EN
🔍

House of Commons, 13 October 1903, Canadian Confederation with Alberta and Saskatchewan

13853 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13854

NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES ACT AMENDMENTS.

Bill (No. 239) to amend the North-west Territories Act, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
2. Except where a question has been reserved and stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court of the North-west Territories as a court of appeal under section 743 of the Criminal Code, 1892, the judge by or before whom the judgment, order or decision then in question was rendered or made, shall not sit as one of the judges composing the court unless his presence is necessary to compose a quorum.
2. The proviso added to section 50 of the said Act by section 4 of chapter 17 of the Statutes of 1894 is repealed.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick). This amendment has been suggested by Mr. Justice Wetmore, who has considerable experience in criminal cases in that part of the country, and who thinks it is desirable that the judge should reserve a case for the full court.
Mr. SCOTT. With the consent of the House and of the minister, I beg to leave to propose two additional clauses to the Bill, as follows :
3. Notwithstanding anything in the Northwest Territories Act, or any Act in amendment thereof, the legislative assembly may, by ordinance, repeal the provisions of sections 49, 51, 53, 55, 64, 88, 89, and 90 of the said North-west Territories Act as amended, and re-enact the said provisions or substitute other provisions in lieu thereof, but nothing in this section contained shall be construed as giving to the legislative assembly power to pass ordinances for the constitutions, organization or maintenance of courts of criminal jurisdiction, or respecting procedure in criminal matters.
4. Notwithstanding anything in the Northwest Territories Act, or any Act in amendment thereto, the legislative assembly may, by ordinance, repeal the provisions of sections 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of chapter 19 of the statutes of 1888, and section 18 of chapter 17 of the Statutes of 1894 as that section is enacted by section 9 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1897, and re-enact the said provisions or substitute other provisions in lieu thereof.
I may explain the purport of these various sections of the North-west Territories Act under which it is proposed to give power to the legislative assembly.
Section 49 has reference to times and places of sittings of the Supreme Court in banc.
Section 51 empowers the Governor in Council to divide the territories into judicial districts. The amendment will give power to the assembly to make provision for determining the boundaries of judicial districts.
Section 53 makes a Supreme Court judge the instrument of authority in any matter which the law specifies shall be dealt with by a court or judge, in the absence of other specific provision.
Section 64 deals with justices of the peace, as to appointment, qualifications, &c., and with police magistrates.
Section 88 deals with the jurisdiction of judges in civil matters, and the class of matters in which either party may demand a jury trial, together with various other provisions relating to civil trials and cases.
Sections 89 and 90 also deal with judgments and procedure in civil cases.
The sections mentioned in No. 4 are 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of chapter 19 of 1888. All refer to the constitution of the legislative assembly.
Section 7 prescribes the qualifications of voters.
Section 8 the qualifications of candidates for election.
Section 9 specifies the oath to be subscribed and taken by members.
Section 11 deals with the election and duties of the Speaker.
Section 12 names the occasions when the Speaker may vote in the legislative assembly.
Section 9 of chapter 28, of 1897, which repealed and was substituted for section 18 of chapter 17 of 1894, prohibits members of the legislative assembly from holding positions of emolument, making the exception as regards members of the executive council who have procured election after appointment to such office.
In this latter important particular what I am proposing to do by the amendment is to give the legislative assembly power to define the qualifications or limitations and to regulate the conduct of its own members, a right and power which is possessed and exercised by this parliament and by every provincial parliament. I may say that in every discussion of the question of provincial autonomy by Premier Haultain, the lack of this power has been a matter of serious complaint. The proposal as a whole, while perhaps not very urgent or important, will have the effect of narrowing down still further the difference between the present position of the territories as territories, and the position of a province in confederation. I may explain that when Premier Haultain was on his last visit to Ottawa, 13855 COMMONS 13856 in February or March, a tacit understanding was arrived at, not, of course, with his willing consent, because, as a matter of fact, Premier Haultain believes that the question of provincial establishment should not be delayed at all, that the whole question of autonomy should not be dealt with and could not be dealt with at this session of parliament, and as a result of this understandig he suggested a number of intermediate changes in the existing powers of the legislative assembly. He proposed one important change by which the entire land titles system should be transferred to the local authority as well as a number of additional minor changes of which these I am proposing form a part. I believe, that, but for the long absence during this session of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), all of these changes which have been asked for by Premier Haultain, would have been introduced and put through at this session, but on account of the pressure on his time, and perhaps partly because of the opinion which I think the hon. Minister of the Interior has formed that the question of provincial establishment cannot wisely be delayed beyond next year, he decided not to take up any of these points at this session, but to leave them over until next session, and then finally dispose of the whole subject by giving the territories a complete provincial status. On account of provision being made at this session for an additional judge of the Supreme Court of the North-west Territories, and a consequent necessary amendment of the North-west Territories Act, Premier Haultain, some time ago, wrote to me suggesting that even if the change respecting the transfer of the land titles system could not be made this year it would be a distinct advantage to the practical carrying on of the business of his government if certain of these minor changes were made. It perhaps would be only right for me to state further that Premier Haultain's proposals to the hon. Minister of the Interior included half a dozen other sections in addition to those that I have gone over. I have omitted a number of sections at the suggestion of the Department of Justice, which holds that these other sections deal with criminal jurisdiction over which for the present this parliament's authority had better be maintained. With that view of the department, I do not express agreement or disagreement. At this stage of the session it is perhaps wise not to attempt to introduce anything controversial, and I have therefore left out half a dozen sections which Premier Haultain desired to have added to this amendment. These various sections which I have added to this proposed amendment are not of very great moment. I do not imagine that they can raise any controversy at all. I trust they will meet with the unanimous approval of the House.
Mr. CASGRAIN. There is nothing in that germane to the Bill ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE. Yes, the Bill is intended to provide for the constitution of the Supreme Court, and also for appeals to the court. The intention of the amendment that my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) proposes is merely to give to the council of the North-west Territories control over the court as to the time, place and sittings of the court, as to the dividing the territories into judicial districts, as to defining the territorial jurisdiction and other provisions of that sort. They also asked that they should have control over the administration of criminal justice, but I was not prepared to give It to them, and they did not get it. We are responsible for the administration of criminal justice in these territories, and we want to keep control over its administration.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). It would be better if the committee could have some notice of amendments of this kind. It is almost impossible to understand them on the spur of the moment.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE. I do not think it is fair to take my hon. friend by surprise, and I have no objection at all that the committee should rise.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). If I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott), who has introduced the amendments, they are in the direction of giving greater powers to the legislature of the North-west Territories with respect to civil matters.
Mr. SCOTT. And the constitution of the assembly.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). If that be the case, and when I have the opportunity to look them over, there will not be the slightest objection to them, and I will do everything to expedite their passage.
Progress reported.

SUPPLY—AUTONOMY OF THE NORTH- WEST TERRITORIES.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax). Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter which is of some importance not only to the people of the North-west Territories of Canada, but to the people of the entire Dominion. Early this session I called attention to the fact that the speech from the Throne made no reference to the granting of a provincial status to the North-west Territories, and I expressed the hope that before the end of this session—which at that time we thought would have been ended before this—the government would introduce some legislation for that purpose. According to the census of 1901, there were 158,000 inhabitants in the North-west Terri 13857 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13858 tories; according to the report of the department of immigration there came into this country in the year 1901 49,149 people; in 1902, 67,379 people; and the Prime Minister stated only last evening that, according to the information received from the department of immigration, no less than 110,000 immigrants came to Canada during the present year. That makes a total for these three years of 227,528, and we may fairly assume that at least 175,000 of that number have gone to the North-west Territories. If that computation is fair, and I believe it is, then we have in the North-west Territories at the present time a population of 330,000 people.
It is not contemplated by the government, apparently, to take any steps for the purpose of granting, during the present session, provincial autonomy to the people of these territories. It seems to me that, having regard to the very large population, the great territorial area, the magnificent country which we have in the west, the government of Canada should immediately give its attention to the granting of a provincial status to the people of the North-west Territories. It was asserted in this House by the Prime Minister the other day that the people in the North-west Territories have in effect at the present time all the powers which the people of the other provinces possess, with the possible exception of the power of borrowing money. The right hon. gentleman said :
What are the powers which the territories have not to-day, which they would have if they were a province ? If I mistake not, speaking at first blush, the legislature of the territories has all the powers enjoyed by a province with the exception of borrowing money.
The right hon. gentleman greatly minimized the difference which exists between the powers possessed by the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories and the powers possessed by the respective legislatures of the different provinces. In the first place, the people of the North-west Territories have not the same full rights of citizenship as are enjoyed by the inhabitants of the older provinces, inasmuch as they have not the control of their public lands, which are controlled by the government of Canada, and which are administered, to a very great extent, from Ottawa. In the second place, the people of the North-west Territories have not the control of their minerals, which in possessed by the people of the older provinces of Canada. In the third place, they have not the power to charter railways and certain other companies. That power is taken from them by an exception to subsection 7 of section 13 of the North-west Territories Act, as amended by section 6 of chapter 22 of the Acts of 1891. That exception is as follows :—
The legislative assembly shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, or of any other Act of the parliament of Canada at any time in force in the territories, have power to make ordinances for the government of the territories in relation to the class of subjects next hereinafter mentioned ; that is to say : the incorporation of companies with territorial objects, with the following exceptions :—
Such companies as cannot be incorporated by provincial legislatures : railway, steamboat, canal, tranportation, telegraph, and irrigation companies.
Therefore, in respect to these six classes of companies, the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories has at the present time no power whatever to enact legislation. This exception deprives them of the power to incorporate a railway company and the power to deal with irrigation; it deprives them of the power to incorporate transportation, telephone or telegraph companies. I am not aware of any amendment to that section, but if there is any such amendment, I shall be glad to have my attention called to it. Then, in the next place, the Northwest Territories have no power to borrow money for necessary purposes; they have not the same powers in connection with the administration of justice as the older provinces have, and they have no power to amend their own constitution. The Prime Minister of the North-west Territories, in a speech which he delivered in 1900, summarized the differences between the powers of the legislature of the North-west Territories and the powers of the legislatures of the provinces in the following words, which I will take the liberty of reading to the House. His words are as follows :
Where we fall short of provincial powers is in these points : we have not the power to amend the constitution outside of the power to deal with certain phases in our election law ; we have not the power to borrow money ; we have not the power to deal with the public domain ; we have not the power to establish certain institutions, such as hospitals, asylums, charities—'eleemosynary institutions' as they are called in the British North America Act ; we have not the power to take cognizance of public undertakings other than such as may be carried on by certain sorts of joint stock companies ; and our powers are limited to the extent that we have not the administration of the criminal law in the territories. That, I think, will suffice for any reference which it is necessary to make to the eighth recital.
Now this question has excited a good deal of interest in the North-west Territories during the past six or seven years ; and, although the documents which have been brought down at the present session of parliament are in a somewhat confused condition, I shall endeavour as well as I can to run very briefly over the correspondence and the proceedings respecting this question, and to point out to the House in what way the matter has been brought up in the legislature of the territories, and in what manner it has been brought to the attention of this government since the year 1897, when, so far as I know, the question first became a living issue in the territories. I 13859 COMMONS 13860 may say, however, in the beginning, that my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), as far back as the year 1895, gave a very strong expression of opinion in this behalf. Referring to the grant of $277,000 then voted to the North-west Territories, that hon. gentleman said :
We could save the whole of that expense by allowing the North-west Territories people to manage their own concerns. Give them self- government, do not lead them around as infants with a string, but let them manage their own business like free British subjects.
I do not agree with the hon. member for North Norfolk that there would be any saving at all to the country as a whole by granting provincial autonomy ; but in the last part of the hon. gentleman's remarks I thoroughly concur, and I think he has there very aptly expressed the idea in a few words.
Now, there was a memorial from the territorial legislature to this government on the 9th of December, 1897, which is to be found in sessional paper 116, at page 32. That memorial reads as follows :
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House the North-west Territories as they are at present composed should be maintained intact for administrative purposes until the time has arrived for their entrance into confederation as a province.
That was when a question first seems to have been raised in the North-west Territories in regard to this matter. It was more directly raised, however, in a memorial passed in 1900, which is to be found in sessional paper 116, at pages 2 and 4. I will not read the whole of the memorial, which deals with other matters ; but one paragraph, found at page 3, referring to the previous address, says :
That in the said address it was represented to Her Majesty, as a reason for the extension of the Dominion of Canada westward, that the welfare of the population of these territories would be materially enhanced by the formation therein of political institutions bearing analogy, as far as circumstances will admit, to those which existed in the several provinces then forming the Dominion.
Another paragraph proceeds as follows :
That under the several authorities so given the parliament of Canada has created political institutions in these territories bearing a close analogy to those which exist in the several provinces of the Dominion.
The two concluding paragraphs of the address are as follows :
That we do therefore most humbly pray that Your Excellency will be graciously pleased to cause the fullest inquiry to be made into the position of the territories, financial and otherwise, and to cause such action to be taken as will provide for their present and immediate welfare and good government, as well as the due fulfilment of the duties and obligations of government and legislation, assumed, with respect to these territories, by the parliament of Canada ;
And furthermore that, by the British North America Act, 1871, it was (amongst other things) enacted that the parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of . . . . such province, we do therefore most humbly pray that Your Excellency will be also graciously pleased to order inquiries to he made and accounts taken with a view to the settlement of the terms and conditions upon which the territories or any part thereof shall be established as a province, and that, before any such province is established, opportunity should be given to the people of the territories, through their accredited representatives, of considering and discussing such terms and conditions.
All which we humbly pray Your Excellency to take into Your Excellency's most gracious and favourable consideration.
That memorial was forwarded, and subsequent correspondence took place. The first letter to which I will refer is a letter from the Prime Minister of the Territories, Mr. Haultain, to the Minister of the Interior, dated the 30th of January, 1901. It is to be found in sessional paper 116a, at page 1. I will not read the whole of this letter, but certain paragraphs of it are as follows :
While financial embarrassments rather than constitutional aspirations have led the Northwest government and legislature to discuss the provincial status, I think that sufficient practical reasons can be given for the early establishment of provincial institutions in the west. We have a rapidly growing population, much larger, as the census will show, than that of British Columbia ten years ago, and than that of Prince Edward Island to-day ; a population trained to the exercise of powers of self- government falling a little short only of those enjoyed by the provinces. For nearly thirteen years the North-west legislative assembly has been occupied with founding local institutions and a body of laws suitable to the condition and circumstances of the country.
Further on, the memorial, referring to the anomalous constitution of the territories, uses these words :
The territories have arrived at a point, where by reason of their population and material development, the larger powers and larger income of a province have become necessary. I have already in former communications pointed out to you how our limited powers are still more limited by the reservation of subjects such as the Land Titles law, the administration of the criminal law and the control of the public domain. It is undoubtedly in the interest of any province or provinces herafter to be established, that the important questions surrounding the subject of the public domain should be settled at once, and before any more of the public lands of the territories are alienated from the Crown.
On the 21st of March, 1901, Mr. Sifton replied to Mr. Haultain, and his letter is to be found in sessional paper 116a, at page 13861 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13862 4. In that letter, which I will not quote in full, Mr. Sifton used the following language :
It is the view of the government that it will not be wise at the present time to pass legislation forming the North-west Territories into a province or provinces. Some of the reasons leading to this view may be found in the fact that the population or the territories is yet sparse ; that the rapid increase in population now taking place will in a short time alter the conditions to be dealt with very materially and that there is a considerable divergence of opinion respecting the question whether there should be one province only, or more than one province. Holding this view, therefore, it will not be necessary for me to discuss the details of the draft Bill which you presented as embodying your views.
I may say, in connection with this matter, which I think has been alluded to also by my hon. friend the Prime Minister during the present session, that the difference of opinion as to whether there should be one province or two provinces does not seem a sufficient reason for withholding provincial status from the North-west Territories. Are the people of those territories to be for ever deprived of the status enjoyed by the people of the provinces of Canada, menely because there may not be absolute unanimity as to whether there shall be one province or two provinces or three provinces? It is not likely at any time in the future that you will have absolute unanimity in the North-west Territories with regard to a matter of that kind. It is only a detail after you have once settled the principle that the time has arrived when the people of the North-west Territories should be entrusted with the same rights of self-government as those enjoyed by the people of the various provinces.
Mr. Haultain replied to that letter on the 30th of March, 1901. His reply is to be found in sessional paper 116a, at page 2. I shall quote only portions of his reply. In the first place he quotes from Mr. Sifton's letter of March 21st, from which I have just read extracts. Perhaps as some of the letters from which he quoted have not been brought to the attention of the House, and as it would take too much time to read them all, I had better read his quotations from the previous correspondence with Mr. Sifton. Mr. Haultain's words are as follows:
So far from your conclusions not coming as a surprise as you suggest, I must say quite frankly that the decision of the government has) come not only as a. surprise, but as a deep disappointment as well. In your letter of March 21, 1901, you say :
He then quotes Mr. Sifton's language as follows :
I may say that I realize very fully the difficulties of the position in which the government and legislative assembly of the North-west Territories is placed, and I admit that there is very much in the suggestions which are made in your letter and in the memorial regarding the necessity of a change in the constitutional and financial position of the territories.
That language of Mr. Sifton is very significant because, so far back as March, 1901, he said there Was very much in the suggestion that it was necessary there should be a change in the constitutional and financial conditions of the territories. We have now reached a period two years and a half later in the history of the territories than the day on which this letter was written, but we seem to be no nearer to any solution or the question by the present government than we were at that time. Continuing, Mr. Haultain quotes from Mr. Sifton's letter as follows :
Without at the present moment committing myself to any positive statement I am prepared to say that the time has arrived when the question of organizing the territories on the provincial basis ought to be the subject of full consideration. It would appear to me that the better way of bringing the matter to a more definite position would be to arrange for a conference upon the subject between the representatives of your government and a committee of council representing the federal government.
Now, if the time had arrived two and a half years ago, when the population of the territories was not one-half what it is today, when that question ought to be the subject of full consideration, how is it that, after the expiration of those two and a half years, when greatly increased importance has been added to the territories owing to the impetus which that country has received by the influx of a very great number of people, we are still told that the time for action has not yet arrived and we are still met with exactly the same objections which were advanced to Mr. Haultain by Mr. Sifton in the correspondence to which I am now referring.
Mr. Haultain in this same letter refers to a further letter from Mr. Sifton of April 5th, 1901, from which he quotes as follows:
The latter portion of the session of parliament here finds all the members of the government extremely busy, and it would be hopeless to expect from them that mature and careful consideration of the various and important subjects which will require to be debated and settled in connection with the establishment of the territories as a province or upon the provincial basis. I think I shall therefore be compelled to ask you to defer the discussion until after parliament has prorogued.
