Mail ' is just here reproduced by the ' Minerve.' On the 26th of April, the ' Minerve ' realizing that the Mackenzie government had deprived it of its favourite weapon, again referred to the subject, in the following hypocritical fashion :

The ' National ' persists in claiming credit for its masters on account of the clause of the Northwest Bill which provides for the es-

tabiishment of separate schools in the future province of Saskatchewan. Our pious contemporary forgets that Mr. Mackenzie's original Bill did not contain a single word on the subject. It was later on only that the Prime Minister agreed to have that clause added in compliance with representations which were made to him. The Bill was already printed.

The ' National,' on the next day, made the following reply :

The ' Minerve ' states that we persist in claiming credit for our party for the establishment of the clause in the Northwest Bills which provides for separate schools in the future province of Saskatchewan.

Well, yes, brother, we stick to our statements because they are true and well grounded. On giving notice of the introduction of the Bill, concerning the Northwest Territories, the hon. Mr. Mackenzie added, in the midst of applause, that the new Act would ensure to the various denominations a system of schools in harmony with the interests of each one of them.

The members have heard, as we have, the statement made on that occasion, and are in a position to support our claim. The Bill, it is true, has been submitted to the House without that clause concerning the schools, but Mr. Mackenzie explained that the matter had suggested itself to him on going into the question of taxation and that, in Committee of the Whole, he would introduce a clause establishing separate schools. The clause was introduced verbally instead of being written into the Bill. To the hon. Mr. Mackenzie, therefore belongs the credit of having enacted this new statutory provision.

Is Mr. Masson, Mr. Mousseau, Mr. Baby, or any other of their friends the originator of that clause ? The ' Minerve ' refers also to representations made to the Prime Minister. We are not of opinion that any such representations have been made, hut it is quite certain that in this respect, as well, Conservatives cannot claim any credit for themselves. The opposition, however green it may be, would not have offered any suggestions to the Prime Minister on a subject which afforded such a fine opportunity for making political capital. Instead of suggesting to the minister the propriety of settling beforehand the school question in the Northwest, Mr. Masson would certainly have moved an amendment in that direction and claimed credit on that account for his party.

The ' Courier de St. Hyacintlie,' another high principled organ of those times, now took a hand in the fray and flew to the rescue of the ' Minerve.' On the 26th of April, 1875, tile old goddess, with complacency reproduces the ' Courier's ' little song :

The Toronto ' Mail,' the leading organ of the Conservative party in Upper Canada, unhesitatingly endorses the principle of separate schools contained in the Act organizing into a new province part of the Northwest Territories. On the other hand, it condemns the opposition made to it by George Brown, who, as is known, took a decided stand against the adoption of that protective clause Introduced as an afterthought in the Prime Minister's Bill. The famous treaty-maker, guided on this occasion by the doctrines which have always in-Mr. BRUNEAU.

expired his paper, and by his own hatred for all that pertains, from far or near, to the Roman Catholic church, would have put Catholics in the Northwest under the same unfavourable conditions which-militate against New Brunswick. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward. Island. Fortunately that proposal of the old. chieftain has not been agreed to. Its adoption would have been a grievous political mistake which would have allayed the progress of settlement in those far-off regions, and which would have become a source of embarrassment for the Dominion government.

On April 28th, 1.S75, tlie ' Minervey deals with the subject once more, apologizes for the Toronto ' Leader,' and claims that the ' Mail ' is the organ of Sir John and that the Conservative party is in favour of separate schools. The Toronto ' Leader ' dealt with the subject in a sense directly opposite to that of its ultramontane, ally, as may be seen by a perusal of its columns.

The ' National,' on April 24, 1875, exposes, in the following terms, the falsehoods of the 'Minerve :

Full View Permalink

March 13, 1905

Mr. A. A. BRUNEAU (Richelieu).

(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the motion of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) is not a new question. He said that colonial representation in the Imperial parliament has been asked for years ago, and in order to prove his statement, the hon. member quoted the opinion set forth in 1851 by the Hon. Joseph Howe. My hon. friend could have gone back twenty years further in the history, when this question was discussed in England. In 1831, when Lord Grey's government introduced their Parliamentary Reform Bill, that question of colonial representation into the Imperial parliament was discussed for the first time. As the number of members of the House of Commons in England was to be reduced by thirty-two through that Bill, it was suggested to make up the difference by granting representation to the British colonies. As the effect of that measure was to be more especially detrimental to the Tory members, Mr. Hume introduced, on the 16th August, 1831, a motion to the effect that the colonies should be represented. But, before that proposition was made, the British press had discussed the question and, strange to say, the reasons given at that time were about the same as those that might be brought to-day in favour of my hon. friend's motion. They wanted colonial representation in the Imperial parliament for the very reason alleged by the hon. member ; they claimed that India and the other colonies with their immense population should necessarily be represented in the Imperial parliament, in order to submit to that parliament their complaints and grievances. Such representation, it was said, would be a desirable innovation, because it would cause the colonies to share in the settlement of matters of Imperial concern. British capital had been invested in these colonies and it was only fair, they added, to allow them to be represented in order to give that capital an opportunity of safeguarding their interests at a given moment.

