CANADA IS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE.
As long as Canada will remain under the flag of Great Britain--and for
one I hope it will yet be for many long years,--it is evident that it
will not be a "_Sovereign State_" in the full sense of the word.
One can hardly believe that the Nationalist leader, at page 17 of his
pamphlet--"_Hier, Aujourd'hui, Demain_"--"_Yesterday, To-day,
To-morrow_," opens a chapter with the title: "_Les Colonies autonomes
sont des Etats Souverains._"--"_The autonomous colonies are Sovereign
States._"
Mr. Bourassa was evidently led to the grievous error contained in the
preceding title by a complete misapprehension of the true meaning of the
word "_autonomous_." He took "_autonomy_" for "_Sovereignty_," being
under the delusion that the two are synonymous.
Any student of History knows, or ought to know, that after the war which
culminated in the independence of the United States, England adopted an
entirely new colonial policy. She was the first Sovereign Power, and has
ever since remained the only one, to realize that the old system was
doomed to failure, that it was worn out. Her leading statesmen, who
always ranked amongst the most eminent the world over, were more and
more convinced that the only safe colonial policy was that which would
grant "_self-government_" to the colonies, trained to its harmonious
working, for their interior management. The true meaning of this new
policy was that several of the colonies were, by acts of the Imperial
Parliament, called to the exercise of a share of the Sovereignty, well
defined in their respective constitutional charters. Canada was one of
the first British colonies to enjoy the advantages of such a large part
of the Sovereign rights.
Such "_autonomous colonies_" as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Newfoundland, have been, and are to the present day, do not
transform them into "_Sovereign States_," enjoying full "Sovereign
powers." They are not "_Independent States_" in the full sense of the
word.
That Canada is not a Sovereign State is proved beyond doubt by the very
fact that she could not amend or change her constitutional charter by
her own power and without a new Imperial law. If the Nationalist
leader's pretention was sound, any member of the House of Commons, or of
the Senate, in Ottawa, could propose a bill to repeal the British North
America Act, 1867, and to replace it by another constitutional charter.
The very supposition is absurd. Can it be imagined that His Excellency
the Governor-General could be advised by his responsible Ministers to
sanction, in the name of His Majesty the Sovereign of Great Britain, a
bill repealing an Act of the Imperial Parliament? Still it is exactly
what Mr. Bourassa's theory amounts to.
Our constitutional charter does not only provide what is called our
Federal,--or National--autonomy, but also the Provincial autonomy. The
powers of both are well defined in the Imperial Act. The Provinces of
the Dominion also exercise that share of the Sovereign rights delegated
to them by the Imperial Parliament. Would the Nationalist leader draw
the extravagant conclusion that the territory of any one of the
Provinces cannot be declared in the "State of War" with a Foreign Power,
by His Majesty the King, without the assent of the Ministers of that
Province? Still that absurd proposition would not be more so than that
affirming the necessity of the assent of the Canadian Cabinet, to a
declaration of War involving Canada in an Imperial struggle.
The Sovereign right of declaring war to, and of making peace with,
another independent State, is vested in the King of Great Britain,
acting upon the advice of his responsible Ministers in the United
Kingdom. To the Imperial Parliament belongs the constitutional authority
to deal with the Imperial Foreign Affairs.
It is plain that when Great Britain is at War with another Sovereign
State the whole territory of the British Empire is in the "State of War"
with that Nation.
It is inconceivable that Mr. Bourassa has seriously pretended that
Canada was not at war with the German Empire the very moment the British
Empire was so in consequence of the violation by Germany of Belgian
neutrality. One can hardly believe that he has propounded the fallacious
constitutional doctrine that His Majesty "_the King of England hath not
the right to declare Canada in the State of War without the assent of
the Canadian Cabinet_."
Where and when has the Nationalist leader discovered that the Canadian
Ministers have the right to advise His Majesty upon all the questions
pertaining to the Imperial Foreign Affairs? Any one conversant with the
constitutional status of Canada knows that the Canadian Ministers have
the right to advise the representative of the Sovereign only upon
matters as defined by the British North America Act, 1867, and its
amendments.
I was indeed very much surprised at the attempt of Mr. Bourassa to use
the authority of Sir Erskine May in support of his erroneous pretension
that the autonomous colonies of Great Britain were Sovereign States.
To all the students of the Constitutional History of England, Sir
Erskine May is a very well known and appreciated writer. I have read his
works several times over for many years. I was certain that he had never
written anything to justify the Nationalist leader in quoting him as he
did.
Here follows the paragraph of May's Constitutional History quoted by Mr.