Mr. Haultain then proceeds to deal with the objections raised by Mr. Sifton, and I quote one or two paragraphs from his letter. One of these paragraphs is as follows :
Another reason advanced is : ' That the rapid increase in population now taking place will in a short time alter the conditions to be dealt with very materially. This rapid increase in population is one of the principal reasons why we are asking to be formed into a province, in order that we may be able to deal with the new conditions that it brings about. The longer it goes on without the change the more aggravated the present difficulties will become.
I think there is not one of us in the House who will not realize that there is great 13863 COMMONS 13864 truth and force in that statement of Mr. Haultain's. Are we to expect that the population of the North-west Territories is to stand still at any time within the next fifteen or twenty years ? We "have there a country which is capable of supporting many millions of population; we have there the best undeveloped country in the world, and I see no reason to anticipate that population will flow into the North-west of Canada less rapidly during the next fifteen or twenty years than it is flowing into that country at present. Therefore as Mr. Haultain forcibly points out in the letter to which I have referred, the difficulties in that regard will not be obviated by mere delay; there will always be difficulties of that kind and the only way in which we can do justice to the people of the North-west Territories in this matter is by dealing with these difficulties at the present time and by giving them, after proper consultation, after meeting their wishes as far as it is proper and reasonable and possible, that provincial status which the people of the eastern provinces now enjoy.
Mr. Haultain's letter continues as follows:
With regard to a divergence of opinion as to one or more provinces I might say that that is a difficulty that will always exist and any postponment of action will not remove.
I say again that those words of Mr. Haultain's are reasonable and forcible and there is no man in this House who does not, I think, realize the justice of his answer to Mr. Sifton.
Mr. Haultain's letter continues:
I must also say, on behalf of the North-west government, that after having been asked to meet a sub-committee of the Privy Council, and to state our case not only verbally but in writing, it is extremely unsatisfactory that the government has come to the conclusion: 'That it will not be necessary to discuss the details of the draft Bill which embodied our views.' This is a conclusion to the negotiations which have been held which we could hardly have expected considering the importance of the subject discussed and the formal manner in which the discussion has taken place.
I shall not refer especially to the draft Bill which was proposed by Mr. Haultain as a scheme for the government of the North-west Territories; I shall refer, however, to one or two passages in the memorandum which accompanied that Bill. In the memorandum accompanying the draft Bill, which is to be found in sessional paper 116, on page 19, Mr. Haultain, dealing with the question as to whether or not the people of the North-west Territories are entitled to their own lands, uses the following language:
As Great Britain has divested herself, for the benefit of her colonies, of all' her proprietary rights in the public domain within those colonies, so, it is thought, Canada should do with respect to any claim that may be preferred on behalf of the Dominion to the beneficiary interest in the public domain within that part of the North- west Territories to be included in any province to be established.
It may be that the government of Canada will admit the principle contended for above on behalf of the people of the North-West Territories who may be included within the limits of any province to be created, but will argue that it will not be in accord with established public policy for the Dominion to divest itself of the ability, largely advertised abroad, to grant lands to actual settlers upon almost nominal conditions. Such appears to have been the view adopted in 1884 by the government of the day with respect to certain similar representations then made by the province of Manitoba. The validity of the claim was admitted by the agreement to recompense the province for the loss of its public property. It is not deemed necessary, here, at this stage, to discuss any such proposition further than to point out the one fact that, should the Dominion withhold from the province, for the benefit of Canada at large, the right to administer the public domain. within its boundaries and to enjoy the revenues therefrom. the addition of each new settler, or—what experience has shown to practically almost amount to the same thing—the opening up of each new settlement, will impose a burden and financial strain upon the revenues of the province altogether out of proportion to any revenue derivable on account of such settler or settlement, and one that can only be met by an early appeal to extensive direct taxation.
Then he proceeds to deal with the expenditure per head in the different provinces and to compare that expenditure with the expenditure in the North-west Territories. He continues as follows :
Without extravagance and in order to provide for urgent public necessities, the per capita rate of expenditure in the territories, had the money been available, would have been between $6 and $7. This large rate of public expenditure in the territories, as compared with the rates of the eastern provinces, is entirely attributable to the extraordinary increase in expenditure due to the energy displayed by the immigration branch of the Interior Department. While such energy is commendable from the view point of Dominion interests, yet its results place a great strain upon the finances of the country, and it is, with all respect, urged that the exploitation of the public domain within the province to be established, in the interests of the Dominion solely and entirely, will place upon the province a burden too onerous to bear, and one which should properly fall where the benefits go.
On the 22nd of January, 1902, there was an acknowledgment by the private secretary of the right hon. Prime Minister of several copies of this draft Bill for the use of his colleagues. On the 22nd of March, 1902, there was a letter from Mr. Sifton to Mr. Haultain, which is found in sessioual paper No. 116a, at page 4. I have already referred to that in substance, so I need not deal with it further. The next document is a telegram from Mr. Sifton to Mr. Haultain appointing a meeting between representatives of the two governments, which is found in sessions] paper No. 116a, page 7. And on the 11th of February, in a letter which is found in the same document, page 7, Mr. Haultain again urges the question of provincial autonomy 13865 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13866 upon the attention of the Minister of the Interior. He says, after referring to the correspondence and the various reasons why conferences have not been held : ' I should like to ask the consideration by the subcommittee of Council of our provincial proposition.' On the 19th of March, 1903, in a letter, which is found in this same sessional paper, page 13, Mr. Haultain, who had come to Ottawa with his colleagues for the purpose of a conference, had had a conference, and was waiting an answer, wrote the Minister of the Interior as follows:
Rideau Club, Ottawa, March 19, 1903.
The Honourable Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior, Ottawa.
As I have remained here for some days since I last saw you, you may have written to me to Regina with reference to the result of the recent interview of Mr. Bulyea and myself with the sub-committee of Council regarding North-west affairs. In case no decision has yet been arrived at or communicated to me, may I ask you to let me have (addressed to Regina) a final reply on behalf of the government to our request for the creation of a province and for larger financial assistance in the meantime.
F. W. G. HAULTAIN.
In answer to that, Mr. Sifton, on the 27th of March telegraphed to Mr. Haultain at Regina, as follows :
Ottawa, March 21, 1903.
Hon. F. W. G. Haultain, Regina, Assa.
I sent a note over to the Rideau Club but found you were gone. The question of your financial arrangements was up for discussion to-day, and Mr. Fielding will communicate with you. The arrangement suggested will, I think, prove reasonably satisfactory.
CLIFFORD SIFTON.
You will observe in Mr. Haultain's letter a demand for an answer as to the important question of provincial autonomy which had been discussed by representatives of his government with the representatives of this government. In fact this question had, so to speak, been made a matter of state by the appointment of a subcommittee of the Privy Council for the purpose of considering the status of the North-west Territories; and, in reply to the demand of Mr. Haultain of the 19th of March for a final answer—and he puts the question of provincial autonomy first —he receives a telegram addressed to him at Regina making some reference to important financial arrangements, but containing not a single word of reply to the demand of the North-west Territories, presented through their government, that a provincial status should be accorded to the people of that great western country. That, to say the least of it, Mr. Speaker, seems a somewhat casual and indifferent way of dealing with a great question of this kind, which, although, apparently considered a small and trifling matter by this government, is of some importance to nearly 350,000 people who at present inhabit our great west. Now, the next letter is one from Mr. Haultain to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which is not printed at all in the correspondence brought down, but a copy of which I have procured from a document printed by the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories. I am sorry that this return brought down to this House is so very incomplete that hon. members who desire to consider this question must refer to documents brought down to the legislature of the North-west Territories in order to find a complete record. Mr. Haultain, not satisfied with this somewhat casual and supercilious response from the Minister of the Interior, wrote to Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the 15th of April, 1903, after his return to Regina. The letter is too long to quote in full, but I will read one or two paragraphs :
I am inclosing a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Sifton for the information of the government to which I referred in my interview with the sub-committee, and which, no doubt, you have already seen. It deals exclusively with the question of provincial institutions in the territories, and I will again, on behalf of my colleagues, earnestly ask your consideration of' our request.
Then, after dealing with the question of finance, he concludes his letter with the following words :
To sum up, I beg to ask for an early reply to our requests, first for the granting of provincial institutions to the territories : secondly, for a vote supplementary to the North-west grant for the current year, and, thirdly, for a largely increased vote for the year 1903-4.
I have not observed in the correspondence any reply by my right hon. friend to that letter of Mr. Haultain's, unless we find it in a letter dated the 8th of June. The next communication in connection with the North-west government is to be found in sessional paper No. 116a, at page 13. It is in the form of a telegram from the Minister of Finance to Mr. Haultain, the Premier of the North-west Territories, and is as follows :
Ottawa, April 16, 1903.
To the Hon. Mr. F. W. G. Haultain, Regina.
Government will place in supplementary estimates for coming year two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to cover the over-expenditure of the territories, and also recommend to parliament an advance on capital account up to $500,000 from time to time for approved public works. The two bridges which have been specially arranged for to be charged to the capital advance. It will be better that all bridges in the territories be left to the territorial government. Please treat this as confidential for a day or two until I can arrange to have it dealt with by Order in Council.
W. S. FIELDING.
You will observe here again that there is not a single word of response to the demand of Mr. Haultain made to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of the Interior over and over again, that the demand of the Northwest Territories for a provincial status should be considered by the government and 13867 COMMONS 13868 an answer given forthwith. I might say, in passing, that I have not been able to find in the correspondence brought down the letter from Mr. Haultain to the Minister of the Interior, which is referred to in Mr. Haultain's letter to the Prime Minister of the 15th of April, 1903. It may be that on account of the confused condition in which this correspondence has been brought down I have overlooked it. The next letter to which I invite the attention of the House is that of Mr. Haultain to the Minister of Finance, of the 20th of April, 1903, which is found in sessional paper 116a, page 14. I will have to trouble the House with a couple of paragraphs of this letter, which is a very long one. After quoting certain correspondence which had taken place, Mr. Haultain proceeds as follows :
It is with much satisfaction that I note that the government has so far appreciated the position of affairs in the territories as to approve, in the most practical manner possible, of our methods of administration by providing for the expenditures we found it necessary to incur in the public interest during the year 1902. It would appear, however, to have escaped your observation that the placing of the appropriation to cover our expenditures of last year in the supplementary estimates for the coming Dominion fiscal year will have the effect of keeping the money from the territorial revenue until after the first day of July next. All the representations we have made —both written and oral--have been to the effect that the supplementary appropriation is desired to the current fiscal year's appropriations, so that the money may be rendered available at the earliest possible moment. To do otherwise can only embarrass us still further, and I would submit that with a prospective surplus of thirteen million dollars, to a very large extent due to the present flourishing condition of these territories, the Dominion will not be put to any very serious inconvenience by granting us the money it has been agreed to give us during the month of May instead of July. I trust that upon further consideration of the subject you will see your way clear to recommending the government to grant our request that the $250,000 referred to in your telegram be provided for through the supplementary estimates for 1902-3.
Your telegram makes no mention whatever of any proposal to increase our grant for the coming fiscal year. I take it that the suggested advance on capital account has no connection whatever with that subject. In discussing the various phases of the question of territorial finances, it has been found necessary at times to point out that our limited and inadequate revenues were more restricted, and rendered only more inadequate, by the necessity for making expenditures out of current income which in themselves were more properly chargeable to a capital account. That is to say, we have occasionally found it necessary to incur heavy expenditures for the construction of bridges the cost of which has been a heavy drain upon our revenues, and which should have been spread over a series of years instead of being provided for out of the revenue of one year, to the exclusion of other and equally important works. But we have never asked for the establishment of a capital account, and we do not wish for the establishment of such an account until a more satisfactory subsidy or annual grant is provided. We would even prefer, if possible. to postpone all discussion of the question until the details of the financial position of the territories under the provincial status are settled. Whilst the Dominion retains to itself the control and beneficiary interest in our revenue producing property it seems but fair to us that the Dominion should provide all needed funds for the proper carrying on of our business. Further, we cannot assent to any proposition that our expenditures shall be subject to approval at Ottawa. The legislative assembly of the territories has for a number of years been providing for the administration of public affairs in the territories. What has been done in that regard has met with the approval of the people of the territories, and this government cannot consent, at this date to any such proposal as that made in your telegram. In one sense, I quite agree with you that ' it will be better that all bridges in territories be left to the territorial government,' but that proposition must be coupled with another, namely, that adequate financial provision therefor be made by parliament. The Dominion government in the first place built the two bridges at Macleod and Lethbridge without reference to the government of the territories. It was possible that at the time they were built it was not practicable to do so, but the fact remains that, in pursuance of its general public works policy, the Dominion government built the two bridges in question and has undertaken to replace them. Under existing conditions, which the Dominion government does not appear to wish to remedy, we are content to leave that matter as it stands at present.
Then he deals with similar matters at great length, and he concludes his letter with the following paragraph :
I trust that the further consideration of this whole subject, promised in your telegram of this date, will result in some more definite recognition of our necessities than has hitherto been evidenced. The one, and the best solution of all these difficulties has, on several occasions of late, been suggested to the Dominion government, and it seems to me that I might well close this communication by an expression of the opinion that just so long as the provincial status is withheld from the territories will it be necessary for the government of the territories to direct attention with increasing force and emphasis to the present unsatisfactory manner of making financial provision for the public requirements of the country.
Now, that was followed up by a resolution of the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories. But before dealing with that, I might say that on the 20th of April, 1903, the Prime Minister replied to Mr. Haultain's letter of the 15th of April, in the following terms :
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your favour of the 15th instant, as Mr. Fielding has communicated with you already by wire on the subject therein mentioned, I do not suppose that it requires any further reply.
So the House will observe that not only did the Minister of Finance ignore absolutely the demands of Mr. Haultain for an answer to the request of the territories for provincial institutions, but my right hon. friend, by referring to the Finance Minister's answer, expressed himself in exactly the same way. On the 24th of April. 1903, 13896 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13870 by resolution found in sessional paper 116a, pages 20 and 21, the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories again passed a resolution in almost exactly similar terms to their resolution of 1900. They declare in paragraphs 8 to 10 :
8. And whereas under the several authorities so given the parliament of Canada has created political institutions in these territories bearing a close analogy to those which exist in the several provinces of the Dominion ;
9. And whereas by the confederation compact the province which formed the Dominion on the fifteenth day of July, 1870, were furnished with the means of carrying on local self-government upon certain well defined bases ;
10. And whereas the territories, being an integral part of the Dominion, and having had imposed upon them the duties and obligations incidental to the political institutions which have been given to them and said duties and obligations the parliament of Canada has declared its willingness to assume, are entitled to such federal assistance for their maintenance as will bear due proportion and analogy to that given to other portions of the Dominion for similar purposes.
Then a further paragraph deals with the question of finances, and paragraphs 14 and 15, concluding this memorial, are in the same terms as those I have already read to the House as part of the resolution of 1900. On the 2nd of June Mr. Haultain addressed a further letter to the right hon. Prime Minister which will be found in sessional paper 116a page 16. After referring to the correspondence which had passed between them he proceeds as follows :
In further reference to your letter of April 20, I beg to point out that Mr. Fielding's telegram does not deal with the most important part of my letter of April 16, namely our request for provincial institutions, and I would most respectfully urge that our representations on this important question merit some further reply than can be gathered by implication from the fact that Mr. Fielding does not refer to them.
Mr. Haultain had been pressing for some definite answer in regard to this matter from the month of March of that year. During that period he had written a great many times to the Minister of the Interior, he had written to the hon. Minister of Finance, he had written to the right hon. Prime Minister himself, and the only answer he ever got from any of these hon. gentlemen was a reference to some other gentleman, or a telegram of a somewhat casual character in which he was told that certain financial arrangements with the North-west Territories would be provided for by a grant during the present year. It does seem to me that the Premier of the North-west Territories, a gentleman representing a constituency of something over 350,000 people, might have been answered by any one of these three gentlemen to whom I have referred in a somewhat more formal manner than that which characterized the correspondence that I have read. On the 8th June Sir Wilfrid Laurier wrote to Mr. Haultain. The letter has not been printed at all as far as I can ascertain, but I have secured a typewritten copy of it. I repeat again my deep regret that the returns to which I have referred have come down in so incomplete a condition as to impose an enormous amount of labour on any man who desires to trace the sequence of this correspondence. I had better read the whole of the letter as it is important :
Privy Council, Canada, Ottawa, June 8, 1903.
Hon. F. W. G. Haultain, Regina,
Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd inst. The Minister of Finance has, by this time, communicated with you respecting the financial grant to be given to the North-West legislature.
With regard to your further request that legislation be introduced this session conferring on the territories full provincial organization. I have had the honour to discuss the matter with the members of the House of Commons from the territories. I have asked them to consider whether it would be advisable to have such legislation introduced this year. We are, as you know, introducing a redistribution measure at the present session, and we are giving to the territories a much larger representation in the House of Commons than they would be entitled to, were they to become a province. In fact the Bill which we have introduced allows to the territories a representation in the House of Commons of ten members. Were they to be admitted at once as a province they would be entitled to only six members. It would be a question of extreme difficulty and complications to give to the territories at the same time all the advantages of full provincial organization without the corresponding disadvantages.
I have the honour to be, sir. Yours truly,
(Sgd.) WILFRID LAURIER.
Well, my right hon. friend has at last given a reply to the Prime Minister of the territories and it does not seem to me to be a reply which ought to carry very great weight. He does not take up any of the reasons for delay which have been urged during the past two sessions by the hon. Minister of the Interior. The right hon. Prime Minister in this letter confines himself almost entirely to the fact that under the Redistribution Bill which was introduced during the present session the territories are to receive a representation of ten members, whereas, if we went strictly on population, they would be entitled to only six members. Is that really an answer to the demand of these people that they should be accorded a provincial status ? It is not an answer, certainly, even if the contention could be supported for a moment. It could not be supported for a moment, because, the right hon. gentleman only yesterday admitted that it would be fair to regard the territories as having a population of over 300,000 and as the unit of population for Can ada is something less than 25,000, if the 13871 COMMONS 13872 territories were created into a province today they would be entitled to twelve members instead of ten members. Therefore, I do not think there is very much force in the suggestion that my right hon. friend has made. I want to point out to my right hon. friend and to the House, that, if you create the North-west Territories into a province or provinces, you are not bound by the census of 1901. The very fact of your giving them ten members is evidence that you are not bound by the census of 1901. If you are bound by the census of 1901 the Territories would receive only six members, but you have a perfect right under the legislation that exists at the present time to give them twelve members. I believe from the statement of the Prime Minister himself that the North-west Territories have now a population which entitles them to twelve members instead of ten members. Therefore, if you organize them into a province they would not be under a disadvantage such as my right hon. friend has suggested. Ou the contrary, if you do justice to them and create them into a province to-morrow, you will be obliged from the facts that are patent to the government and to the people, to give to the North-west Territories twelve representatives in parliament instead of ten. Premier Haultain replied to that letter of the 15th of June, and as I have read the whole of the letter to the Prime Minister, I had better read the whole of Mr. Haultain's letter in reply :
Regina, June 15, 1903.
Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the eighth instant, relating to the question of provincial institutions in the territories, and to express regret on the part of the North-west government that that question has again been put on one side for a reason which seems quite foreign to the subject.
With all deference to the opinion expressed by you, I cannot see that the representation proposed to be given to the territories under the Redistribution Bill could be in any way affected by the passing of concurrent legislation granting the provincial status to the territories.
The provisions of the British North America Act relating to representation would not, I submit, apply to a province which, at the earliest, could only come into existence at the same time as the Redistribution Bill became law. Even if legislation creating a province were introduced at the present session of parliament, the actual coming into existence of the province would necessarily be postponed for some months to enable territorial affairs to be wound up, and thus any question with regard to representation and the effect of the British North America Act would be removed. I might also remind you that upon the admission of British Columbia into the confederation and upon the creation of the province of Manitoba larger representation was given than these two provinces were respectively entitled to under the British North America Act.
You say that you have discussed the question of provincial organization with the members of the House of Commons from the terri tories and asked them to consider whether it would be advisable to have such legislation introduced this year. Your letter does not make it clear what the opinion of these gentlemen is, but I feel justified in asserting that that opinion was not in accord with the wishes of the people they represent unless it supported the claims made by us which are unanimously endorsed by the North-west Legislature, and were practically unanimously endorsed by the people of the North-west Territories, at the general elections in May, 1902. The question of larger representation in the federal parliament is without doubt an important one, but the infinitely more urgent question of provincial organization should not be subordinated to it. The two questions are quite separate and independent, and cannot, I think I have shown, affect one another. Under any circumstances, however, the obtaining of provincial powers is in our opinion of much greater importance to the people of the territories than additional representation in a parliament whose failure to fulfil the duties and obligations it has assumed with regard to the North-west is one of our strongest reasons for demanding home rule.
I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,
(Sdg.) F.W.G. HAULTAIN.
I forgot to mention in connection with the reply of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that he did also adduce as a reason why the provincial status should not be given to the people of the North-west Territories the fact that the members from territories, who are all supporters of the government, were opposed to doing anything with regard to that matter during the present session. That may or may not be a good reason, and I offer no opinion as to Mr. Haultain's comments upon that, except to say—
Mr. OLIVER. Might I ask the hon. gentleman—
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). Will my hon. friend let me finish the sentence ?
Mr. OLIVER. Might I ask the hon. gentleman to read from the letter of the Prime Minister in which he made that statement?
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). I will read it later. I am dealing with it as Mr. Haultain interpreted it. I make no comment on that, except to say that if Mr. Haultain is to be believed—and he gives reasons why he should be believed—the opinion of these gentlemen, if it is their opinion, does not seem to be in accord with the opinion of the majority of the people of the North-west Territories. I do not presume to have the same knowledge of political matters in the North-west which is possessed by my hon. friends who represent the territories in this House, but I know that in 1900 a resolution demanding that this question should be taken up at once, was passed by the territorial legislature. I have understood—if I am wrong in this I would like to be corrected—that Mr. Haultain went to the people of the North-west Territories in 1902 13873 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13874 upon the platform that provincial autonomy and a provincial status should be granted forthwith, that going to the people upon that platform, he practically swept the constituencies, and that very few of those who were opposed to this government on that question were returned to the assembly. I have understood that the legislature of the Northwest Territories to-day is practically unanimous upon that point. I have been so informed by those who profess to know the views of the members of the legislature. However, I have not the same acquaintance with political matters there as have the gentlemen who represent the territories in this House, and if I am wrong on that point I shall be glad indeed that these gentlemen shall set me right. My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) desired me to read again a paragraph from the letter of the Prime Minister, and I will gladly do so.
With regard to your further request that legislation be introduced this session conferring on the territories full provincial organization, I have had the honour to discuss the matter with the members of the House of Commons from the territories. I have asked them to consider whether it would be advisable to have such legislation introduced this year. We are as you know introducing a redistribution measure at the present session and we are giving to the territories a much larger representation in the House of Commons than they would be entitled to were they to become a province. In fact the Bill which we have introduced, allows to the territories a representation in the House of Commons of 10 members. Were they to be admitted at once as a province they would be entitled only to six members. It would be a question of extreme difficulty and complications to give to the territories at the same time all the advantages of full provincial organization without the corresponding disadvantages.
My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) is quite right in suggesting—if he intended to make that suggestion—that there is no direct statement in the letter of the Prime Minister that it was the opinion of the hon. members from the territories that such legislation should not be introduced this year, but the inference that has been drawn by Mr. Haultain is the only possible inference. It is this; that the Prime Minister, having consulted with these gentlemen, and having come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to introduce legislation this year, they must have been of the opinion which the Prime Minister expresses in this letter.
Some hon. MEMBERS Hear, hear.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). Otherwise, of course, the Prime Minister would be consulting these hon. gentlemen as a matter of form, and knowing that these are gentlemen of strong opinions, and quite capable of pressing on the Prime Minister of Canada or any one else the opinions which they strongly hold, we can hardly believe that the Prime Minister would conclude not to introduce a measure this year, unless their opinion had practically coincided with his own on that point. The only other letter to which I will refer, is a letter from Mr. Bulyea, one of the ministers of the North-west Territories government, to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, dated the 16th of June, 1903 ; it is found at page 18, sessional paper 116a, and is as follows :
You will please excuse the liberty I take in addressing you, if it is a liberty to lay before you facts that I consider will be of material influence on the welfare of the Liberal party in the North-west Territories.
You are, of course, cognizant of all the representations that the territorial government have made in reference to increase of the financial assistance that is voted to us from time to time, and the arguments that have been advanced why a material increase is absolutely necessary, if the alternative of provincial autonomy were not granted to us. I have had considerable correspondence with the federal members representing the territories, who were kind enough to apprize me of the general representations they had made to your government, and I advised them that I consider that if such were adopted it would reasonably satisfy the general public in the territories, and would put your candidates and your supporters in the coming election in a position in which they could fight with zeal and, I am pleased to say, with every prospect of success.
The supplementary grant, and the addition to the main vote, while not as much as we asked for, will be of very material assistance to me in the work of my department as Commissioner of Public Works. The capital advance tendered is also needed for the construction of the large and permanent structures that must be completed to meet the requirements of the large influx of settlers into the country.
I regret to say, however, that not only as a member of the territorial government, but as a citizen of the North-west Territories, I must dissent most strongly from the proposition to charge up against this vote the large expenditure of $84,000 which is purely and simply for the reconstruction of two federal public works, viz:—the bridges over the Old Men's and Belly rivers, erected by the late Conservative government.
Then he deals with certain details as to these two bridges, and he concludes his letter with the following paragraph :
I trust, therefore, that you will see the necessity of meeting the reasonable views not only of the North-west government but of your friends who are members of the territorial assembly, and who uphold unanimously our government in claiming that the territories are entitled to have these federal structures replaced at the general expense of the Dominion of Canada.
                                        GEO. H. V. BULYEA.
A number of members of the legislative assembly sign an approval of that letter in the following words :—
The undersigned members of the legislative assembly strongly approve of the tenor of the above letter :—
13875 COMMONS 13876
George W. Brown.   P. Talbot. L. Geo. de Veter. B. Prince J. W. Woolf.  R. A. Wallace. W. J. Finley.  J. A. Simpson. C. A. Fisher. A. S. Rosenroll. A. D. McIntyre. Thos. Macnutt Charles Fisher. Alex. C. Rutherford. A. S. Smith.
I have detained the House with the correspondence at this length principally for these reasons : In the first place, to show that this has been a live question in the North-west Territories since the year 1900 at least ; in the second place, to show that it has been the subject of considerable correspondence between the territorial government and this government, that a sub-committee of the Privy Council has been appointed to deal with it, and that representatives of the territorial government have conferred with that committee; in the third place, to show the reasons on account of which this government has declined to act upon the memorial twice forwarded to His Excellency by the legislature of the North-west Territories, urging upon this government that provincial status should be granted ; and in the fourth place, to prove by the statement of the Prime Minister of the North-west Territories and by the resolution passed by its legislature that the people of the North-west Territories are almost unanimous in their demand that the provincial status should be granted to them.
I shall deal very briefly—because I have taken up the time of the House longer than I intended—I shall deal very briefly with some of the objections which have been raised against granting a provincial status to the territories. In the first place, there is the objection which has been already adverted to in the letters of Mr. Haultain, that the population of the territories is increasing at a more rapid rate than the population of the older provinces. I say, as I have several times before said in this House, and as Mr. Haultain has said in his correspondence, that if this is to debar the North-west Territories from obtaining a provincial status, then we must deprive them of provincial status during the next ten or fifteen years. That reason would deprive them of a provincial status after they have a population of a million people—after they have a population three or four times, possibly five or six times, that of some of the provinces of Canada which have enjoyed representative institutions for many years.
In the next place, the objection was made —it was made by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior last year, and I think also in some of the correspondence—that with a continually increasing population it will be difficult to arrange a permanent financial basis. So far as that is concerned. it is one of the difficulties which you must meet in granting a provincial status to the people of the North-west Territories. It is impossible to believe that the population of those territories will not increase at an enormously rapid rate during the next ten, or fifteen, or twenty years ; and if that fact is to afford an insuperable difficulty in arranging a permanent financial basis, then we shall have the people of the Northwest Territories treated, to a certain extent, as wards of this county for a great many years to come. I do not believe the difficulty is insuperable. After you have arrived at a conclusion that the people of that country are entitled to a provincial status, why cannot this government, as demanded by the government of the territories, at once appoint a committee for conference with that government ? And what reason is there for saying that it is impossible to find a basis which, on the one hand, will be just and fair so far as Canada is concerned, and, on the other hand, will give the people of the North-west Territories such an increase in the financial assistance to be obtained from the Dominion as the needs of their rapidly increasing population will from time to time demand at our hands ? I do not conceal from myself that the question is attended with difficulties ; but I suppose that almost every question of this kind is attended with some difficulties. The confederation of this Dominion was not unattended with difficulties. On the contrary, it was accompanied with difficulties tenfold greater than any of those which in the present case are considered so formidable. Those difficulties were overcome, and we have today a great Dominion as a result of the courage and the wisdom of the men who undertook to grapple with those difficulties ; and all we require, it seems to me, is a certain amount of courage and capacity to be devoted to this question, and some means can be found by which justice can be done to the territories in that regard, and at the same time no injustice will be done to the people of Canada as a whole.
The next point which has been made has been referred to by my right hon. friend during the present session. If I may be permitted to refer to his language, in speaking a few days ago of the powers which are possessed by the people of the Northwest Territories, and overlooking for the moment many of the differences which exist between their status and the status of the provinces, he used this language:
They are as free as any of us, but have not the power to borrow money, and perhaps it is as well to keep that power in abeyance in a young country like that.
My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, during the past session, used somewhat similar language ('Hansard,' page 3110) :
If they had the power to mortgage that territory for all time to come, which they would have if they were granted provincial powers, it might be mortgaged for very unwise and very unnecessary purposes. In saying this, I wish to guard against the imputation of saying that the 13877 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13878 people of the North-west Territories are not as capable of taking care of themselves and doing their own business as any others.
I do not share the apprehensions of my right hon. friend and of the Minister of the Interior with regard to these people. In the first place, although I have not the knowledge of them which is possessed by my hon. friends from that country who sit in this House, nevertheless I have some acquaintance with many of them from having made a tour through that country during the past year ; and I am prepared to say that if there is any body of people in Canada who would wisely administer a public domain entrusted to them, it is the people of the North-west Territories ; because I found in every meeting which I addressed in that country that the people were strongly imbued with the idea that the public domain should be conserved for public purposes, and not handed over to corporations and promoters. I believe that feeling is very deep and very widespread in the North-west Territories ; and a feeling of that kind is absolutely inconsistent with the possibility that if the public domain were entrusted to them, and they were granted the power to incur debt, they would be likely to use either the one power or the other in such a way as would not inure to the public interest of that country or of Canada as a whole. Who are those people who inhabit the North-west ? Why, up to the present year, they have been largely the same people who have been sending representatives from the older provinces of Canada—people of exactly the same type, having the same political training, accustomed to the same representative institutions ; and why is it that Mr. John Smith, living in the eastern provinces of Canada, is to be entrusted with the right to borrow money for public purposes, and the same gentleman, when he removes to the North-west Territories, finds himself classed in a different category ? I do not understand any such argument as that : and I do not believe any ordinary citizen of this country, going from eastern Canada to the north-west of Canada, will be so influenced by the fact that there is a great public domain in that country that he will be induced either to borrow money or to alienate the public domain to any unwise extent or for any unwise purpose.
Then, we have now another element coming into the North-west Territories—an element from the great country to the south of us. Are we to have any apprehension with regard to the attitude of these people on a question of that kind ? They are people who are accustomed to practically the same representative institutions as those concluding I shall trouble the House With enjoyed by the people of Canada, They are people who, I believe, for the most part, take a deep interest in public affairs ; and I believe that any of those people will take at once as deep an interest in the proper administration of the public affairs of this country as any citizen of Canada in the east or the west. I was particularly struck with the interest which some of these people took in the country. I was struck with the fact that before they emigrated to this country they took the pains, some of them at least, to ascertain what were the laws with regard to the schools. They wished to know whether their children would have the advantage of public schools or not ; and they evinced an interest in the administration of the public affairs of the country which, I think, indicates that we might safely entrust to them, as well as to our own people from the east, who, with their descendants, are in that country, the management of their own local affairs. Under these circumstances, it does not seem to me that the reason that has been suggested is a good reason. And where are we to draw the limit ? If 350,000 people in the North—west Territories cannot be entrusted to borrow money, are you to entrust that power to half a million or to a million ? What number will afford any reasonable degree of safety ? I see no reason for withholding that power from 350,000 people and granting it to half a million or a million.
It is within the bounds of extreme probability that the North-west Territories of Canada will have well nigh one-half a million people before provincial autonomy can be accomplished if it is undertaken at once. Therefore there is no good reason why the government should stay its hand ; there is no good reason, I believe why during this present session the government should have stayed its hand. Is there any objection to granting to the people of the North-west Territories the power to charter railway companies, telegraph companies, telephone companies and steamship lines ? That power is possessed by the people of Manitoba who dwell alongside of them ; in what respect are the people of Manitoba better able to say whether or not a railway company shall be chartered than are the people of the North-west Territories who are separated from them only by an imaginary line ? I see no force in any suggestion that in respect of powers of that kind the people of the North-west Territories should not be placed on exactly the same plane as the people of eastern Canada.
The people of the North-west Territories contend, and it seems to me they fairly contend, that upon the conceding of a provincial status they should be given control of their lands and minerals. Objections have been raised to this ; I shall refer to one of them. The Premier of the North-west Territories touched upon this subject in his speech to which I have already referred and before concluding I shall trouble the House with a quotation from his remarks. I believe the argument against granting to the people of the North-west Territories the right to control their own lands is based on the theory that Canada as a whole and not the people of the North-west Territories are en 13879 COMMONS 13880 titled to a proprietary interest in those lands, and that, therefore those lands should be reserved for the people of Canada, including the eastern provinces, and should not be committed to the people of the Northwest Territories to be administered by them. I have already considered the wisdom or unwisdom of conceding this power to the people of the North-west Territories so far as the likelihood of their making an unwise use of that power is concerned and I shall not repeat my argument as to that ; but I say that the arguments used to-day in Canada with regard to lands in the North-west Territories are precisely the arguments used by English statesmen of forty or fifty years ago with regard to the public lands of Canada as a whole, and of the colonies generally. I had occasion to look carefully into this question some two or three years ago and I went into it somewhat fully in an address which I delivered in the town of Lindsay in this province. I pointed out on that occasion, what I believe to be the fact, that if the policy of certain British statesmen had been persevered in, and if the lands of Canada and of the other colonies had been administered from Downing Street instead of by the colonies, such friction and dissatisfaction would have been created that it is more than probable that Canada and some of the other colonies would before this have severed their connection with the mother country, I see no reason why the views which prevailed eventually and which reseulted in giving to Canada the absolute control of her own public lands are not just as forcible arguments to-day in the mouths of the people of the North-west Territories I have under my hand in the speech of Mr. Haul- tain the arguments of British statesmen of days gone by. Let me refer to one or two of them and you will see that they are exactly in line with the views of those who hold that the public lands in the North-west Territories should be retained by Canada. Lord Durham in his report said :
The country which has founded and maintained these colonies at a vast expenditure of blood and treasure may justly expect its compensation in turning their unappropriated resources to the account of its own redundant population : they are the rightful patrimony of the English people, the ample appanage, which God and nature have set aside in the new world, for those whose lot has assigned them an insufficient portion in the old. . . . . Under wise and free institutions these great advantages may yet be secured to Your Majesty's subjects, and a connection, secured by the link of kindred origin and mutual benefits, may continue to bind to the British empire the ample territories of its North American provinces, and the large and flourishing population by which they will assuredly be filled.
Then Lord Grey, later on, used the following language :
The waste lands of the vast colonial possessions of the British empire are held by the Crown, as trustee for the inhabitants of that empire at large, and not for the inhabitants of the particular province, divided by arbitrary geographical limits, in which any such waste land happens to be situate. Otherwise the consequence would follow that the other inhabitants of these vast provinces (if possessing these representative institutions which arise as of right in ordinary British colonies) are indefeasibly entitled to administer all the lands and land revenue of the great unexplored tract called a province and of which they may occupy an extremity, wholly without regard to the nation which has founded the settlement, perhaps at great expense, in order to serve as a home for her own emigrants and a market for her own industry.
Mr. Haultain also referred to a very valuable work, which is in the library here, the work of Mr. Egerton. He quoted from Mr. Egerton as follows :
It was, however, when it became necessary to translate these admirable theories into practice that the real difficulties began. In the case of Canada these difficulties proved insurmountable.
And later on Mr. Egerton says :
We have already seen that all English statesmen started with the firm intention to control the Crown lands in the hands of the mother country, but the practical difficulties in the way proved insurmountable.
Mr. Haultain, in his speech, referred to the policy of the mother country in later years and particularly to what was done when a constitution was given to the colony of West Australia in 1890. The policy of the British government in later years, where representative institutions have been conferred on a colony, is to give to the colony absolute control of its own lands and not to seek to administer those lands from London. The same policy was pursued by those who prepared the Canadian Confederation Act. The provinces were given the control of their own public lands in almost every respect. The province of Nova Scotia has control of its Crown lands and of its mines and minerals. The same rule prevails in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. In the province of Manitoba the lands are still administered, I believe, by the Dominion, but some compensation was made to that province when it received a constitution and I believe that since the erection of the province—although my friend from Manitoba will know this better than I do—the swamp lands have been entrusted to the administration of the province and I am under the impression, although am not sure, that any revenue derived from the administration of these swamp lands belongs to the province. I am correct in that, am I not ?
