RIGHTS OF MINORITIES

437

brought forward a motion based on the resolution at the Toronto Convention. I spoke and voted for it. It was in perfect accord with a notice I had given in 1856, and which was read here by the Hon. President of the Council a few nights ago, and with my often-repeated declarations that I was willing to adopt some measure calculated to remove existing difficulties, without doing injustice to either section; but while I was willing to do justice to Upper Canada, I always declared that I would not do so by sacrificing the interests of Lower Canada, or placing her in the position of having to beg for justice at the hands of the sister province. I always stated that the difference existing in the religious faith of the people of the two sections, in their language, in their laws, in their prejudices even-for there are prejudices which are respectable and ought to be respected-would prevent any member from Lower Canada, representing a French constituency, from voting for representation by population, pure and simple, and thereby placing the people of Lower Canada in the position of having to trust for the protection of their rights to the people of Upper Canada, who would thereby have the majority in the Legislature. There is at this moment a movement on the part of the British Protestants in Lower Canada to have some protection and guarantee for their educational establishments in this province put into the scheme of Confederation, should it be adopted; and far from finding fault with them, I respect them the more for their energy in seeking protection for their separate interests. I know that majorities are naturally aggressive and how the possession of power engenders despotism, and I can understand how a majority, animated this moment by the best feelings, might in six or nine months be willing to abuse its power and trample on the rights of the minority, while acting in good faith, and on what it considered to be its right. We know also the ill feelings that might be engendered by such a course. I think it but just that the Protestant minority should be protected in its rights in everything that was dear to it as a distinct nationality, and should not lie at the discretion of the majority in this respect, and for this reason I am ready to extend to my Protestant fellow-citizens in Lower Canada of British origin, the fullest justice in all things, and I wish to see their interests as a minority guaranteed

and protected in every scheme which may be adopted. With these views on the question of representation, I pronounced in favour of a Confederation of the two Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, as the best means of protecting the varied interests of the two sections. But the Confederation I advocated was a real confederation, giving the largest powers to the local governments, and merely a delegated authority to the General Government-in that respect differing in toto from the one now proposed, which gives all the powers to the Central Government, and reserves for the local governments the smallest possible amount of freedom of action. There is nothing besides in what I have ever written or said that can be interpreted as favouring a Confederation of all the provinces. This I always opposed. There is no breach of confidence in my saying that in the conversations I had with the Hon. President of the Council, previous to his accepting office,1 since he has referred to them himself in a speech which he made when re-elected at South Oxford, I positively declined to support any proposition for the Confederation of all the provinces. Very true, sir, I did not refuse to vote for it in committee. I did not vote at all-I was not present when the vote was taken, but I did not conceal my opposition to it. In that speech the Hon. President of the Council also said :—

Before the negotiations were gone through with, I warned the Hon. Messrs. Holton and Dorion to take action, but they refused me. I felt all the pain of a refusal, but they left me no resource. When the question was asked me by the Government, I said I wanted six members-four from Upper and two from Lower Canada. When asked how many supporters I could bring from Lower Canada, I replied that since Hon. Mr. Dorion did not act, I could bring no supporters.

So, sir, I have the best evidence possible to repudiate the accusation that I was in favour of Confederation of all the provinces in the fact that, before there was any question at all as to who should go into the Government, I stated-and that in the hearing of several honourable members now present-that I would have nothing to do with it because I did not conceive it would be for the interest of the country to have such a Confederation, at all events at the present time. Now, sir, I think I have shown that I neither favoured representation by population pure and simple, nor a Confederation of the Pro

1 In June, 1864.

GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY

439

vinces; and when honourable gentlemen state that the necessity of settling the question of representation is the origin of this Federation scheme, they labour under a grave misapprehension. There is nothing further from the fact. The representation question was almost altogether abandoned-was played out; there was no agitation about it, and certainly less than there had been for the last ten years. The honourable member for South Oxford, after adopting the views of the Toronto Convention, still persisted in advocating representation by population, but so changed was the feeling that he could hardly get a debate on the motion he made last session for a committee to consider the constitutional difficulties. There is another cause for this Confederation scheme of which representation by population was made the pretext. It is not so well known, but far more powerful. In the year 1861 Mr. Watkin was sent from England by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. He came with the distinct view of making a large claim on the country for aid, but in the then temper of the people, he soon found that he could not expect to obtain that. Thinking that if he only could put some new scheme afloat which would give a decent pretext to a well disposed Government, he would quietly get the assistance required, he immediately started for the Lower Provinces, and came back after inducing people there to resuscitate the question of the Intercolonial Railway. Parties were readily found to advocate it, if Canada would only pay the piper. A meeting of delegates took place, resolutions were adopted, and an application was made to the Imperial Government for a large contribution to its costs, in the shape of an indemnity for carrying the troops over the road. Mr. Watkin and Hon. Mr. Vankoughnet, who was then a member of the Government, went to England about this scheme, but the Imperial authorities were unwilling to grant the required assistance, and rejected their propositions. Mr. Watkin, although baffled in his expectations, did not give up his project.1 He returned again to Canada, and by dint of perseverance, induced my honourable friend on my right (Hon. J. S. Macdonald) and other honourable members of his Cabinet to enter into his views. As to the ad