As regards the members making up that representation, their numbers were not to

Topic:   MABC1I 13, 1905
Full View Permalink

March 13, 1905


you going to base it on population ? If you are, you will obtain a perfectly absurd political system, since the colonies would then rule over the sovereign states.

The ' Herald,' of Montreal, which was at that time the organ of the Tory party, entirely approved of the plan submitted by Mr. LaterriSre. ' La Minerve ' disapproved of it.

But the reason set forth in 1831 by Mr. LaterriSre in support of his plea for colonial representation no longer exist. Through changes which have taken place in the Foreign Office of the mother country, a broad and far-seeing policy has been adopted ; England has discarded old prejudices, and better days have dawned for the French Canadians. And that is why we salute her flag with as much respect as we revere the parliamentary institutions which she granted to us after 1837.

No, foreign gold has not been the cause of Lower Canada's uprising in 1837. Our ancestors did not sell themselves. They fought for their rights. Compare the causes which brought about the revolution of 1688 in England and those which brought about the war of independence in America in 1776, with the causes which brought about our own rebellion in 1837, and nobody will be found to defend the colonial system as it then existed.

England lirfs understood at last that her old colonial policy was not in harmony with the spirit and needs of the times, and we have become, shielded by her powerful i arm and under her kindly guidance, one of the happiest countries in the world.

We make our own laws, and as far as I have been able to judge from a personal experience extending over nearly fourteen years, we are succeeding fairly well at it, especially since the Liberal party have come into power.

We have cut up, and are continuing to cut up our country with canals and railways. Me are spending a good deal more money on agriculture than on military barracks.

We are not sinking, as they are in Europe, under the weight of permanent armies. Our favourite arm is the pioneer's axe, a more powerful factor in colonization, in my humble opinion, that the most destructive war engines, including even Krupp or Creusot guns.

We enjoy responsible government, and above ail we enjoy provincial autonomy. Under the constitution, each province has its attributes, its rights and its privileges, and these enable us French Canadians who are the great majority in the province of Quebec, to preserve our civil, political and religious rights.

But if the reasons given by Laterrifere in support of his plea for colonial representation in 1831 do not hold any longer, the same objections which were then made to 1

that proposal have still their full force in 1905.

The hon. member for Victoria and Hali-burton has not quoted a single historical precedent in support of his claim. Of course, he stated that the United States were under a federal system as is the case with Canada ; but that does not show the necessity of our being represented in the Imperial parliament. I find only one precedent, and it is in contradiction with the principle of the motion introduced by my hon. friend. The downfall of the Roman commonwealth was the result of the taking in of the allied Italian states. Towards the decline of the Roman republic its allies, who had supported the greater part of the burden of the war, wished to be admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges of Roman citizenship. Civil war was the result of the refusal. In the course of the war which ensued, these privileges were granted to a great number of these nations, piecemeal, as they severed their connection with the general confederacy.

But to-day, thank God, we enjoy all the privileges of British citizenship and these should suffice. On the other hand who is anxious to obtain such representation ? Without in the least wishing to offend the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, who has introduced his motion in very moderate terms, I might observe that he is more of an Englishman than the King himself ; somewhat the same compliment as used to be paid formerly to the Ultra-montaues in the province of Quebec : That they were greater Catholics than the Pope.

The hon. member stated that if we were more closely united to England, the flow of immigration towards Canada would be much greater-and that was the part of his speech which struck me most. It seems to me the correctness of such a statement is very doubtful and would require to be more fully demonstrated.

The reasons given by Labouehere still hold ; and I consider as he did that such a system is impracticable and utterly unworkable. The duty we owe to the empire is totally different from that we owe to the colony. Do you wish to have the proof of this ? I was not in the House at rhe time, but I appeal to the memory of old parliamentarians in our midst, such as the hon member for Victoria (Mr. Costigan). the right hon. Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson). When, in 1879, the protective policy was adopted, is it not the case that a party in the House objected on the ground that British connection would be injured, that Great Britain would suffer ? What was the reply ? Let British connection perish, rather than let protection go !