Mr. MCCREARY. Yes.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). Is there any more reason why a man in the North-west Territories who desires to apply for a grant of land, should have to deal with the government at Ottawa than a citizen of the 13881 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13882/fw> province of Nova Scotia should be required to come to Ottawa when he desires to make an application for a mining lease ? Is there any reason why matters of this kind should not be under the control of the local government ? Has any danger or any injury accrued to the public interest in the province of Ontario, in the province of Quebec, or in the maritime provinces on account of the powers of self-government which have been granted to those provinces in this respect ? The North-west Territories are not the only part of Canada containing great areas of surplus lands that may be filled with an enormous population in the future.
I am told by a gentleman holding a high position in the public affairs of the province of Quebec that in that great province there are 75,000,000 of acres of the best land in the world, which will be settled and will support an enormous population one day. The province of Quebec administers these lands. Immigration from foreign countries promoted by this government may come to settle on these lands. And yet, while the lands are controlled absolutely by the province of Quebec under their own local powers of self-government, the lands of the North-west Territories are controlled by this government through the Department of the Interior. We have heard a great deal lately of New Ontario, and no one can doubt that there is a splendid country in Ontario that will be filled up with a fine population one of these days, or that immigration will be brought from foreign countries to new Ontario. The lands of that country are administered by the people of Ontario through their local government, while, in contrast with that, the people of the North-west Territories have their lands administered at Ottawa by this government, through the Department of the Interior.
Mr. SCOTT. And the same with Manitoba.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). I think I stated that, except that I pointed out, as Mr. Haultain has pointed out, that the people of Manitoba received a certain compensation, I believe for their lands at the time the province was constituted. Further than that, a portion of the lands at least have been handed over to the control of the province since it was organized. And, so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned, I know of no good reason why any lands that remain to be administered in that province should not be administered by the local government instead of by this government. If the principle is good for the North-west Territories, I admit it is also good for the province of Manitoba. In matters of this kind, I do not think we should shrink from going the full length. If the people of Ontario, of Quebec and of the maritime provinces can properly administer their lands through their own local government, I say the people of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories are just as capable of ad ministering their lands through their own local government, and they can better administer them than can this central government at Ottawa. Now, Mr. Haultain refers to some difficulties that might be suggested, with regard to immigration. I suppose he refers to homestead entries and matters of that kind. These questions would have to be dealt with between this government and the government of the territories. I believe that reasonable provisions could be made with the people of the North-west Territories which would ensure to the people of the country as a whole that there would be no restriction of immigration by reason of any dealing by the North-west Territories, with their own lands. The people of the North-west Territories are more interested than any one else in Canada in having these lands taken up and occupied, in having the country settled, and in the prosperity that would follow a great flood of immigration into that country. So far as that question is concerned, it has been suggested by Mr. Haultain, I believe, that it would not be incapable of solution, and that it could be settled satisfactorily not only to the people as a whole, but to the people of the North-west Territories.
I think I have dealt, though very briefly, with the principal objections which have been pointed out in the correspondence and in the speeches of the right hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior in dealing with this question. I say in conclusion that, the people of the North-west Territories are practically unanimous on this question, that their government is urgent on this question, and as the matter has had the consideration of this government for at least two years and a half, there seems no good reason why active steps should not be taken for the purpose of giving to these people the rights of local self-government to which they are, I believe, justly entitled. I apprehend no injury, no danger, to the people of this country from taking that course. On the other hand, I believe the adoption of that course will tend to remove and obviate friction and dissatisfaction among these people which, however, will prevail and continue if we longer withhold from them those complete rights which the people of the eastern provinces enjoy, and which the people of the west, I believe, could exercise just as prudently and as well as the people of any province in Canada. Therefore, I move :
That all the words after the Word ' That ' in the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted therefor :—
'By humble addresses of the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories of Canada to His Excellency the Governor General, in the year 1900 and again in the year 1903, the said legislative assembly did humbly represent and pray (inter alia) to His Excellency as follows :—
'14. Therefore, be it resolved, that an humble address to His Excellency the Governor 13883 COMMONS 13884 General be adopted by this House praying him that he will be pleased to cause the fullest inquiry to be made into the position of the territories, financial and otherwise, and to cause such action to be taken as will provide for their present and immediate welfare and good government, as well as the due fulfilment of the duties and obligations of government and legislation assumed, with respect to these territories, by the parliament of Canada.
' 15. And be it further resolved, that, whereas by the British North America Act, 1871, it was (amongst other things) enacted that the parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of . . . . such province, His Excellency be also prayed to order inquiries to be made and accounts taken with a view to the settlement of the terms and conditions upon which the territories or any part thereof shall be established as a province, and that before any such province is established opportunity should be given to the people of the territories through their accredited representatives of considering and discussing such terms and conditions.'
That under the provision of the British North America Act and amending Acts the people of the several provinces of Canada enjoy large powers of local self-government committed to and exercised by the executive and the legislature of each province.
That the time has arrived when the same powers of local self-government should be granted to the people of the North-west Territories of Canada and to this end the said representations and prayer contained in the said humble addresses should be taken into immediate consideration and acted upon forthwith.
I know that there are many matters of detail which will have to be dealt with when this question comes to be considered. These matters of detail will have to be arranged by conference between representatives of this government and representatives of the people of the North-west Territories. For the present, the proposition which I desire to place before the House and the country is this—that the time has arrived when the same power of local self-government should be granted to the people of the North-west Territories as that enjoyed by the people of the older provinces of Canada, and that fills government, in compliance with the prayer of the legislature of the North-west Territories twice repeated, should take immediately, without any further delay whatever, such steps as may be necessary to accomplish that purpose, which I believe, to be not only a wise but a just one.
Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta). The North-west Territories are certainly to be congratulated on having received so much recognition from the leader of the opposition on this occasion, and from his followers. The people of the west will no doubt with great satisfaction hear of the interest he has taken and of the arguments he has made in their behalf. As one of the representatives of the territories in parliament, I can assure the House that it is with great pleasure and satisfaction I heard him take the stand he has taken to-night. I hope he is not alone, and that the gentlemen who sit behind him take as great a degree of interest as he has taken on this occasion. It has struck me however, and I think it will strike the people of the territories as well, that possibly there would have been a more definite and satisfactory result from the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite had the leader of the opposition spoken sooner. This is not a new question ; as he has intimated.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). Would my hon. friend permit me to make a statement in regard to that ? It was not until after we began the debate on the Transcontinental Railway Bill that the papers to which I have been referring to-night were printed, and since that debate has concluded I have spent a good deal of time in endeavouring to get this correspondence brought down, and now we have it in a very confused shape. But I can assure my hon. friend that it was only for that reason I had delayed until now in speaking on this matter. My hon. friend will do me the justice, I am sure, to remember that I brought the matter to the attention of the government in speaking in the debate on the address at the commencement of the session.
Mr. OLIVER. Certainly I do not wish to do the leader of the opposition any injustice uuder the circumstances, and I was not alluding to that particular feature of the case. I was about to say that the question is even older than he suggested in his opening remarks. It is not a question which arose in 1896, or in 1897, or in 1900. Having been a member of the North-west Assembly myself, I am perhaps more familiar with the matter than he is, and I can assure him that the question is of much more ancient date ; that it has been claiming the attention of the people of the territories for many years, and that the position has remained substantially the same all these years. That is to say, there has been a demand, either for terms which would go with provincial organization, or equally good terms without provincial organization. For the people of the North-west Territories the question has been one of finance and not of authority ; it has been a material question and not a theoretical question. The question in 1896, in 1897, and in 1900, was with them how to best govern the territories, how to meet the financial requirements of that government. and how best to bring to the notice and favourable attention of this government the requirements of that country. The financial needs of the territories are the same to-day as they have always been, except that they are greater to-day than they have ever been. Although my hon. friend has said that he did not have in his possession the particular correspondence that has been 13885 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13886 laid upon the Table, and upon which he made such lengthy remarks this evening, still, as a member of this House since 1896, he must have known that there was a continual conflict of opinion between the government of the territories and the government here as to the amount of money that should be placed at the disposal of that government by this government. If he had been as enthusiastic ever since 1896 as he has expressed himself to-night, the people of the territories would have benefited thereby in the years which have intervened, and would have benefited substantially even this year. It is no secret that the opposition have a great deal to do with shaping the policy of the government, and that the government, in considering the demands of the territories from time to time, have had to consider the possibility of opposition from the opposition. It has been the somewhat thankless place of members of this House from the territories supporting the government, to bring before the attention of the House and of the country, year after year, the financial requirements of the territories. I do not recall that up to the present moment we have received any assistance from the leader of the opposition or from his supporters on the other side of the House.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). I think my hon. friend is mistaken in that.
Mr. OLIVER. Well, I am willing to be corrected, but I do not remember anything of that kind at this moment. I may say that this is a subject that has taken my attention very strongly from year to year, and while I would not wish at all to question the statement, still, as I said, it does not come to my memory that we ever did receive any assistance. I would like to say that had that interest been taken by the members of the opposition in the early part of the session that was taken later on and to-night, the territories would no doubt have gained a very considerable financial benefit and would have been still better able to meet the requirements that they are called upon to meet. The point I wish to make is that the people of the territories want money and not talk. That is the question at issue, and the closer we keep to it the better will be the understanding, and the better the results that we will have. While I do not wish to go into anything very controversial at this particular time, I will take the opportunity of pointing out that a proposition which involves the placing before the people of the North-west Territories of the idea that they have been very badly used both financially and otherwise, that their premier, in fact, has been insulted by this government, and yet that does not offer in any degree or in any way any substantial suggestion for immediate or future relief, is not a proposition that is likely to meet with very much favour at their hands. Had it been intended to actually benefit the people of the North-west and had the address which we have listened to to-night contained propositions definitely tending to result in financial benefit to the territories, we could appreciate the action taken, but when action has not been taken until the last days of a session which already has lasted over seven months—
An hon. MEMBERS. How do you know they are the last days of the session ?
Mr. OLIVER. We hope they are. When action has not been taken until the last days of a session which has already lasted over seven months, and when brought forward no practical suggestion for meeting the present difficulty is contained in it, there is only one conclusion to be drawn, and that is that the remarks of the hon. gentleman are chiefly made to be added to the tons of printed matter already lying franked in stacks outside and inside of this building for distribution throughout the territories. Talk is cheap, but it is money that counts.
We are more than pleased to hear the expression of confidence by the hon. leader of the opposition in the intelligence and honesty of the people of the North-west Territories. I was not aware that they needed any particular certificate in that regard, but at any rate, we are pleased to have it from such a good authority. We believe that all his kind words are fully deserved, although the modesty of the people of the North-west Territories and of their representatives would prevent them claiming any special advantage in that regard. The hon. gentleman has been very willing to concede to us the control of the public lands in the territories, and of the public resources of the territories, and he has been willing to concede us the right to incur debt on our own behalf. As he said, I do not know why the people of the North-west Territories are not just as able to control their own land satisfactorily and just as worthy of being allowed to contract debt for public purposes as the people of any other part of the country. But, that is not the point. The point is this : What subsidy is to be given to the people of the North-west Territories as the basis of their provincial organization, so that they will not need to sell their public lands and so that they will not need to go in debt ? The hon. gentleman was very generous with us in permitting us to do as we like with our own. What we want to know is what share he is going to give us in the general financial arrangements of the Dominion. That is a matter which he proposed to leave to a commission or to arbitration. That is not the way in which the Premier of the North-west Territories left it. He made certain definite financial propositions. He said : Give us these as the essential part of provincial organization. But, the hon. leader of the opposition does not say that he will give them these. He says : We will leave it to a committee or to a commission. As a representa 13887 COMMONS 13888 tive of the North-west Territories, and believing that the proposition made by the Premier would be a good proposition for the territories if acceded to, we want to know what the hon. leader of the opposition and his followers on the floor of parliament are prepared to give towards meeting the demands of the Premier of the North-west Territories. That is a definite proposition. It is not something that is in the clouds. It is not misty. Upon the acceptance of that proposition depends the whole question. Provincial autonomy is only a name, but the amount of subsidy which the proposed province will receive is an important fact, and that is the point we want settled or approximately settled before we go into a provincial organization.
Mr. CLANCY. By whom ?
Mr. OLIVER. By the Dominion government, and we want to know when we get offers of help from our hon. friends opposite what those offers of help mean. We want to know the measure of their sympathy in dollars and not in words.
Mr. POPE. You are ingenious but not clever.
Mr. OLIVER. I may return the compliment. It is of no advantage to the people of the territories that they should be permitted to sell the lands of the territories. If they sell the lands, settlement is thereby deterred; if they do not sell them, they derive no revenue from them. and in so far as that is concerned, they might as well be administered by the Dominion government as by themselves. It is, I may say, a rather cool proposition that political credit should be claimed for an offer to permit the North-west Territories to control their own lands, when such a large portion of those lands have already passed out of the control of either government, and when the balance of these lands are not being sold and no revenue is being derived from them by the government which has them in hand.
The proposition, as it has been laid down, simply amounts to this: We will give you provincial autonomy; we will give you the lands that at present are not being sold, and that the general good of the country requires shall not be sold ; we will allow you to go into debt to any extent you like; but we will not say what we will give you to run your government on; we will keep away from that subject altogether. It seems to me most unfair that an attempt should be made to create a feeling of dissatisfaction in the North-west Territories, without any steps whatever being taken to allay the dissatisfaction thus created, without saying in any shape or form, how far the desires of the people of the North-west in regard to financial assistance are to be acceded to. Just what these desires are it may be well to inform the House, and perhaps some gentleman on the other side will be able to tell us how far they will go towards acceding to these desires. I may point out that in the printed papers that have been placed before the House the financial question is the essential point in every one of the arguments of Premier Haultain and of his government. In his memorial of April 4th, 1903, the complaint is :
That no sufficient response has been given to the repeated demands for financial assistance necessary for the proper and effective administration of the territories.
In the memorial which follows the complaint is that there are not sufficient additions to the annual grant. In Mr. Haultain's letter to the Prime Minister he draws particular attention—
To the necessities, financial and otherwise. of the territories.
And all through the correspondence the great question is the financial question, the question of the amount of money that is to be derived by the territories from the national treasury as a condition of entering into the provincial status. It has been said that the people of the Northwest Territories are unanimously in favour of this provincial organization. I believe they are unanimously in favour of it if they can get it on the terms proposed, but I am just as certain that they are just as unanimously against it unless they get it on these terms, or on some similar terms. I am perfectly satisfied that they are unanimously against it if they are only to get it on the same terms as it has been granted to the other provinces of the Dominion, and I will take the liberty of reading from the definite proposition made by Mr. Haultain in support of my statement. He submitted a draft Bill for the establishment of the territories as a province, and in that Bill he suggested the measure of subsidies which the territories should receive:
The following amounts shall be allowed and paid by Canada. by half. yearly payments in advance as an annual subsidy to the province, that is to say :—
(a.) For the support of the government and legislature, fifty thousand dollars.
(b.) On an estimated population of two hundred and fifty thousand at eighty cents per head, two hundred thousand dollars, subject to be increased, as hereinafter mentioned, that is to say:—A census of the province shall be taken in every fifth year reckoning from the general decennial census of one thousand nine hundred and one and an approximate estimate of the population shall be made at equal intervals of time between such quinquennial census and such decennial census, and whenever the population by any such census or estimate exceeds two hundred and fifty thousand. which shall be the minimum on which the said allowance shall be calculated, the amount of the said allowance shall be increased in accordance therewith until the population reaches one million three hundred and ninety six thousand and ninety-one, after which there shall be no further increase.
13889 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13890
The words ' one million ' are not contained on that page, but a telegram on a subsequent page states they should be inserted. The next demand is in the following terms:
The province shall be entitled to be paid and to receive from the government of Canada by half yearly payments in advance, interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum, on the excess over the sum of of a sum to be ascertained by multiplying the population of the province by 32·46, and for the purpose of this section the population of the province shall until after the next decennial census be deemed to be two hundred and fifty thousand : provided that immediately after the census of there shall be a readjustment under this section on the basis of the population as ascertained by such census.
Now, the proposition which the Premier of the territories asks this parliament to agree to, and to which inferentially the leader of the opposition has asked parliament to agree—but which he has been very careful not to definitely ask anybody to agree to—is that there shall be a continual readjustment of the per capita grant and of the debt account on the basis of the continually increasing population. I am here to say that no other arrangement can or would be satisfactory. No arrangement would be satisfactory that would not provide for an increase in the per capita grant and in the debt allowance according to increase of population. It is a play upon words, or it is a misuse of words to call an arrangement entered into under those conditions, acquiring the rights of the other provinces of Canada. It is acquiring rights which the other provinces do not possess. I will be very glad if the other provinces will agree to it, but I, as a representative of the North-west Territories, do not propose to go into a sort of blind pool, not knowing how we are going to come out when a conclusion has been reached on this very momentous question. As the members of the House know, in the case of the other provinces the per capita grant is paid on the actual or estimated population at the date of confederation, and that population is not continually increased.
Mr. SCOTT. The other provinces are going to ask for that to be changed.
Mr. OLIVER. Possibly so, but I am speaking of the condition as it exists. I am not finding fault with the proposition of Premier Haultain, but what I am finding fault with is that when the words 'provincial organization' or ' provincial autonomy' are used, the inference should be given out that we are asking for the same terms that the provinces now have. We are not asking for these terms ; we would not accept these terms ; we could not afford to accept these terms ; we must get different terms, and the question is : Will the opposition, which is in such generous mood, accept those terms. The leader of the opposition had this document before him, and he was careful not to say that he would accept these terms. He was careful to convey the idea that this question was a mere matter of detail, and that it could be arranged by a committee. I want to say that it is not a matter of detail. I say that it is an essential question, and that upon this question hinges the willingness of the people to enter into the status of a province, or to remain outside of that status. I was somewhat astonished to hear the hon. member (Mr. Borden, Halifax) indicate that the question as to whether there should be one province or two was a mere question of detail. The question of the number of provinces, and the question of the subsidies which these provinces shall receive are the essential questions ; other questions are matters of detail.
The question whether the territories, as they are at present, have all the powers which a province has, is a question of detail ; because, if they have not those powers, they can be given to them in their present condition as well as they could if they were a province. The hon. leader of the opposition questioned the previous statement of the Premier, that the only important right belonging to a province which the territories did not hold was the right to incur debt. That statement stands, and stands correct in all essential particulars. If the territories lack any other power than that, it can be given to them without provincial organization ; and provincial organization, with the power to incur debt, rests, not upon a legislative enactment in itself, but upon a fixed subsidy being granted. Until there is a fixed subsidy, the province, if the territories were created or called a province to-morrow, could not incur debt. Though this parliament were to pass a thousand Acts allowing it to incur debt, its credit would not be good until it had a fixed subsidy. Therefore, the question of incurring debt depends entirely upon the terms upon which the subsidy for the province to be created is granted. Given a permanent, fixed subsidy, the province or the territories, if you like to call them such, could incur debt, because their credit would be good.