Bourassa in support of his own views:--
Parliament has recently pronounced it to be just that the
Colonies which enjoy self-government, should undertake the
responsibility and cost of their own military defence. To carry
this policy into effect must be the work of time. But whenever
it may be effected, the last material bond of connection with
the Colonies will have been severed, and colonial states,
acknowledging the honorary sovereignty of England, and fully
armed for self-defence, as well against herself as others, will
have grown out of the dependencies of the British Empire.
I must say that I am absolutely unable to detect one single word in the
above quotation to authorize Mr. Bourassa to affirm that Sir Erskine May
was of opinion that "_the autonomous colonies were Sovereign States_."
The true meaning of the above extract is surely very plain. What does it
say? It declares, what was a fact, that the British _Parliament has
recently pronounced it to be just that the Colonies which enjoy
self-government should undertake the responsibility and cost of their
own military defence_.
Would the British Parliament have deemed it necessary to express such an
opinion, if the Colonies had, then, been Sovereign States, consequently
obliged, in duty bound, to defend themselves _alone_ against any
possible enemy. Surely not, for the obvious reason that Great Britain
would have had no more responsibility for the defence of territories no
longer covered by her flag and under her Sovereignty.
The very fact that the British Parliament thought proper, _under the
then circumstances_, to say that the Colonies enjoying self-government
should undertake to defend themselves, is the convincing proof that they
were not Sovereign States.
The following sentence of May's quotation says:--_To carry this policy
into effect must be the work of time_.
It is clear that the _policy_ requiring the work of time to be carried
into effect was not actually existent at the time Sir Erskine May was
writing.
The extract quoted by Mr. Bourassa concludes by declaring that when such
a policy _has_ been finally adopted, the Colonies will have developed
into Colonial States having _grown out of the dependencies of the
British Empire_.
Evidently, when the Dominions of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New
Zealand, will have grown out of the dependencies of the British Empire,
they will no longer be Colonies of Great Britain. But when will that
very important event take place? Surely, Sir Erskine May could not
foresee. Even to-day Mr. Bourassa cannot say more than any one else.
Pending that unforeseen outcome, the Dominions will remain parts of the
British Empire under her Sovereignty.
The above quotation was taken by Mr. Bourassa from the edition of Sir
Erskine May's "Constitutional History" published in 1912. But they were
first edited by the author in 1863. When has the Imperial Parliament
adopted the above mentioned "_Resolution_"? It was voted in 1862--the
4th of March--more than fifty-six years ago. Quoted as it has been by
Mr. Bourassa, it appears to have been only very recently adopted. The
fact that it is more than half a century old, and was carried before the
Federal Union of the Provinces, is a convincing proof that it has no
bearing whatever upon the conditions of Canada's present colonial
status. By the aforesaid "_Resolution_," the British House of Commons
was only expressing the opinion that the time had come for the Colonies
to undertake the responsibility and the cost of their defence. The
"Resolution" does not say that Great Britain would no longer be called,
in the exercise of the rights and duties of her Sovereignty, to defend
her Colonial Empire.
By what reasoning can a mere expression of opinion by the English House
of Commons be interpreted as at once transforming the Colonies into
independent Sovereign States?
Any one somewhat conversant with the political events that led to the
Federal Union of the Provinces knows that in applying to the British
Parliament for the new Constitutional Charter, the Legislature of United
Canada had a twofold object:--first, the settlement of the
constitutional difficulties then pending between Upper and Lower Canada;
secondly, a broader development of Canada and also of the British
Empire. Such was the purpose of the coalition government formed in 1864.
All the members of that Cabinet were strongly in favour of the
maintenance of Canada's union with Great Britain. I have heard them
expounding their views on what the future of Canada ought to be. I am
positive that neither Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Georges Cartier, the
honorable Georges Brown, nor any of their colleagues, of both political
parties, ever said a word which could be construed as expressing the
opinion that the proposed Federal Union would make of Canada an
independent Sovereign State. It is incredible that Mr. Bourassa should
have so erroneously understood their real views so as to pretend that
they favoured Confederation for that very purpose.
As a proof of his pretension, he quoted the following words of Sir John
A. Macdonald, in the Legislative Assembly of old United Canada:--
"_With us the Sovereign, or, in this country the representative of the
Sovereign, can act only on the advice of His Ministers, those Ministers
being responsible to the people through Parliament._"
Mr. Bourassa used the foregoing sentence in support of his contention
that the King of England could not declare war without the assent of the
Canadian Cabinet. It is impossible to understand how such a notion can
be seriously held and expressed. His Majesty cannot ask nor accept such
an advice, if it was tendered, for the very reason that the Canadian
Cabinet has not the constitutional right to advise the King respecting
the international relations of the Empire. And why? Precisely because
the Canadian Ministers would not be responsible for their advice to the
Imperial Parliament and to the electorate of the United Kingdom.