1 See Canada and the United States: Recollections, 1851-1886, by Sir Ed. W. Watkin (London, 1887).

vantages of the Intercolonial Railway, I have not the slightest idea that my honourable friend had any suspicion whatsoever of the motives which animated these Grand Trunk officials, and that their object was to have another haul at the public purse for the Grand Trunk, but this was the origin of the revival of the scheme for constructing the Intercolonial Railway.

Hon. J. S. Macdonald: We found the project then left to us as a legacy by the Cartier-Macdonald Administration.

Hon. A. A. Dorion: So it was. The MacdonaldSicotte Government found the matter so far advanced that an arrangement had been made for a meeting of delegates of the several provinces to consider again this railway scheme, the other project having failed. At this meeting of delegates, which took place in September, 1862, a new scheme for building the Intercolonial was adopted, by which Canada was to pay five-twelfths and the Lower Provinces seven-twelfths. So unpopular was this arrangement that when its terms were made known, if a vote of the people had been taken upon it, not ten out of every hundred, from Sandwich to Gaspé, would have declared in its favour, although Canada was only to pay five-twelfths of its cost. This project having failed, some other scheme had to be concocted for bringing aid and relief to the unfortunate Grand Trunk—and the Confederation of the British North American Provinces naturally suggested itself to the Grand Trunk officials as the surest means of bringing with it the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. Such was the origin of this Confederation scheme. The Grand Trunk people are at the bottom of it;1 and I find that at the last meeting of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, Mr. Watkin did in advance congratulate the shareholders and bondholders on the bright prospects opening before them, by the enhanced value which will be given to their shares and bonds, by the adoption of the Confederation scheme and the construction of the Intercolonial as part of the scheme. I repeat, sir, that representation by population had very little to do with bringing about this measure.

1

1 This opinion was widely held at the time, and was strengthened by the fact that the Hon. George E. Cartier was the solicitor in Canada for the Grand Trunk Railway. See Sir Richard Cartwright, Memories of Confederation (1906).

INCONSISTENCY OF MINISTERS

441

The Taché-Macdonald Government were defeated because the House condemned them for taking without authority $100,000 out of the public chest for the Grand Trunk Railway, at a time when there had not been a party vote on representation by population for one or two sessions. Those who had been the loudest in their advocacy of it had let it drop. I was tracked through Lower Canada as being willing to sell Lower Canada, grant representation by population, and destroy Lower Canadian institutions. I thank God, sir, I never insulted Upper Canada, like some of those who reviled me. I never compared the people of Upper Canada to so many codfish.1 I showed, on the contrary, that I was always willing to meet the just claims of Upper Canada. Well, without any demand whatever for the agitation of this question, the moment the Government was defeated and there was a necessity for resigning or going before the people, these gentlemen opposite prepared to embrace their greatest opponents and said to themselves, "We will make everything smooth, we will forget past difficulties, provided we can but keep our seats. I hear a voice, sir, which is well known in this House, the voice of the Attorney-General West, saying "Hear, hear." But what was the course of that honourable gentleman last year, when the honourable member for South Oxford had a committee appointed to whom was referred the despatch written by his three colleagues, the Minister of Finance, the Attorney-General East and the Hon. Mr. Ross, who is now no longer a minister? He voted against the appointment of the committee, and, after it was named, as a member of it, he voted against the principle of Confederation. . . . The last vote taken in that committee was about the middle of June, the very day of the crisis, and the honourable gentleman voted against the principle of Confederation of all the provinces, in accordance with the opinions he again and again expressed in this House, as being opposed to all Confederation whatever. When I state that these gentlemen only found out that Confederation was a panacea for all evils, a remedy for all ills, when their seats as ministers were in danger, I come to this con

1 Speaking on the subject of "Representation by Population," Cartier had told the House that the excess of population in Upper Canada had no more right to representation than so many codfish in the Bay of Gaspé.