I have said that the difference between the powers of the territories as they exist and the powers of a province are not important. They are not of chief importance. The chief purpose of a local government is to attend to local interests, of which the greater are the needs of education, the taking care of municipal legislation and the providing of the smaller public works. If these needs are attended to, it matters not whether it is under the name of a province or a territory. The needs and requirements of the people are met ; and if they are fully met the people are better satisfied than they would be with an empty offer to allow them to sell their public lands 13891 COMMONS 13892 and to incur debt on their own account, which, as far as the proposition has been laid before us, might have to be met by local taxation.
I will just draw attention again to the difference in the status of the provinces and the status of the territories in the matter of subsidy, which, as I said before, is the main matter. The total subsidy per head amounts, in Ontario, to 66 1/3 cents, in Quebec to 66 cents, in Nova Scotia to 94 1/4 cents, in New Brunswick to $1.40, in British Columbia to $1.72, in Manitoba to $2.08 1/2, in Prince Edward Island to $2.05 1/2, and in the North-west Territories, on the grant of this year, to $4.47 2/5. Now, unless our hon. friends are prepared to give us some definite assurance that we are not going to be placed in an inferior position financially to that which we occupy at the present time, I certainly cannot say that we are in favour of provincial autonomy, especially when it is held out to us that provincial autonomy means giving us provincial organization on the same footing as the provinces. We do not want it on those terms ; we cannot afford to take it on those terms.
There has been put up the argument that the territories should have control of their public lands and of their own resources in all ways, in order that they might be able to aid railways. I do not know just where this idea emanated from at present ; but I take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the fact that as a result of the proceedings of this session, as far as it has gone, the North-west is not doing badly in the matter of aid to railways. It stands at present to benefit by the credit of the country at large to the extent of some $9,000,000 in regard to the Canadian Northern Railway and some $12,000,000 in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific. It might be, if the Northwest Territories had control of their own lands, they would be required to pledge those lands to give aid to railways. I am in a position to say that it was for the definite purpose of being able to do so in years gone by that the demand was made for control of the lands at a time when there was no railway extension in the territories, when railway extension was very greatly needed, and when the lands of the territories had been given and were being given to aid in the construction of railways not in the territories at all. At that time the territories did demand and require the control of their own lands for the purpose of aiding railways ; but to-day, I submit, the position is very considerably different. Today there are no lands in the territories being sold to speculators ; to-day there are no lands in the territories being granted to railways, but railways are being provided in the territories as they never were provided before—liberally and under satisfactory conditions. That reason, then, for the control of lands certainly does not exist.
In regard to the question whether there should be one province or two, I may point out that the Bill which the Premier has submitted provides for only one province. For my own part, considering the territories in their present condition, with their present population, I have no hesitation in declaring myself in favour of only one province. But the comparison which the hon. leader of the opposition has made between the territories and the other parts of the Dominion does not hold. There is no other equal area of the Dominion which offers the same prospect of an early settlement of an immense population as does the territories ; and it is fair matter for consideration whether such a large area, if fully populated, might not be better divided into two or more provinces rather than be held as only one. I submit that at this moment, when there is a prospect of the early construction of two lines of railway across the territories, through the most fertile part and the prospect of an early and very large increase of population in that particular part of the country, which has until recent years been almost uninhabited, it is hardly opportune to decide on all questions relating to the manner of a final organization of the territories. I beg to assure hon. gentlemen that the territories are not in the state of excitement in regard to provincial organization which they seem to imagine. They will find that with fair treatment in the matter of subsidy, the people will be satisfied, whatever the politicians may be, or whatever may be those who would desire to exploit the resources of the country if placed in other than the present hands. In regard to the treatment accorded the Premier of the territories by the members of this government, I may say that I have had a long acquaintance with Mr. Haultain, and I am quite satisfied that he is able to protect himself ; and from my more brief acquaintance with the members of the present government, I believe they are able to take their own part, and that we can leave that matter to be settled between them. In regard to the people of the Northwest Territories, it is a different matter. The questions at issue are questions concerning them and interesting to them, and I am bound to say that the answer to the people of the North-west Territories has been fairly satisfactory. It is contained in the main and supplementary estimates of the present session, totalling something like $1,040,000. This is the answer we wanted ; this is the answer for which we asked ; this is the answer we received, and I beg to assure the House that, so far as it goes, it is entirely satisfactory, very much more so than would be any possible interchange of civilities that might have gone on between the representatives of the two governments. I might say also, in answer to the question as to the attitude of the representatives of the North-west Territories, that we are here to support and to 13893 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13894 advance the interests of the people of the North-west Territories. Speaking for myself—as I am entitled to speak for myself only—I support the government so long as I consider it is supporting the interests of the North-west Territories. In this particular instance I am bound to say that I believe the North-west Territories has this year received a response to its demand and to its requirements which comes nearer being satisfactory than any which it has heretofore received. So far, then, we are entitled to congratulate ourselves upon the results achieved, and I believe the people of the North-west Territories will give due credit both to the government and to their representatives.
Mr. SPROULE. If the people of the west are satisfied with what has been done this year, why does Premier Haultain say that they have never asked for the establishment of a capital account, and refuse to accept the money on that basis ?
Mr. DAVIS. He called a special meeting of the assembly to vote $250,000, and they were in a hurry to vote it ; they did not let the grass grow.
Mr. OLIVER. I am very glad my hon. friend interrupted me on this point, because I had nearly missed it. As I said before, the power which goes with provincial organization is the power of borrowing money. This is the power which the hon. leader of the opposition is most anxious to give to the people of the North-west Territories. It and the power to sell the lands are apparently the only powers he is willing to give the territories. In the memorandum which Mr. Haultain submitted to the government it will be found that one of the grounds of complaint is that we are not permitted to draw on the future. He points out that extensive works are needed, and he complains that under their present status they are not permitted to draw on the future— to borrow money. That is his strong ground in demanding provincial organization, and now, when the government offers to advance and does advance, a matter of $250,000, the opposition want to know why it is done, and say that nobody asked for it and that it will not be spent. Surely, this money is just as useful to the people of the territories when advanced from the Dominion treasury as it would be if borrowed in the outside market. Surely, it is as much use to them and will build as many public works. Besides that, if they had borrowed it in the ordinary market, they would have had to pay interest, but by the present arrangement they are not required to pay interest, and indeed it is not at all certain, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, that they will ever have to account for the principal; that is a matter which will be settled when a final provincial organization is arrived at.
Mr. HACKETT. Might I ask the hon. gentleman if he supported the resolution for home rule for Ireland ?
Mr. OLIVER. I did not happen to be here when that vote was taken ; 1 had not arrived in parliament, but if it is of any interest to the hon. member or to the House, I would say that if I had been here I would not have supported it.
Mr. HACKETT. The majority of hon. gentlemen on that side of the House did support it, and I think it is strange that, after supporting that resolution for home rule for Ireland, they should now oppose home rule for the west.
Mr. OLIVER. It does not concern me what the other members of the House did on that occasion or on any other occasion, as possibly members on both sides very well know. However, I do not see What that has to do with the question, and I would wish to point out to the hon. member, and to the gentlemen on both sides, that it is not we who are objecting to provincial autonomy ; we are asking provincial autonomy, but we want it on certain terms. It is hon. gentlemen opposite who are talking provincial autonomy, but are not willing to give it. They will not give the terms that alone make provincial autonomy a practical and reasonable proposition.
Mr. SPROULE. Would it not be a proper thing to settle whether parliament is prepared to give it or not, and then arrange the details ?
Mr. OLIVER. We understand that exactly. That is a view hon. gentlemen opposite take, but that is not the view we take.
Mr. SPROULE. You take the view that it should not be given on any terms.
Mr. OLIVER. Not at all. I said in this House last session, and this session, and I take the liberty of repeating it, that if the House will give the North-west Territories the terms asked for in the draft Bill contained in these papers, I will certainly support it most strongly. We will all support it. These are the terms we want.
Mr. SPROULE. I did not wish to do the hon. gentleman personally any injustice. In making the statement I did. I referred to the government he supports. They are not prepared to give the autonomy on any terms.
Mr. OLIVER. I am not discussing what the government have done. The terms of this draft Bill are what we want. That is what we want the government to do and that is what we want the opposition to say they will do—but they won't ; they are very careful not to. The leader of the opposition spoke for two hours, but was careful to go around this point, and that gives us to understand that he does not mean to con 13895 COMMONS 13896 cede these terms. We do not expect we can get the terms unless we get some support from the other side of the House.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). You put through the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill without any support from this side.
Mr. OLIVER. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) must have forgotten that over half his followers did not vote against the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). All who were here did.
Mr. OLIVER. There were a great many who were not here. And the hon. gentleman will remember that it was stated in the debate last Saturday—if I may have the privilege of referring to it—that keeping away from the polls was an evidence of opinion as well as going to the polls. Therefore, we are entitled to claim that those of the hon. gentleman's following who remained away——
Mr. LANCASTER. They were all paired with gentlemen on the other side of the House. Every member of the opposition either voted or was paired.
Mr. OLIVER. I was discussing this question of debt, the condition which has allowed the territories an advance of $250,000. 1 point out that this is strictly in accordance with the request which has been made by the government of the North-west Territories from time to time, and which was introduced in the resolution before the House. And, in regard to the expenditure of the money, Mr. Haultain says that an advance on capital account is nothing more or less than a loan on which, eventually they would have to pay 5 per cent per annum. Naturally he would like to get out of paying five per cent interest, and I think that having got out of it—that is the government having given a loan without interest—he naturally accepts the money and prepares to spend it—and it will do the territories that amount of good. I refer to this because of the way the matter was alluded to by hon. gentlemen opposite in a recent debate. They seemed to think there was an intention to take advantage of the territories in some way by compelling—or impelling—them to take a loan which they either did not want or did not require. I wish to point out that it was strictly in accordance with the wishes expressed by the North-west government, that it was placing them in the same financial position exactly as if they were a provincial government, except that they were able to borrow money without paying interest, while if the territories had provincial autonomy, they would have to pay interest on borrowed money.
I repeat that what the territories want at the present time is adequate financial assistance with which to conduct their schools construct their public works, and generally care for the interests of government which have been entrusted to their care. We are glad of any assistance that we receive from hon. members of the opposition in pressing these interests upon the government. We hope that the coolness with which the opposition have viewed these matters in the past has given place now and for the future to deep interest, and that, therefore, we shall be able to depend upon the members of the opposition to aid us in impressing upon the government the needs of the Northwest Territories in their present or future condition. But if our hon. friends expect to make political capital with the people of the North-west Territories, or with the people outside of the North-west Territories, by telling us they are in favour of provincial autonomy, but without providing means for carrying on that organization, I am afraid they will make a mistake.
Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan). As the hour is late, I do not intend to take up much time in discussing this question. The leader of the opposition, in the long speech he delivered and the resolution be read, asked this House to vote in favour of granting provincial autonomy to the territories. It seems to me that in doing so he should have put some facts before us on which we could vote intelligently. As far as I could understand his speech, he seemed simply to be reading statements from the letters Mr. Haultain had written to the government, and part of the replies. As representing a constituency in the North-west Territories I have always been opposed to the proposition of Premier Haultain. In this connection, I may say that Premier Haultain in one of his letters said that the members here do not know the public opinion in the territories. I say I know as much about public opinion in the territories as Premier Haultain does, and I say a majority of people are opposed to this scheme, and for good and substantial reasons, as I can show. The leader of the opposition should have informed himself as to the revenue the people of the North-west Territories at this stage of the proceedings would be entitled to draw from the federal treasury, and show why it would be better for us to have autonomy. The hon. gentleman quoted a great deal from this sessional paper, No. 116, and in one case, I notice, he read only half a paragraph, and left the other half which did not suit his purpose. Mr. Haultain has made certain demands upon this country. My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has said he laid before the House a full statement of what he wants. I have taken the liberty of boiling down the demands, and I think I can give in brief just what Mr. Haultain asks this House to give him, if we are prepared to give provincial autonomy. He wants first, all the public lands. The leader of the opposition said he was prepared to support that part of the proposition. I am glad to see that he has approached the matter in 13897 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13898 that spirit. We in the west would like to see the lands given to the government of the North-west Territories provided that government made a proper use of them, and did not undertake to shut off settlement. He wants to grant payment for all the lands that were given as bonuses to railway companies in years gone by. But hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were running the governmental machine, gave away a great many millions of acres of land in the Northwest Territories, and I am sorry to say that they were not at all times given for the purpose of subsidizing railways in the Northwest Territories, but most of them were given to subsidize railways in the province of Manitoba.
Mr. McCREARY. I suppose Manitoba would also be entitled to the same payment for all her lands given away ?
Mr. DAVIS. I fancy so. Mr. Haultain asked for the payment of lands given as bonuses to build railways. Now, the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) who is leading the opposition, would probably inform us whether he is prepared to pay us at a reasonable rate for the 50,000,000 acres of land he and his friends gave away in the North-west Territories to subsidize railways. At a reasonable price per acre, say $3, it would amount to something like $150,000,000. Well, we will accept it, we would like to get it, because it would put us on a good footing, a little better footing than the province of Ontario. Now, he goes on further, and if the leader of the opposition had read that portion at the bottom instead of reading only one portion of the document, he would have found that Mr. Haultain wants compensation for all the lands that are given as homesteads in the North-west Territories; in other words, he wants the federal government to spend a certain amount of money to put the people into the territories, and then the North-west government would like to be compensated for those lands given to those people as homesteads. Whether that is a reasonable demand to make, I will leave to the judgment of the leader of the opposition who seems to be quite friendly to Mr. Haultain, and who wants to have this thing carried out. Another thing which will interest my hon. friend from Grey, I know—because he is one of the old guard and sat in this House when that monstrous piece of legislation was put through which foisted a monopoly on the people of the west in the way of exemptions from taxation on the Canadian Pacific Railway roadbed, and all its stations for ever and lands for twenty years—he will be happy to know that Mr. Haultain asks that legislation be now passed to have that removed, so that the people of the North-west Territories, in forming a province, will not labour under the disability of having this road exempted from taxation. I do not know what it will cost the people of Canada. I leave the leader of the opposition to figure that out. But I would like to see him get the Canadian Pacific Railway to give up the privilege which was given them by his friends twenty years ago, the privilege of exemption from taxation on lands for twenty years, as we always supposed, but as it now turns out to be, for forty years, exempting them from taxation on their roadbed, rolling stock and everything else for ever.
Mr. McCREARY. That will apply to Manitoba also.
Mr. DAVIS. I suppose so. Now, the leader of the opposition has figured out that the population of the North-west Territories at the present time is something like 375,000. He goes Mr. Haultain one better.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). I did not say 375,000.
Mr. DAVIS. I took down his figures. He said there was 158,000 in round numbers. according to the census, and that 170 odd thousand appear to have gone into the territories since then.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). That makes 330,000.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, he has gone the Premier of the North-west Territories one better. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that the Premier of the North-west Territories is not unduly modest in his demands, and if he thought he was entitled to it he would ask for it. He said that the population was 250,000, and he wants a grant of eighty cents per head to start with. He wants to draw eighty cents per head until the population reaches 1,396,091. Now, with reference to the debt account. The present population on which that debt account is to be based is 250,000. Now, he is more modest in that respect than the leader of the opposition.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). What is the date of that ?
Mr. DAVIS. You took it out of your own return you have been reading from.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). What is the date to which the hon. gentleman refers '?
Mr. DAVIS. I am talking about this return brought down here.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). I am asking the date of that document.
Mr. DAVIS. It is in the Bill, it is 1901. I must say that if the leader of the opposition were consulting the Premier of the North-west Territories now he would be prepared to ask for $600,000, and I would not blame him at all. I am just taking what is in that Bill, the draft of the Bill that was presented to this House, and that is what he expects if you give him provincial autonomy. Now, we will take the figures of the leader of the opposition, 330,000. He wants the debt account based on 330,000, 13899 COMMONS 13900 and a revision every five years—which is a perfectly legitimate thing, and I think he is entitled to it. But I want to point out now to the leader of the opposition—I think it was three years ago that Mr. Haultain started this agitation for provincial autonomy—I want to point out to the leader of the opposition at this stage that every man, woman and child that goes into the Northwest Territories is worth to us, on capital account, $33, or close to it. Mr. Haultain puts it at $32.40. Now, taking the statement made by the leader of the opposition that 170,000 people have gone in there since the census was taken—I think Mr. Haultain started his agitation before the census was taken—I think the leader of the opposition will see that by not having provincial autonomy we have added to our capital account something in the neighbourhood of between five and six million dollars, taking his own figures as to the population. Now he wants the census taken every five years—I do not know whether the leader of the opposition and the gentlemen supporting him would agree to that. I think it would be a good thing, but I do not know what hon. gentlemen opposite would say to it.
Now the leader of the opposition is more generous than the Premier of the Northwest Territories, who asked for ten members in this House to start with. The leader of the opposition, in addressing the House to-night, said that they were entitled to twelve. But when there was a proposition before this House to grant ten members to the North-west Territories, I did not see that the leader of the opposition exercised any haste in getting to his feet and advocating twelve members. He was a member of the Redistribution Committee, and I never heard that he asked for twelve members. But to-night, at the end of the session, when we are getting ready to return home, and when the idea is abroad that possibly there may be an election in the near future, and possibly with the idea of gaining a little kudos out in the west on account of this thing, he tells us that the territories ought to have twelve members. Well, why did not the leader of the opposition take that stand when there was a proposition before this House to give them ten members ? I am positive that if the leader of the opposition had got up and said that we ought to have twelve members, the government would have granted us twelve. But after the Bill has passed, after it has practically become law, it is rather late for the leader of the opposition to advocate giving us twelve members.
Mr. BROCK. Are you speaking for the government just now ?
Mr. DAVIS. I am speaking for myself. Now, the Prime Minister of the North-west Territories made the statement that we should have only one province and that the legislative assembly of the Territories should have the power to locate the capital. I think perhaps there might be some milk in that cocoanut, there must be some reason why the Premier of the North-west Territories is so anxious to have provincial autonomy. I want to say to the leader of the opposition that if he had gone out into my part of the country last year—and his own political friends up there felt sore that he did not go and see them—he would have found a fine country up there, a lot of fine people, and have heard from those people that they were not very anxious for political autonomy at the present time. I would like to call the attention of the leader of the opposition to what one of the leading papers in Saskatchewan says about it, to let him see what the people up there think about provincial autonomy. This is the Alberta ' Advocate ' of October 5th—not very long ago. It is a Liberal paper.
It is a God-send for the country in general at the present time that provincial autonomy has been withheld.