You may like, Mr. Speaker, to know something of the views expressed by the newspapers of the country regarding the motion introduced by the hon. member for Victoria

- [DOT] v|

placed by tlie Act of British North America ; and sooner or later the British North America Act will be replaced by some other constitution on whose first page will be inscribed in glowing letters either the principles of Imperialism as advocated by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, or those of Nationalism, so eloquently propounded by the hon. member for Labelle, or those of independence. .

In 1791 the two Canadas were separated because it was believed that Bower Canada would treat upper Canada unfairly if united with it, as Bower Canada had a larger population. That constitution after all lasted a half century only. The union of Upper and Bower Canada, forced on the latter to make pay a share of the former's indebtedness, lasted only twenty-seven years. The British North America Act replaced it, and sooner or later-witness the history of the whole world from time immemorial as well as ours-that constitution will be replaced by some other. The hon. member for Victoria and Ilalibur-ton hopes to see the colonial tie last for ever. The hon. member for Babelle (Mr. Bourassa) defends the nationalistic principle ; others wish to see the principle of Independence condemned by the hon. member for Brantford, come out with flying colours. And lastly others, although in small numbers and without a voice in this House-would like to see Canada merged into the United States.

Bet me then define, in a few words, the principles of Imperialism, Nationalism and Independence. Imperialism as defined by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, means the unification of the empire. That is to say England first, England second, England always. That is why Imperialists are opposed to Home Rule for Ireland. They wish the colonies to contribute to the military and naval defence of the empire, in opposition to the policy advocated at the colonial conference by the Canadian ministers.

However, recognizing the British political

principle : No taxation without representation, they ask, through the hon. member, colonial representation,- in order to obtain the unification of the empire and our contribution to its naval and military defence. They want a Zollverein, which will make of the metropolis and its colonies a single and permanent commercial entity.

In July, 1904, Mr. Chamberlain said at Rochester : * I believe we could attain the

great object of imperial federation by putting our people in contact with that of the colonies and that our commerce would be greatly benefited thereby.'

Then commercial federation, as the preliminary step towards the political and military federation of the empire, such is the object pursued by Mr. Chamberlain. England first, England second. England all the time.

To these principles of Imperalism which Mr. BRUNEAU.

I merely enunciate without expressing any opinion as to their merits not more than regarding the merits of Nationalism or Independence, let us now oppose the Nationalist principles which are summed up in Canada first, Canada again, Canada always. Any expenditure undergone by Canada must be for the benefit of Canada.

Accordingly, they have seen with pleasure England recall her troops from the military posts at Halifax and Esquimau. They are favourable to the passing of a commercial treaty with England, which would ensure to both countries reciprocal advantages. They allege that we owe nothing to England. It is not for our benefit, say the Nationalists, that she has conquered India, Egypt, the Soudan, the Transvaal, since, according to Sir Charles Dilke, the British fleet exists for the protection of commerce and not for that of the colonies. They claim for Canada the right to make her treaties subject to ratification by England. They also claim for Canada the greatest measure of independence consistent with the maintenance of the colonial tie. That is why they have approved the appointment of a Canadian officer commanding ; that is why they approve of the provision under which our militia cannot be sent outside of Canadian territory except for the defence of the country. That is why they have approved of the dismissal of Bord Dundonald.

As for those who want independence, they give reasons very different from those given by the hon. member for Brantford. Advocates of independence desire Canada to be a sovereign and perfectly free state. I am not expressing any opinion as to the merits of these various policies ; but I think it might be of some benefit to the House to make known the grounds on which independence is claimed for Canada. It must be admitted that England by handing over to us Halifax and Esquimau has furnished to the advocates of Canadian independence a strong argument, especially if we do not lose sight of the Monroe doctrine propounded by the neighbouring Republic. In accordance with that doctrine, the United States are bound to protect the countries of tins continent against all foreign aggression. Allow me to quote the words of a man who has occupied a prominent position in Canada, and who was a warm advocate of independence :

When Washington, liberator of the United States, stood up for Independence, the population of the thirteen states numbered 2,000,000 only ; their budget was for $S,000,000 only. What progress in the lapse of one century ! People from all over the earth throng towards its borders and take their share of the sumptuous banouet offered for t'heir subsistence. The territory of the Republic is cut up in all directions by railways and canals, which are in such great need for the transportation of products that they hardly suffice to carry them from one end of the Union to the other. And the European nations bless from day to day


this prosperous Republic which distributes to them, in abundance, gold, raw material, bread, life. The resources of that nation are incalculable. She could give no better proof of it than the way in which she paid up her public debt as rapidly as it had been contracted.