The true meaning of the above quoted sentence of Sir John A. Macdonald
is very plain. Ministerial responsibility was the fundamental principle
of the old Constitution, as it is of the Federal Charter. Sir John A.
Macdonald was perfectly right in affirming that "_in Canada, as in
England, the Sovereign could act only on the advice of His Ministers,"
that is to say on the advice of His responsible Ministers within the
constitutional powers of our Parliament on all matters respecting which
they had the constitutional right to advise His Majesty_.
Sir John A. Macdonald never said--he could not possibly say--that as
Prime Minister of Canada, under the new Constitution, he would have the
right to advise the Sovereign on all matters within the exclusive
constitutional jurisdiction of the Imperial Parliament, for instance
respecting the exercise of the Royal prerogative of declaring war
against, or of making peace with, a foreign independent State. He has
never propounded such an utterly false constitutional doctrine.
Mr. Bourassa went still further. He quoted the following sentence from
Sir John A. Macdonald:--"_We stand with regard to the people of Canada
precisely in the same position as the House of Commons in England stands
with regard to the people of England_."
I was indeed most astonished to read Mr. Bourassa's inference from those
words that Sir John A. Macdonald _had affirmed the absolute equality of
powers of the Imperial and the Canadian Parliaments_.
If the opinion expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald could be so
interpreted, he would have affirmed--what was radically wrong--that
under the new Constitution, the Canadian Parliament would have,
_concurrently with the Imperial Parliament_, absolutely the same powers.
What did that mean? It meant that the Canadian Parliament, just as the
Imperial Parliament, would have the right to edict laws establishing
Home Rule in Ireland, regulating the government of India and the Crown
Colonies, granting constitutional charters for the good government of
the Australian and South African Dominions, &c., &c.
Surely it is not necessary to argue at any length to prove that Sir John
A. Macdonald never for a moment entertained such an opinion. What he
really said, in the above quoted words, was that within their
constitutional jurisdiction, within the limits of their respective
powers, the two Parliaments stood in the same position, _respectively_,
with regard to the people of England and to the people of Canada. It was
equivalent to saying--what was positively true--that the British
Ministers and the British Parliament were responsible to the people of
England, and that the Canadian Ministers and the Canadian Parliament
were responsible to the people of Canada,--both of them within the
limits of their respective constitutional powers.
If the Canadian Legislature had enjoyed all the constitutional powers of
the British Parliament, she would not have been obliged to pass
addresses asking the latter to enact a new charter creating the Federal
Union of the Provinces. She could have repealed her then existing
constitution and enacted the new one by her own authority. But that she
could not do. She could not repeal the old, nor enact the new charter.
But the most extraordinary is that Mr. Bourassa went so far as to
declare that Canada should have participated in the present war only as
a "_Nation_," meaning, of course, as an independent Sovereign State.
On reading such a preposterous proposition, at once it strikes one's
mind most forcibly that if Canada had really had the power to intervene
in the world's struggle as a "Nation," she would have had the equal
right to the choice of three alternatives.
First:--Declare war against Germany and in favor of the Allies.
Second:--Remain neutral.
Third:--Declare war against Great Britain and fight for Germany.
For it is obvious that all the Sovereign States--and Canada like them
all if she had been one of them--had the Sovereign Right to fight for or
against Great Britain, or to remain neutral. Of course, I am merely
explaining in its entirety the Right of a Sovereign State. I surely do
not mean to say that Canada, had she really been such a State, would in
any way have been justifiable in joining with Germany in her dastardly
attempt to crush Civilization in the barbarous throes of her domination.
What would His Excellency the Governor-General have answered his Prime
Minister advising him to declare war against England, he who represents
His Majesty at Ottawa? Would he not have told him at once that the
Canadian Prime Minister had no right whatever to give him such an
advice; that Canada, being a British Colony, could not declare war
against her Sovereign State; that for the Canadian people to take up
arms against England would be treasonable revolt?
It is absolutely incredible that a public man, aspiring to the
leadership of his countrymen, can have been so completely lost to the
sense of the Canadian constitutional situation as to boldly attempt to
pervert their mind with such fallacious notions. He might as well
pretend that the State of New York, for instance, has the Sovereign
Right to declare war against the Government of the United States.
I, for one, cannot help wondering that any one can seriously think that
a colony, always pretending to remain loyally so, can wage war against
her Sovereign State. I feel sure that all sensible men do share my views
on that point.