That goes to show that the people in that part of the country are not thirsting very much for provincial autonomy. I would be very glad it the hon. leader of the opposition and the gentlemen supporting him in this House were prepared to grant all these terms, to pay for the lands that had been given away to railways, to pay for the homestead lands that have been taken and to give all that Mr. Haultain is asking for. But I do not think there is any use of getting up and making the statement that we should have provincial autonomy without going into the question and letting us know what the hon. gentleman is prepared to do. He has brought this proposition before the House, and if he is in favour of accepting Mr. Haultain's demand in its entirety we would be happy to support it. I am sure that every member of the House who represents the territories would support it.
Mr. CLANCY. The hon. gentleman said a moment ago that it was an excessive demand.
Mr. DAVIS. No, I did not say anything of the kind. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is just getting wakened up. I have taken the trouble, Mr. Speaker, to make some comparisons and to see what, under the proposition laid down by Mr. Haultain, we would be fairly entitled to if the North-west Territories were to become a province. We do not know exactly what we should get. I have a statement here, first, of what we would get if we were organized into a province, and, second, of what we do get under the present arrangement, which is as follows :
13901 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13902
Provincial Basis.
For government . . . . . . . . . . $50,000
Eighty cents a head on 250,000 people. . 200,000
Debt acount. 250, 000 people at $33 a head $8.250, 000 at 5 per cent. . . . . . . . 412,000
In lieu of public lands.. .. .. .. .. .. 300,000
Total.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. $962,000
Territorial Basis.
Grant from Dominion government this year. . . . . . . . . $ 457,979
To pay off debt .. .. .. . . . . 250, 000
Additional grant made. . . . 250,000
To pay for two bridges.. . .. . . . 84,000
Total. .. .. . . 1,041,979
Advance on capital account. . . . . 250,000
So that, taking the statement that I have made, we would be entitled, if we had provincial autonomy, to receive from the Dominion government $969,000 a year, while we are drawing at the present time over a million dollars, showing that we are fairly well-off at the present time. There was a time in the history of the North-west Territories, as my hon. friend from Alberta has pointed out when we were not so well-off, and when we did not get as much as we were entitled to for the purpose of building roads and bridges. Yet the hon. leader of the opposition talks about what Mr. Haultain did a couple of years ago, when serious storms swept away the bridges. Mr. Haultain went around to the people and told them that he had no money, but that if they had provincial autonomy they could have the bridges rebuilt. If the people of the Northwest are in a position to get $250,000, and $250,000 more without being called upon to pay interest on capital account, they are in a better position than if they had to pay interest on that money. Another advantage of the present position of the North-west Territories is that they have not to maintain the extravagant form of government which is kept up in all the other provinces. I would like to call the attention of the House to some of the services that we would have to maintain ourselves if the territories were put upon a provincial basis that are now performed by the Dominion government. There is, in the first place, the police force. If the North-west Territories were formed into a province, I suppose the hon. leader opposite would admit that the province would have to pay for the maintenance of the police force. The mounted police is paid for at the present time out of the federal treasury and it performs police duty in the territories. The territories would have to assume this expense. I do not know what the force costs, but I am satisfied that for the territories that Mr. Haultain proposes to bring in Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and a portion of Athabasca, it would not cost less than $200,000 a year. The registry offices are self-supporting, so that it is not necessary to say anything about them. But, in addition to the mounted police, they would have to pay for the ad ministration of justice, and for the maintenance of asylums. Any money that is paid out for these institutions now is paid by the federal government. Then, there are the public works that are constructed by the Dominion government, such as the building of court houses, and the only way in which the money could be obtained for these works would be by borrowing it, and reducing our revenue every year by having to pay interest on that amount of money. We would have the increased cost of the provincial system of government, because we would have a lot of the paraphernalia that we do not have at the present time. Then, there would be more officials. If all these services were paid for out of the revenue of the territories, you would find that the people there would have a grievance. In my part of the country I do not see that many persons are thirsting for this change. I think the trouble lies more with the politicians than with the people. If you give us enough money so that we can build our bridges and maintain our roads that is all we want, and we will not trouble you for the present. I am glad to know that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are prepared to vote whatever we want from time to time, but I do not think the people of the North-west will trouble them very much about provincial autonomy, so long as they do that. The hon. gentleman also alluded to railway subsidies. The government is guaranteeing bonds to an amount of something like $20,000,000 for the construction of railways in the North-west Territories, but if Mr. Haultain had been allowed to carry out his propaganda two or three years ago, we would have been obliged to mortgage the resources of the territories for this work. Gentlemen from the province of Manitoba will tell you that they have no debt, but if hon. gentlemen opposite will look at the Year-book, they will find that Manitoba has a debt of $16,664,647, charged up against it. The people of the North-west Territories have no debt at all, because the railways are subsidized by the federal government, and if they get enough money to carry on the business of the country it is not very likely that they will be thirsting to change their system of government. I have a statement here of the subsidy per head of the different provinces in the Dominion and also of that of the North-west Territories, which is as follows :
Ontario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 1/3
Quebec.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 66
Nova Scotia.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 94 1/4
British Columbia.. . . . . . . . . . 1 .72
Manitoba. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .05
North-west Territories.. . . . . 4 .47
An hon. MEMBER. You are getting too much.
Mr. DAVIS. We are not getting too much, but I think we have been fairly 13903 COMMONS 13904 well treated. I want to point out one feature of the case, and it is this : The hon. leader of the opposition thinks that provincial autonomy is a new proposition in the territories. There was a meeting held in my own town 13 years ago, and a committee was appointed and money collected to agitate for provincial autonomy, but that agitation soon died out. It is, therefore, an old scheme. Four or five years ago, when Mr. Haultain started his agitation we had a population of 100,000 ; to-day we have a population of 330,000, we are told, and if we are entitled to have $33 per head placed to our credit on capital account, we are $7,590,000 better off to-day than we would have been if Mr. Haultain had succeeded when he first commenced. It is all very well to say that we could get a re-arrangement, but I notice that the other provinces have not been successful in their attempt in that respect. When we do form a province, we want it formed on such terms and conditions that we will not have to ask for better terms from year to year. We see the province of Manitoba loaded up with a big debt. We may call it a guarantee of bonds and say that the people will not have to pay the interest, but nevertheless it is a liability against the province which they may be called upon to pay. The North-west Territories is getting all that work done by the federal government, and I think they are better off as they are to-day. The leader of the opposition told us that he considered the question of the number of provinces into which we are to be divided as a secondary consideration. If he went to my district he would find out what a mistake he makes in that. The southern belt of the North-west Territories has had the advantages of a transcontinental railway for 22 years, but the northern belt has been without railways until the last few years. There were a couple of railways there, but they might as well have been built to the moon, for they were of no use whatever to colonization. It is only now that the northern portion of the district is getting immigration, and as a member of the district I will say that the people there are not prepared to go in with the people of the southern portion to form one province. We think there should be two provinces, and if my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) were leading the government he would not coerce us unless he wanted to have another rebellion on his hands like that which the Conservatives fomented in 1885. All that has to be taken into consideration. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) goes to Calgary, which is the centre of this agitation, he will find that the people there want three provinces, and some of them want four provinces. If he told the people of Calgary that he wanted one province, the first question they would put to him was : Would he have the capital in Calgary, and if he proposed to leave it to the Legislative assem bly to decide, as Mr. Haultain proposes, they would tell him that they would prefer waiting until something else turned up. The leader of the opposition has perhaps approached this subject in a fair spirit, and I am glad to know that he is prepared to lend his assistance at all times, and to sympathize with us. We would be much better satisfied if he would tell us that he is prepared to sympathize with us to the extent of demands made by Premier Haultain. They are modest demands in a way, and the people of the North-west would be glad to know that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) endorses them. If the hon. gentleman only gets up and states that it is a good thing to have provincial autonomy he might as well say that it would be a good thing if the sun would shine to-morrow, or that it would rain next summer, but the people of the territories want something more definite than that. They have been educated by—I was going to say my friend Mr. Haultain—they have been educated by the friend of the leader of the opposition up to considering that they were entitled to the conditions laid down in his proposition, and the leader of the opposition will find it hard to satisfy public opinion without going as far as Mr. Haultain proposes. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) stated that in 1902 Mr. Haultain swept the country for provincial autonomy. Everybody knows that Mr. Haultain adopted the tactics of the wily politician, and that he took a snap verdict. I fancy that if sufficient time were given to have threshed out the question of political autonomy and other questions, Mr. Haultain would not have a majority at all. But, when the people were putting their crops in, and could not get to the polls, he brought on the elections and got a snap verdict, and he claims it as a verdict in favour of provincial autonomy. I want to say that the people took no stock at all in that question. The leader of the opposition might as well say that when Mr. Roblin was returned to power the people of Manitoba pronounced in favour of a high tariff, because Mr. Roblin mentioned it on the platform. Mr. Haultain is in the same position. The people did not take any stock in the question of provincial autonomy, because they knew it had to come from Ottawa and not from him, and as a matter of fact Mr. Haultain got several in my district. I supported him myself, and I helped him to the best of my ability to carry some seats, and 1 never considered the question of provincial autonomy at all. I want to say as one of the representatives from that country, that the people whom I represent are opposed to provincial autonomy at present. I think we are well off as we are. We have been treated very generously, and with the help of the leader of the opposition, we will be treated more generously in the future in getting sufficient subsidies to run the affairs of the country without going into debt, and without 13905 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13906 putting taxation on the people. There is no part of Canada where a taxation is lighter at present than in the territories. I have had some intimation that Mr. Haultain intended to introduce the municipal system. If he does, he will grant the municipalities power to borrow money, because, although he cannot borrow money himself he has power to give the municipalities authority to borrow. I understand he intends to submit a Bill of that kind. I do not know how true it is, or how it will be received by the people, but I believe that taking everything into consideration, we are doing very well as we are and we had better adopt the old saying: Let well enough alone. I believe the people of the North-west Territories are of that opinion.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette). I have listened to some curiosities in the way of speech-making in this House during the past seven years, but the member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has surpassed even himself tonight in the matter of exhibiting curiosities in the speech-making line. I sympathize with him, because his position must be very embarrassing in having to make a speech for autonomy and against autonomy. He is in favour of the details being settled immediately and he is against the details being settled unless they are settled in advance, not by the leader of the government, but by the leader of the opposition, forsooth. He is for an increased subsidy, but he is against the motion of the leader of the opposition, which asks that this question shall be taken up at once, and the details referred to the representatives of the people before autonomy is granted and before it is accepted by them. The hon. gentleman, therefore, finds himself in a most embarrassing position, and he feels at heart that he is speaking against the sentiment of the people he represents when he, in a fainthearted manner, I admit, opposes autonomy. He told us that he would be in favour of autonomy if autonomy were granted on the terms asked by Premier Haultain in the Bill as submitted, but that without that, he would not be in favour of it. Surely he has read some speeches made by Premier Haultain since that Bill was submitted to parliament by the government, in which he stated that while he asked only what he considered was right and what the territories were entitled to, still he would not refuse to discuss the question and to accept terms less favourable for the sake of getting territorial autonomy for his people. He does not state in so many words, hard and fast, that unless he can get territorial autonomy on those terms he is not willing to accept it on any other terms. He says : This is what we are entitled to, these terms should be complied with; but, as he has stated in public speeches delivered since that time, he is willing to enter into a conference with this government and make the best terms possible.
The hon. gentleman has directed his remarks largely to the leader of the opposition. I can understand his position as a subservient supporter of the present government. He knows that the government are opposed to the granting of autonomy, and he did not wish to place them in an embarrassing position. He rather fears that his own supporters may rally to the support of the leader of the opposition, because he has struck a responsive chord in the North-west Territories ; and instead of directing his remarks to the government of which he is so strong a supporter, he has directed them wholly to the leader of the opposition, as if it were his part to offer a policy on this question. He says that this is an old question, that it is not just of this year's growth, that it was discussed in years gone by when he occupied a seat in the territorial assembly. Yes, and he forgot to tell this House that when he occupied that seat, he himself favoured local autonomy ; but to-day he opposes it. The hon. gentleman rather blamed the leader of the opposition because this question was not brought up earlier. But the leader of the opposition has brought this question up, not only this session, in an early part of the session, but last year, when he urged immediate action on the part of the government of the day. So I think the reference of the hon. member for Alberta to the hon. leader of the opposition was ill- timed and not at all deserved.
The hon. gentleman says it is money they want, and not talk. It is sometimes necessary to have a good deal of talk to this government to get a little money for a certain portion of the country ; but that is not the case when they propose to vote $125,000,000 for a railway between Winnipeg and Moncton, which is of little use for relieving the congestion of the west ; and, by the way, our North-west lands are designed by the Minister of the Interior to pay for that railway.
Mr. MCCREARY. No.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). No other impression was possible from the statement of the Minister of the Interior in this House, that he was going to bring in a Bill to get authority to dispose of 50,000,000 acres of land which he stated had been liberated to the Crown, and which by the construction of this railway would be made very much more valuable and would realize a better price. The Toronto 'Globe' took up the statement and said in so many words that this was the intention of the government ; and it was only lately, since public opinion was aroused, that an inspired article appeared in the Regina 'Leader,' edited by the hon. member for Western Assinibioa (Mr. Scott), stating that there had been a misapprehension on that point, that such was not the intention of the government, and that they would not introduce legislation on this question this session, though he would 13907 COMMONS 13908 not vouch for the future. The granting of provincial autonomy has been the subject of debate, not only this session, but last session. The hon. Minister of Finance, in some remarks he made, left the impression on this House that in the very near future, possibly within the next year, local self- government will be afforded to the people of that portion of Canada. Unfortunately, however, the gentleman who is supposed to mould the policy of the government, the Prime Minister, threw cold water on this assertion, and left the House in no doubt whatever as to his proposition on the question. He stated distinctly, in almost so many words, that so long as this government were in power, the people of the territories need not expect local autonomy for many years to come ; and the Minister of the Interior took the same ground last year, pointing out that it would not be right to grant autonomy to the North-west Territories until 600,000 or 700,000 people were in that country. Therefore I cannot understand the hon. member for Western Assiniboia when he states to-night that the Minister of the Interior has as much as promised that within the next year we would have autonomy, whereas the Minister of the Interior, not only in public documents, but in speeches delivered in this House last session, stated the direct opposite.
Mr. SCOTT. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that the Minister of Finance made a statement practically to that effect in this House this session.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). And what did the Prime Minister say immediately afterwards, when I placed his views before the House ? I stated that I was putting the Prime Minister's sentiments correctly before the House to the effect that for many years to come the territories need not expect autonomy at the hands of this government, and the Prime Minister said 'hear, hear.'
The PRIME MINISTER. If I said ' hear, hear,' it was not affirmation. On the contrary, it was negation.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). But the right hon. gentleman's speech bone out my contention.
The PRIME MINISTER. Quote my speech, then.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). If I am allowed to refer to a past debate, I will do it with pleasure, as I have ' Hansard ' under my hand. He pointed out that it was not an unmixed evil to prevent the people of the North-west having power to mortgage their patrimony, to borrow money on their property; and his whole argument was directed against granting autonomy for many years to come. I regret that on this most important question, for the welfare of the people of the west, there should be a diversity of opinion amongst the representatives of the west who are supporters of this government. I think I am not misrepresenting these hon. gentlemen when I state that they are not a unit on this question, unless the hon. member for Western Assiniboia has changed his mind remarkably since last session.
Mr. SCOTT. There is a new condition this year.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). When I was speaking on this question before, I said :
But the Prime Minister adduced arguments that were strong, no doubt, from his point of view, that the North-west Territories should not be granted local self-government for many years to come.
The PRIME MINISTER. Hear, hear.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). The Prime Minister says ' hear, hear, ' so I am not misstating the case from his viewpoint.
I think the right hon. gentleman will see that I was perfectly correct in my statement. The hon. member for Eastern Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), who is not in his place to-night took the ground that it would be wiser to defer the granting of autonomy to the territories for many years, as he believed that they were much better off in their present condition. He stated that in his own opinion the majority of the men in his riding were opposed to local autonomy, whereas his colleague, the hon. member for Western Assiniboia, took the contrary view. He stated distinctly that even with an increased subsidy—and I commend that remark to the hon. member for Alberta—the people of the territories would not be satisfied with anything short of local autonomy. This was the view of the hon. member for Western Assiniboia last session, although I will admit that he was rather faint-hearted, lest he might embarrass the government of which he is a supporter. On the other hand, the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) was rather more canny last session than this, and did not commit himself so much against autonomy ; but still he stated that the great majority of the people were opposed to it, and he himself thought it would be better not to have it until there was a larger population in that country, and they would draw a larger per capita allowance ; whereas the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) has both in this House and out of it taken such strong grounds that he has been taken to task not only by the press of western Canada, but by the independent press of eastern Canada for his opposition to provincial autonomy. So here we have a House divided against itself on this most important question, on which unanimity is required, at least on the part of the supporters of the government. It is not surprising, that the government should deny the people local autonomy when we have this diversity of opinion expressed in this House by their own supporters. The hon. member for Alberta, when speaking on this 13909 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13910 question on one occasion before, stated that the overwhelming sentiment—I believe these were his words—of the people of the Northwest was in his opinion opposed to the granting of provincial autonomy. Now, I do not believe he gauged public opinion on that question when he made use of that expression.
Mr. OLIVER. The hon. gentleman has repeatedly said that I was against provincial autonomy. I have always said that I was in favour of provincial autonomy on the terms asked for by Mr. Haultain.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). Of course, the hon. gentleman may well say that ; I suppose there is not a single member present who would not be. But does the hon. gentleman mean to say that Mr. Haultain would not accept provincial autonomy at the hands of this government unless the exact terms which he submitted were granted?
Mr. OLIVER. I cannot say what Mr. Haultain would do ; I simply take his terms and say that they are acceptable to me. When discussing this he simply stated that he would be in favour of provincial autonomy only on the basis of more population.
Mr. SCOTT. Premier Haultain is on record as saying that he would rather do without provincial autonomy for ever than accept Manitoba's terms.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). That has nothing to do with the question at issue. We are not demanding Manitoba terms or limiting the discussion to any terms ; we are asking that the matter be immediately taken up in accordance with the prayers and petitions of the legislative assembly and to have these dealt with by this government. The hon. member for Alberta said :
Speaking for myself and for those who think with me, who I believe constitute the overwhelming majority of the people of the Northwest Territories, I believe it is better to wait until we can be sure of a more satisfactory arrangement, based on increased population, than we can possibly expect to get to-day.
Mr. OLIVER. Might I point out that what I said there had reference, not to what Mr. Haultain proposed, but to what I expected we could get, quite a different matter.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). Mr. Haultain himself did not ask exactly what the hon. gentleman asks ; he asked a per capita allowance on a stated population.