Never has their been a people to show greater ambition, a greater spirit of enterprise, a keener faith in the incredible energy of the human will. Where will they stop ? The wave rolls on with increasing force gathering into the Republic the varying elements swirled into the ocean of its material prosperity. Their wealth and their population are en-creasing at an unheard of rate. Now do you think that i'f the colonies of New England had remained in^ tutelage they would have found such an unlimited scope for development and attained such marvellous results ? Do you suppose for one single moment that if the United States had been held back by the colonial tie, their.genius would have been a-s free, their spirit of enterprise as daring and sublime ? Would they have become in such a short time one of the richest, of the most powerful and of the most .respected nations of the earth, if they had remained colonies ?

Such are the reasons urged by those who want independence for' Canada. They want a sovereign and free Canada.

Let rue quote the following words uttered by Mr. Chamberlain, at Rochester, on Julv 26th, 1001 :

We are speaking of our colonies. You know, ladies and gentleman, that these colonies are not ours, inasmuch as we have no right of ownership over them. The colonies are states absolutely independent. Nothing could prevent them front cutting themselves away from us to-morrow. We would not be in a position, we would not dare, to keep them back by force. They are bound to us by a voluntary tie, the obligations of which have never been heretofore well defined. Had they refused to contribute a single man or a single penny (to help England in the South African war), we would have had no ground for complaint.

Such are the reasons given in support of the principles of Imperialism, Nationalism or Independence.

I do not think there is any necessity of speaking of those who favour annexation to the United States, as their numbers are too small; but allow me, Sir, before concluding, to state once more that we are opposed to the principle of colonial representation for the reasons I have just given. And in so stating, I am the spokesman of the people of my own nationality. However, we do not oppose it impelled by any feeling of disloyalty to the British Crown, as suggested by certain newspapers in Canada who are inimical to us. Some people consider us French Canadians as an obstacle to national unity. In the meantime, we have more than once safeguarded that national unity. Less than a quarter of a century after we had been ceded to England, there was an uprising of the American colonies. At the time we had no very great reason to cherish the 77

military and civil officers which our new metropolis had sent to replace the French governors. Our hearts were still bleeding, and our only solace was the guarantees contained in the treaties. Nevertheless, at the command of our leaders, at the signal given by Bishop Briand, our militiamen followed Carleton and saved the country.

Yes, we were the men who at that time saved Canada for the British Crown. Had we listened to the suggestions of Lafayette, had we taken arms under the Stars and Stripes, England's power on the American continent would have been shattered, and nothing of it would be seen either in Quebec, Ontario or Manitoba.

She would not have retained those provinces any more than she was able to repress the thirteeu states of New England.

And thirteen years later, when the American colonies tried once more to have us follow in their train, ottr French Canadian militiamen, under Mr. de Salaberry, repulsed the enemy. At the call of Sir George Provost, at the call of bishop Plessis, with courage and loyalty, we strengthened the power of England over this country settled by our ancestors and which was then much more the fatherland of the French Canadians than that of the Anglo-Saxon element.

That spirit of loyalty has never failed. At the time of the Trent affair, at the time of the Fenian raids, or whenever it was necessary to contribute men or money, we have shown ourselves to be faithful to our oath of allegiance.

National unity ! Ho you know what will bring it about'? It is the national spirit. And the national spirit is, first, loyalty to the Crown; it is, in the second place, respect due to treaties and compacts ; it is love of the country ; it is discarding of prejudices in all sections of the country. That respect, that love, that discarding of prejudices will bring about a co-operation of muscle, heart and brain throughout the country : and that three-fold co-operation will make of us truly the nation which the fathers of confederation, Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier, Sir Charles Tapper and Sir Hector Langevin, Mr. George Brown and Mr. McGee dreamed of establishing in 1867.

A grateful country has erected close to this building a bronze monument to tlie memory of Sir George Cartier. The artist lias represented him holding in his left hand the Canadian constitution, and. with his right hand, showing it to passers-by. If we are willing to respect the fundamental principles of that constitution, the nation dreamt of by the fathers of confederation will be united, glorious and prosperous.

Topic:   MABC1I 13, 1905
Full View Permalink

March 13, 1905

1. How many pounds of cast-iron were furnished and delivered, from the 1st July, 1904, to this day, to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, at Sorel, respectively, by La Com-pagnie Pontbriand (Limitee), N. F. Patenaude, Beauchcmin et Fils (Limitee), N. F. Patenaude, de Grilles Brevetees, the Dominion Foundry. Victor J. St. Amand, and the Canadian Foundry?

2. What was the total amount paid to each one of the aforesaid persons or firms ?

3. What is the amount actually due to each of the aforesaid persons or firms ?

Full View Permalink

June 28, 1904

1. What salary Is paid per day to the day labourers who work on the Intercolonial Railway, between Metapedia and Montreal ?

2. Has their salary been increased ?

3. If so, when, and to what amount ?

Full View Permalink