Mr. OLIVER. No ; he asked a per capita allowance on an increasing population.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). The hon. gentleman has blown hot and cold on this question over and over again. He gave me the impression, in fact he explicitely stated, that it would be better to wait until there was a larger population, so that they could draw a larger per capita allowance. From the. interviews which I have had with pro minent citizens in that part of Canada, from newspaper comments not including, however, the Edmonton ' Bulletin ', but from newspaper comments independent of politics, and from the representatives in the territorial assembly, I had formed an opinion quite contrary to that formed by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). That there may not be a perfect unanimity of opinion I grant you, but as the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), in his terse language last session, said, if the government wait for that they will wait for Kingdom come, and certainly they will do so upon this or on any other great public question ; there will always be a certain divergence of public opinion, but if the expressions of the territorial representative are any gauge of public opinion on that question, it is overwhelmingly in favour of provincial autonomy at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. OLIVER. On what terms?
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). It you vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition you will see upon what terms. That is exactly what they are asking a conference to fix terms and I do not see how the hon. gentleman can consistently with his duty—although I do not want to lecture him, as he knows his own duty—oppose the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, when it is asking something so very reasonable and moderate. There may be a difference of opinion in regard to the number of provinces which should be created ; I admit that, but that is a question that must be faced sooner or later. It will have to be faced five or ten years from now just in the same way as it will to-day, and at the most it is a question of detail which the people of the territories themselves, if you give them an opportunity, will be only too glad to decide for you. In the speech frdm the Throne in the local assembly, at the last session of the territorial assembly, it was distinctly declared that it was a national necessity to have more power, more revenue and provincial institutions, and Mr. Haultain, in his opening address on that speech, stated that the territorial government had resorted to almost everything short of force to gain their rights from the present government, and had failed. That is strong language to emanate from the premier of the territories, but it only goes to show the friction and the irritation that is caused by the treatment accorded these people by the government of the day. Mr. Haultain. in that speech, stated :
' Every thing possible has been done that could be done,' he said, ' to procure the necessary money and powers. These representations have been backed up by resolutions, memorials and addresses by the legislative assembly. Now, the question is, what more can be done ? He spoke of the $13,000,000 surplus and the 'lavish expenditure in eastern Canada,' and said that ' if the comfort and prosperity of 13911 COMMONS 13912 the new settlers is not more important than breakwaters, drill halls, &c., are we then not forced to the conclusion that the present dependency of the territories on the Dominion should be put to an end immediately ?' Immediate provincial institutions in the territories must be the demand.
Mr. Haultain discussed certain means of temporary relief, such as having resort to municipal administration and increased local taxation. This latter must come with the growing needs of the country, he said. But, above all, they must have provincial institutions. ' The provincial question is, after all, the one solution to our constitutional difficulties and our financial difficulties. It is the one solution because we shall have not only the revenues to meet them, but the powers to do the work which it is necessary this legislature should do to meet the necessities of this great and growing country.
Manitoba, which lies alongside the territories on the eastern side, has been in the enjoyment of provincial institutions to its own advantage and to the great benefit of its inhabitants for a great many years. This autonomy was granted the province of Manitoba at a time when the population was about 17,000. British Columbia also enjoys that advantage with a much less population than the territories have at the present day. The territories of the present-day have a considerably larger population than Prince Edward Island, and yet some 250,000 or 300,000 of the population are denied the right afforded to Canadians in the other provinces of the Dominion.
The House is surely aware that this condition of affairs cannot exist much longer. It is causing a great deal of trouble and a great deal of unrest amongst the newcomers who are entering that country, and sooner or later he will find that unless this question is dealt with the government will be piling up for themselves a heap of trouble. The longer they put off dealing with it the greater the difficulties will be. People are flocking into that country year after year, settlement is becoming more compact, new school districts must be organized and new schools provided in order to meet the wants of the rising generation. All of this will cause great demands on the territorial exchequer, and the territorial government has not means of recouping itself except a small tax on land ; it has come here to this parliament, asking for the amount that may be doled out to it, large or small. It galls the people there to feel that they are dependent on this parliament, and makes them feel that they are being kept in leading strings. Two years ago, and I believe, again a year ago, that country was visited by very severe floods which swept away, according to the correspondence laid on the Table, upwards of 140 bridges : and because the government of the territories had to anticipate for a few months the revenues which they would receive, the hon. Minister of the Interior, when bringing down a sup plementary of $100,000 to meet this contingency, said in an apologetic manner that the government of the territories had anticipated their revenue, and had rushed into this expenditure six months in advance, perhaps unwisely, as he put it.
What else cowld the territorial government do ? Here were new people coming into that country, and here were the rivers from which the bridges had been washed away. The people must reach their markets, they must have the bridges. The government had not the money to provide the bridges, and sooner than cause dissatisfaction, and even distress, among the people, they anticipated their revenue. And the Minister of the Interior thought fit to refer to this as 'perhaps being an unwise expenditure.' In my opinion, the people of the North-west Territories are as capable of managing their own affairs as those of any other portion of Canada, notwithstanding the distrust that the present government seems to have of them. And why should they not be as capable as others ? Whence come these people ? Many of them come from south of the American boundary line, as has been pointed out. These are people accustomed to representative institutions, and they look for them in Canada, and will not be satisfied without them. Many were residents of eastern Canada, who enjoyed local autonomy in the provinces from which they came ; and they will look for the same autonomy on the part of the community among whom they have settled, and will not be satisfied without it. We all know that the best immigration agent is the contented settler. And, unless we make these people feel that they are not dependent upon others, unless they are free to elect representatives to manage their affairs who will be directly responsible to them, I think you will find considerable irritation arising in the future. We have heard in the past eulogies heaped upon the succession of governments headed by Mr. Haultain. And properly so. I believe that the management of territorial affairs under his direction has been wise and judicious; otherwise he would not have received the public endorsation on numerous occasions as he has done. And when he and his associates show such capacity, what is there to lead us to suppose that they would not show as great capacity if the territories were granted the powers of autonomy that they have been claiming ? Why, what was the course followed .in making up the present cabinet ? The Prime Minister did not confine himself in his choice of colleagues to men who had stood behind him in opposition for eighteen years. He went far outside the ranks of members of this House. He went to the provinces to secure the provincial premiers to make up his cabinet. He took one premier from Nova Scotia, he took one from New Brunswick, he went to Ontario for another, and he went to Mani 13913 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13914 toba for their attorney general. Here were four of these gentlemen taken from provincial governments. And what surprises me is that, now that these provincial cabinet ministers are elevated to positions of ministers in the Dominion cabinet, in their egotism they say : We are the heaven-born legislators, and those who do not happen to have been taken, but were left outside, are not to be trusted with the management even of their own local affairs. It all depends upon the terms, as the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) states, whether local autonomy will be accepted or not. This parliament can well afford to deal, not only justly, but liberally with the people of the North-west ; and, in doing so, as I say, they will take the very best step to encourage immigration to go into that country. We are to-day spending upwards of half a million dollars a year for the purpose of bringing in immigrants. I think it is the duty of parliament rather to try to provide for the protection of the settlers we have and make them contented with their lot than to favour an enormous expenditure in order to import people, some of whom may not be so desirable as we would wish.
In the return brought down, we have resolutions from the North-west in favour of provincial autonomy. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) read from a certain paper, I think from his own town, a few lines to show that the people were not in favour of local autonomy. There is no great expression of opinion there in favour of autonomy, according to the hon. gentleman. But, in looking over the return that has been brought down. I find that the hon. gentleman himself, in a letter dated April 14th, 1903, sent to the Prime Minister a resolution passed by the board of trade of his own town. The resolution reads as follows :
Resolved by the Prince Albert Board of Trade, that in the opinion of this board the time has now fully arrived when action should be taken towards the erection of this portion of the Dominion of Canada, known as the North-west Territories, into provinces, each of these with all provincial rights and privileges. The enormous number of settlers pouring into the Saskatchewan district, not only from other parts of Canada, but virtually from all over the world, necessitates largely augmented grants for the improvement of roads, building of bridges and for public works, schools, &c.. Our board feel fully convinced that the only way by which we can meet our yearly increasing indebtedness, is by having the power in our own hands to deal with the matter.
The board of trade, while cognizant of the fact that this matter has previously been brought to the attention of the government, feel that this is a most opportune time to urge that the matter should be taken up at once, as we feel assured that the present and future prosperity of this large and important part of the Dominion of Canada largely depends upon our request being acceded to.
Here is the board of trade. composed of the business men of Prince Albert, of both political parties, I presume, as in other places ; and they, through their representatives, send a request for the grant to the North-west of provincial institutions. And yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis), on the strength of a few words that he reads in a newspaper, and entirely ignoring the board of trade, says that there is no public opinion in favour of autonomy. There were other resolutions presented from other places in the territories, as, for instance, Calgary, Lethbridge, Glenfel and others, resolutions, not only from boards of trade, but from city councils and town councils.
The hon. member (Mr. Davis) states that this is a political move. He says that the last election was not won on the question of provincial autonomy at all. The result, he says, was a snap verdict. Yet he takes credit to himself for having helped to obtain that snap verdict, because he says his influence was brought into requisition to carry three or four constituencies for the territorial government. There is a gentleman in that territorial government, Minister of Public Works, I believe, Hon. Mr. Bulyea, who is a Liberal. That hon. gentleman was in the city of Winnipeg last October, and while there he was interviewed by a representative of the press. And here are the opinions that are attributed to him :
Winnipeg, October 5.—Hon. G. H. V. Bulyea, Commissioner of Public Works in the territorial government has been in Winnipeg, and While here talked with your correspondent on the question of territorial autonomy. Mr. Bulyea seemed to think that the matter was a simple one. The last territorial elections were fought out on the question of attaining provincial powers, and for one province in the area covered by the present territory. The result was unmistakable, thirty out of the thirty-five members of the assembly being returned on the territorial autonomy platform.
Here is this member of the territorial government, this Liberal and supporter of the government at Ottawa, who has, I believe, urged this government, even on grounds of political expediency, to grant provincial autonomy to the territories. Surely the hon. member for Saskatchewan cannot repudiate Mr. Haultain's Liberal colleague. Without wearying the House, I simply state my opinion that it should be the desire, not only of those from western Canada, but those from eastern Canada as well, to have this question disposed of once for all, and in a manner satisfactory to the people of the west. And that desire can be expressed by voting for the amendment of the leader of the opposition, which calls for immediate action to add to the powers of the territorial legislature, and to have terms decided upon which must be referred to the territories to see if they are satisfactory before they are agreed upon.
Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia). It is to me, as it was to my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) a matter of regret that the leader of the opposition did not raise 13915 COMMONS 13916 this very important question at an earlier stage in the session. He makes the excuse that the printed return was not brought down until the end of July, but if my recollection serves me, he informed the House that the printed return had been received by him from the legislative assembly at Regina at a much earlier date in the session. It is regrettable that this important discussion should have been delayed until this late stage of the session, when, for about three months, from the beginning of May to the end of July, this House was simply marking time. However, I am gratified to hear the expressions from the leader of the opposition and from my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) following so closely the expressions which I gave voice here two years ago at the first opportunity I had, and again last year. I think, however, that the people of the North-west Territories would have more confidence in our hon. friends opposite if their anxiety and keenness were not made so open to suspicion. It is plain that the opposition is best pleased when the welfare of the North-west appears to be threatened. Why the hon. member for Marquette a few moments ago endeavoured to throw doubt upon a denial that was made here less than a month ago by the Minister of Finance with regard to the policy of this government, when that hon. gentleman was represented as holding out a threat that the North-west lands were to be sold and that this government was to continue the insane and iniquitous policy pursued by previous governments, and that they were going to continue to dispose of the Northwest lands for federal purposes. The Minister of Finance a couple of weeks ago stated distinctly that no such policy was contemplated.
Mr. CLANCY. The hon. gentleman is quite wrong. The Finance Minister made no such statement in this House, and I say that in the presence of the Finance Minister himself.
Mr. SCOTT. The Finance Minister can speak for himself. I listened to what he said, and I understood him to say that no such policy was contemplated and no such legislation was going to be brought down. The hon. member for Marquette seems to be anxious to believe that the opposite is the case and anxious to believe that autonomy is to be long withheld, for less than fifteen minutes ago he quoted an expression of the Prime Minister made a couple of weeks ago, and tried to give it a distorted meaning as if the Prime Minister had said that provincial autonomy would not be granted for many years to come. The Prime Minister states to-night that he did not mean that the people of the North-west Territories were to be left for years without provincial autonomy, but the member for Marquette is keen to believe the opposite. So, I think hon. gentlemen opposite are evincing that kind of anxiety which will lead the people of the North-west Territories to doubt whether they are really interested in their welfare. Further, I have to say that, in my opinion, it is very regrettable that this question of so much concern to the territories, this question of our local government, should be made a party issue. Until this year it was kept free from this position. A few months ago in the North-west Terrritories an attempt was made, to drag this question of provincial autonomy down to the plane of party politics. I regret that the leader of the oppositon, the leader of the Conservative party in this country, has shown to-night a willingness to aid in the attempt to make this a party question, moving his amendment on a motion to go into Supply and so making the question one of want of confidence in the government.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). It is merely a motion asking the government to comply with the demand of the legislature of the North-west Territories, and is no more a motion of want of confidence, unless the government desire to make it so, than was the motion of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) two or three years ago in regard to preferential trade, and which was moved in exactly the same way.
Mr. SCOTT. If we take the words of the leader of the opposition and the words of the hon. member for Marquette and couple them with other words which have been used within the last few months, I think we are bound to believe that an attempt is being made, with the assistance of the leader of the Conservative party of Canada, to make the granting of provincial autonomy for the territories a party question. If my hon. friends are willing to take that responsibility, then it becomes the duty of the citizens of the North-west to view the question from that standpoint, and 1 propose, even though the session is late and the hour is late, to spend a few minutes in looking at this question from the point of view of its treatment by the two great parties in this country. As my hon. friend from Alberta truly said, this is chiefly a financial question. If the North-west Assembly is put in a position financially to carry out its duties, then there is no complaint to be made on behalf of the people of that country, and very little complaint would be made by the legislature of that country. Speech after speech made by Mr. Haultain could be quoted to that effect. Therefore, if we are able to show that in this present year the financial needs of the North-West Territories are being met we will go far to show that the urgency for provincial autonomy is removed for the time being. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) raised a query respecting the attitude of the Northwest goverument with regard to the capital advance of $250,000 voted by parliament. It would be a matter of great surprise to me to 13917 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13918 learn that the North-west government had refused to accept that capital advance, as I understand they have called a special session for the purpose of voting this money which is being put at their disposal.  
Mr. SPROULE. They say they do not want it if it is regarded as an advance on capital account.
Mr. SCOTT. I will read my hon. friend a quotation from the Budget speech of the Prime Minister of the Territories at the last session of the legislature. I quote the report from an independent paper, the Regina ' Standard ' ?
I would say with regard to capital advance that if such were offered to us on what we consider reasonable terms, it is a question whether we should not take advantage of it.
If a capital advance could be obtained on reasonable terms, we would then be justified in meeting capital expenditures out of it, for example in connection with these large steel bridges we are building and the surveys, roads, &c., which are properly chargeable to capital.
There were certain objections made by Mr. Haultain to some of the conditions which the government proposed to attach to the capital advance in the first instance, but those conditions were removed and I have been informed that Mr. Haultain is quite willing to accept this capital advance and is very pleased to make use of the money. If the opposite were the fact I would be exceedingly surprised, because, on April 18, the Prime Minister, Mr. Haultain, wired me himself as follows :
Capital advance satisfactory if unconditional and if not charged with Belly and Old Man bridges.
Mr. SPROULE. When was that?
Mr. SCOTT. On the 18th of April, 1903.
Mr. SPROULE. Mr. Haultain says on the 20th April :
But we have never asked for the establishment of a capital account and I do not wish for the establishment of such an account until a more satisfactory subsidy or annual grant is provided.
He did not want it.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend is merely quoting a fact that was stated to the House by the hon. Minister of Finance when the capital advance was going through.
Mr. SPROULE. I am stating it in answer to the contention of the hon. gentleman that the provision that has been made is comparatively satisfactory to Mr. Haultain.
Mr. SCOTT. I am not making the contention myself. I am quoting from a telegram from Mr. Haultain who says on the 18th of April :
Capital advance satisfactory if unconditional and not charged with Belly and Old Man bridges.
Mr. SPROULE. I have quoted what Mr. Haultain said on the 20th of April.
Mr. SCOTT. Now, Sir, in the same message, Mr. Haultain stated that Mr. Fielding's telegraphed proposal to pay $250,000 deficit and to provide $457,979 for current year's services was not satisfactory and that an additional $200,000 to the grant was absolutely necessary. The vote which has been made this year includes not only $200,000 which was stated to be absolutely necessary but $250,000 additional to the current revenue vote. In an earlier message, Mr. Haultain had advised me—and this no doubt explains the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that he was unwilling to consider the capital advanced until the current revenue vote was made larger and on the 18th April he wired me that the last addition to the current vote that would be acceptable would be $200,000. The government of the North-west Territories gets not $200,000, but $250,000 additional and the objectionable conditions attached to the advance against which Mr. Haultain complained are removed. If he is still unsatisfied I would be bound to say, as one who in a sense acted as Mr. Haultain's agent in pressing these proposals on the hon. Finance Minister, that I misapprehended the instructions given by him. I will go a little further and state that the provision made this year for the North-west government is fully and entirely what we Northwest members asked for from the Finance Minister and his colleagues and our proposition—I state it upon my responsibility as a member of this ouse—was made in accordance with what we had been led to understand by Mr. Haultain and his colleagues would be reasonably satisfactory to them.
Mr. SPROULE. He says further :
We cannot assent to any proposition that our expenditure shall be subject to the approval of Ottawa.
Yet it was granted specifically on that condition.
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE. There is no condition existing in regard to the expenditure of the North-west government on capital account that does not apply to every province in the Dominion.
Mr. SPROULE. Does the hon. Minister of Finance deny that when the matter was before the House and when we asked the question specifically as to whether this was subject to approval from Ottawa or whether the North-west government council would be allowed to expend the money as they saw fit the answer was : Of course it must be subject to the approval of the authorities at Ottawa.
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE. There is no distinction as between the capital account of the North-west Territories and that of any other province. Any sum which remains in the capital account of any of the provinces is credited and if it is taken for local purposes it is taken by the local au 13919 COMMONS 13920 thority. There is a nominal approval necessary by the Governor in Council but it is a purely formal proceeding, at all events the conditions are precisely the same as they will be in regard to capital account of the North-west Territories if the provinces are established.
Mr. SPROULE. Then why did Mr. Haultain object on the 20th of April ?
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE. I do not see why he did so, and I am quite sure that when he understands it he will not object to any feature of it.
Mr. SPROULE. He has done so.
Mr. SCOTT. It is perfectly clear. The members of the North-west government were under some misapprehension as to the measure of control that the Dominion government were going to exercise over the capital advance. But, when they read the words that the hon. Minister of Finance used here the other evening when the advance was being voted that practically the money will be entirely under the control of the local authorities they will have no further objection as indeed they cannot have. But, to proceed with what I was saying here, I go even farther and I will state that when we submitted our final proposal to the hon. Minister of Finance, a proposal which he has met in every particular this year, I communicated the effect of it to the members of the North-west government and I received a reply to the effect that the proposed provision would be considered reasonably satisfactory, and would fairly well meet their needs. I do not wish the hon. gentlemen to misunderstand me to mean that the North-west government indicated that they regarded this proposition as giving them everything that they were entitled to but they led us to believe that they would be reasonably able to carry on all the services for which they were responsible if this proposition were carried out.
Mr. CLANCY. For how long ?
Mr. SCOTT. For this year. In regard to the capital advance it is merely to enable the local government to borrow a quarter of a million dollars. The whole provincial autonomy demand is very largely the result of the feeling of the people of the Northwest Territories that they should not be deprived of the power of borrowing money. In Mr. Haultain's last budget speech this sentence occurs :
Throughout all the correspondence and argument concerning our financial and constitutional relations with Ottawa there has been a constant and strong reference to capital expenditure. We have said that not only have we been confined to a very slender income, but we have been compelled to make large expenditures which very properly might be charged to capital account.  
I will quote a few words from Mr. Haultain's letter to the hon. Minister of Finance on the 20th April, 1903.
It has been found necessary at times to point out that our limited and inadequate revenues were more restricted and rendered more inadequate by the necessity of making expenditures out of our current income which in them-. selves were more properly chargeable to capital account. That is to say we have occasionally found it necessary to incur heavy expenditures for construction of bridges, the cost of which have been a heavy drain upon our resources and which should have been spread over a series of years instead of being provided for out of the revenues of one year, to the exclusion of other and equally important works.
At this point I may read an extract from a letter which was sent to me a little more than a year ago by a gentleman closely connected with the North-west government. He said :
Let me illustrate by saying that at the present time there are on file in the Public Works Department, Regina, applications for works in the way of improvements for this year (1902), resulting from the rapid development which has taken place in the country, to complete which would involve an expenditure of $400,000. I know from my own personal knowledge that a very large proportion of the work asked for in certain districts is urgently needed in connection with the development of such districts, and from present indications the answer to all such applications is gong to be ' No funds, and impossible to undertake such work,' because the Dominion government have neither increased the subsidy nor put the territories in a position to incur debt, so that they can meet these demands resulting from the ' growing time ' which we are now realizing in the territories.
The fact is that the lack of power to borrow money, to pledge the public credit, to undertake permanent works and spread the payment over a long period of years so as to permit the inhabitants ten or twenty years hence to assist in meeting the cost of works constructed now has been seriously complained of for years. This lack is one of the strong features of the gradual growth of public sentiment in the country in favour of provincial autonomy. As the hon. gentlemen from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) have shown, the grant made to the territorial government this year is a very much larger grant, taken proportionately or measured in any other way, than the grant given in any former year. Including the advance, it is actually more, than the North-west government stated in their estimates this year was necessary for their various purposes. The hon. the leader of the opposition will find in Mr. Haultain's budget speech, that he asked for $1,130,000, and he has received in all, on current revenue account, $957,979, which is apart altogether from the $84,000 grant for bridge construction, and apart altogether from the capital advance. The amount granted therefore, is 85 per cent of the estimates Mr. 13921 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13922 Haultain submitted here last winter and I may say that a grant amounting to 85 per cent of the North-west government estimate, is better treatment than the North-west Territories ever got in any former year. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden', Halifax) read extensively from letters, and communications and documents, and records, of one kind or another, to prove that the Prime Minister of the North-west Territories was very much dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to him by this government. I do not know whether it would be proper to say that this state of dissatisfaction is chronic with the Prime Minister of the territories, but it is a fact that in former years and under other federal governments, his dissatisfaction was no less pronounced. Let me read to my hon. friend a letter which Mr. Haultain read in the assembly last spring, to prove that he has no more particular complaint to make against this government, than he had against former governments. This is a letter which Mr. Haultain wrote on November 8, 1895, to the government which was then in power in this Dominion :
I have the honour to make an additional statement on behalf of the executive committee of the territories with regard to the amount required for the territories for the financial year 1896-7. The committee cannot refrain——
It will be noticed that at the time the North-west government was called 'a committee.'
The committee cannot refrain from expressing a feeling of great dissatisfaction over the fact that there is no substantial increase in the amount proposed to be voted for expenses of government in the North-west Territories. The estimates show clearly that the government do not intend to pay any attention to our financial recommendations. which have been made for four years consecutively, both in our written statements and on our personal interviews.
While the government are willing to take all credit for the growth and development of the territories, they do not consider that that growth and development mean a necessarily increased expenditure.
There was no very great development there in 1895, but the Conservative government failed to cope with even what there was.
Our local institutions and machinery have been created by parliament, but parliament does not supply the necessary money for working them.
A glance at the estimates of 1891-92, when our vote was itemized and administered by the lieutenant governor alone, will show that the government and parliament recognized the necessity of making provision for certain detailed services. These services recur annually and become more costly (for example, school-s), yet the increase in our vote since that date does not hear any proportion to the increased ex— penditure under these heads alone. In a growing country new obligations arise and new objects of expenditure make themselves felt. Yet this self-evident fact is quite ignored at Ottawa, and year after year the services and amounts provided for in 1891 are made the basis of the new votes.
Mr. DAVIS. Did Mr. Haultain write that when the Conservatives were in power ?
Mr. SCOTT. He certainly did.
On the top of all this, demands for seed grain, for relief from starvation and other extraordinary and unforeseen contingencies, are referred to the local by the federal authorities with an unmeaning reference to the fact that matters of this sort are dealt with by the provincial authorities in Manitoba.
Mr. GALLIHER. He didn't write that about starvation when the Conservative' government were in power.
Mr. SCOTT. It was written in 1895.
No analogy exists between the territories and Manitoba. either as regards powers or income. When we ask for a larger grant in the nature of a subsidy, or for more powers, or for some legislation absolutely necessary to the performance of the duties imposed upon us, we are told: 'Oh, you are not a province, you cannot have provincial powers or a 'subsidy.' But when an extraordinary and unforeseen demand for expenditure in the territories is made we are asked to meet it out of an amount granted for entirely different purposes, and are referred with tantalizing inconsequence to the fact that 'in Manitoba. the provincial government deals with these matters.'
In the matter of legislation, too, there seems to be a similar amount of indifference to our wants and our requests. We have for four years asked that the amount transferred to the assembly should be voted as a straight grant, by that means obviating the necessity of a double audit and account, a double system of books, a largely increased staff in our oflices, and an amount of extra work altogether out of proportion to any benefits derivable from the system. This request was agreed to by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior in 1892, and has been approved by the Minister of the Interior every year since then. A simple clause in the Act would bring about this most desirable change, but the clause has not yet been proposed.
None of these matters belong to the arena of high politics or party questions.
As I have said, up to this present year the whole people of the territories endeavoured to keep this question out of party politics, and I repeat that it is a regrettable fact, that an effort has been made this year, assisted by the leader of one of the political parties in this country, to bring it down to a question of party politics.
They are matters which concern the domestic economy of the territories, who are still the wards of parliament, and of the legislative assembly, which is its creation.
The reasonableness of our request has avowedly been recognized by ministers from year to year but with no practical result. We now, for the last time during the life of this parliament, beg respectfully to call attention to our needs and trust that the result may be a fairer indication of the amount of attention the committee feel assured the territories may look for from the government.
The Prime Minister of the territories obtained no satisfaction in regard to that representation, until the change of government took place. I think it was in 1897, the first session that the present Minister of the Interior was here, that the representation 13923 COMMONS 13924 which Mr. Haultain made in the letter was listened to, and given practical effect to. I shall place upon the records of the House. a table of figures that will go to prove that if there is any cause to-day for the Northwest Territories being dissatisfied at the financial treatment meted out to them by this government ; there was a great deal more cause in past years when another government was in power in this Dominion, and there was real reason then for the emphatic language put in the state papers by the Prime Minister of the territories. I shall give to the House, the demands made by the territories for the past ten years for financial aid, and the proportion in which these demands have been acceded to each year:
PERCENTAGE of Grant to Estimates presented.
- Amount asked. Amount granted. Percentage
$ $
1892-93........... 368,723 195,700 53
1893.......... 368,723 199,200 54
1894............ 403,640 225,534 55
1895....... 375, 640 267,534 71
1896.......... 387,800 242,879 62
1897....... 400,000 282,879 70
1898...... 438,000 282,879 64
1899......... 535,000 282,879 53
(Yukon liquor licensess yielded $160,000 spread over two years.)
1898 } 1899 } $973,000 {Grants $565,758} {Yukon $160,000} = $725,758 or 74%
1900 ................ 600,000 424,879 70
1901 ................ 600,000 407,879 68
1902 ............. 600,000 457,979 75
1903 ......... 1,130,000 957,970 85
In the year 1899, the North-west government collected $160,000 on account of liquor licenses in the Yukon, and it was allowed to retain that money, which I believe it was entitled to. They spread the amount thus collected over two years, and the real sums available by the North-west government in 1898 and 1899 amounted to $725,758, being 74 per cent upon the amount which they asked in these two years, which was an aggregate of $973,000.
I have made a comparison also for periods of five years. We will call the first period five Conservative years, because the Conservative government was in power during those years, from 1892 to 1896, inclusive. The total estimates submitted here by the North-west government during those five years aggregated $1,904,526, and they were granted $1,130,847, being 59 per cent of their estimates. The Liberal government have been in power for seven years. In those seven years the estimates of the North-west government have amounted to $4.303,000, and they have been granted directly in cash $3,097,353, to which must be added the $160,000 of Yukon liquor licenses, making a total of $3,257,353, being 75 per cent, as against 59 per cent during the last five years the Conservative government were in power. Take the first five years that the Liberal government were in power, from 1897 to 1901, inclusive, the total requisitions amounted to $2,573,000, and the total grants amounted to $1,841,495, being 71 per cent. Or, take the last five years of the present government, from 1899 to 1903, inclusive, the estimates presented amounted to $3,465,000, and upon these estimates they have been given $2,691,595, being 77 per cent of the amounts asked for in those five years, as against 59 per cent in the last five years of the previous government.
In view of these figures, I think we are fairly well justified in stating that on the whole we have very much less to complain of this year than there was to he complained of in any former year. While I say that, I would not care to take the position that the grants are being made too large, because it is my belief that twice the amount of money that is being voted could be profitably and advantageously expended in the North-west Territories, and to Canada's general advantage. I say that there is no part of any country in the world which offers to-day such a good field for investments, with such an assurance of speedy and large returns. Still, I am bound to say that I think the government are this year fairly well meeting the financial demand. The comparisons which I have made with former years can lead to no other conclusion.
My own attitude in former years on the question of provincial autonomy has been referred to, and I am free to state that if no new condition had arisen, if the conditions were exactly the same at the present time that they have been in former years, I would be expressing the same view that I expressed two years ago on the question. But a new condition has arisen—the condition of the Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption, to which I intend to refer a little later—which, in my opinion, furnishes a very strong reason why it is better to hesitate, why it is better not to have action taken at the present time. But, on the general question, apart from that condition, which I hope will be removed in a very short time, I would simply take the occasion to repeat the opinion which I have expressed in other years, that the people in the territories have the same right to full powers of local government as the people of any province.
Besides the question to which I have referred, that of the Canadian Pacific Railway land tax, there are one or two other factors which might suggest the advisability of a little delay. One of these is found in 13925 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13926 the joint request of the provincial premiers, made last fall, for a revision of the scheme of annual provincial subsidies. The details of their request involve questions which must and do form an important portion of the autonomy question as relates to the Northwest Territories, and I fail to see how the autonomy question can be satisfactorily settled without parliament previously or simultaneously deciding as to the merits of the provincial statement of claim. The other factor is what, to be perfectly frank, I must term the lack of fair comprehension of the autonomy matter by this parliament and by the people of the provinces whose representatives form so great a majority in this parliament. Of the fact of this lack of comprehension, I need go no further than quote the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition last year, when he said :
With regard to the details of Mr. Haultain's Bill, with which I am not at all familiar, as I have not had an opportunity of seeing it, I do not think that these details have much to do with the matter.
It is fair to say that when the leader of one of the political parties is not well seized of a question—a live political question—it is too much to expect that the ordinary member or ordinary citizen is well informed regarding it. In my opinion, the admission was a confession of utter lack of comprehension of the matter. Mr. Haultain's draft Bill practically contains the whole question. The whole question is made up of details. Although there is a sentimental side to it, it is essentially a matter of business to the people of the North-west. When speaking of a province, we are not dealing with an empty name. When a province is formed, the people will assume serious and heavy responsibilities. Whereas at the present time this parliament is under the responsibility of meeting the cost of our local government, with a provincial establishment the people of the territories would themselves have to bear that responsibility ; and, as has been stated by the hon. member for Alberta, the measure of their duties and their ability to meet those responsibilities will depend upon the terms granted by this parliament when the province or provinces will be established. If the people have not adequate sources of revenue, they will be unable to enjoy the advantages of good government in its full sense. Now, in stating that I am really repeating what the Prime Minister of the territories says almost every time he speaks on the question. In the speech of 1900, from which the hon. leader of the opposition quoted, Mr. Haultain said :
I would like it to be understood very distinctly that when I have ever expressed an opinion in favour of the establishment of provincial institutions it was always coupled with a very strong proviso that the proper financial terms are attached. I would never consent for one moment, if my consent were necessary, to the establishment of a province or provinces even under the terms and conditions granted to the province of Manitoba. When I say that I believe the time has come for the establishment of provincial institutions it is always coupled with the statement that with these institutions there must be given means for carrying them on.
Thus as the hon. member for Alberta said, the details, the terms, are the essence of the whole question. On the trip which the hon. leader of the opposition made through the west last fall, a slight change of mind was worked on him with regard to the importance of matters of detail in relation to this question. On one very important detail then he expressed himself clearly in the North-west Territories, just as he has done here, and, on behalf of the Northwest Territories, I wish to take occasion to thank the hon. leader of the opposition for the expression of opinion which he gave in favour of the view which we in that country unanimously take, that when a province is formed it is only fair, just and proper that the lands, timber and mineral resources in that province should be handed over to the people dwelling there to be managed and owned by them. This should be done in the North-west Territories in the same way as in every other part of the Dominion, except in the province of Manitoba which was formed when the Conservative party was in power. But on several of the other items of detail my hon. friend carefully avoided giving any expression of opinion when he was in the west last fall, as he has done on this occasion. I was in hopes when my hon. friend gave notice of this motion that he had made up his mind to give a definite opinion upon some of the details which he had failed to give in the west. At Qu'Appelle he was asked if he supported our claim to compensation for the lands which had been alienated for federal purposes and I can assure my hon. friend that the people in the audience went away without really knowing what his answer meant, whether the reply was that he would support them in their demands for compensation or not. These were the words of his reply :
In regard to the alienation of the lands, of course the question why they have been alienated should be asked and I answer that Manitoba and the North-west should receive compensation for such lands as had been alienated for exclusively Dominion purposes.
At Regina also he answered a similar question by stating in regard to compensation for lands :
In regard to the compensation for lands which had been alienated it would of course be necessary to consider the purpose for which they had been alienated.
Now, I venture to say that that was not a very clear statement and that in reality the people at Qu'Appelle and Regina went away without knowing exactly where the leader of the opposition stood on this exceedingly important item, this supremely important item in the demand made by the 13927 COMMONS 13928 people of the west for provincial autonomy. My hon. friend wants to know why these lands were alienated. Surely it is a little late for my hon. friend to be asking that question. Some of the new settlers in the west might ask this question without creating any surprise, but surely it is a late date for the leader of the Conservative party, the party which alienated the lands contrary to the interests and well- being of the people of the west and of the whole of Canada, to be asking in this year of grace why these lands in the west were alienated and given away to railway companies. We may differ as to the wisdom and policy pursued by the Conservative party, but the thing is done, there is no need to ask any questions about the lands being alienated, and is not my hon. friend able to say now whether he thinks they were alienated for federal purposes or for some other purpose ? Surely the building of railways is a federal undertaking ; these railways were authorized to be built by parliament and the aid was voted by parliament, so that surely they are federal undertakings. The people in the west had the idea that my hon. friend was simply evading the question by a quibble. Let me explain to my hon. friend how serious this question is and why it is viewed so seriously by the people of the west. The total areas of lands which were voted away by the Conservative party to railway companies was 56,082,072 acres. Now the roads constructed with this in the North-west amounted to 1,606 miles and in Manitoba 1,217 miles. Northwest land was taken to construct roads in Ontario and the mileage in Ontario is 650 miles and in British Columbia it is 253 miles. By these various items railway companies in the North-west Territories, Manitoba, Ontario and British Columbia have earned 29,986,826 acres of land mostly in the Northwest Territories. Part of this area of land is in Manitoba, but the North-west Territories furnish all the lands earned by the roads in the North-west Territories, British Columbia and Ontario and a portion of the land for the roads constructed in Manitoba. In Manitoba 2,699,230 acres are patented and perhaps another million of acres will be selected there, so that the Territories will have furnished more than 26,000,000 of the total 30,000,000 acres of land furnished by the public to these companies. The territories therefore furnish about 86 per cent of the land earned by railway companies, yet only 43 per cent of the land aided railways were built in the territories, 1,606 miles out of a total of 3,741 miles which were aided by land grants. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) at Regina said:
The policy to the west ought to be one of generosity, and such is the policy of the Conservative party.
Generosity to the railway companies, generosity to Ontario, to British Columbia, to Manitoba if you like ; our lands were taken to build roads in all of these provinces, our lands were taken to make these railway corporations rich, but surely it is a little too much to ask the people of the North-west Territories to believe that the policy of the Conservative party in this respect has been one that can be properly classed as a generous policy towards the people of the Northwest Territories. If the Conservative party had remained in power another five years and had continued that policy of generosity there would be practically no public lands in the North-west Territories at the present time to have any dispute about. Even as it is of our lands that may be said to be fairly fit for settlement, but little remains outside of the even-numbered sections, as was proved by the case of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Company. The company were going to enter a suit in the Exchequer Court against the government to avoid being compelled to take the only land that was available for the purposes of their land grants which they said was not fit for settlement. Mr. Haultain says, and I say, and I think every man of the North-west will say, that these lands voted to railway companies were lands voted for federal purposes and that there is no possibility of any real dispute with regard to the purposes for which the lands were voted.
When a railway is aided with a cash vote by the federal government, every person in the Dominion contributes to that vote. But when the land of the North-west is taken for this purpose, only the people of the North-west contribute to the aid so given. I repeat, let the leader of the opposition, the leader of the Conservative party in the Dominion, state, so that the people of this country and especially the people of the North-west Territories can understand what he means, that the 26,000,000 acres of the North-west Territories land given to railway companies, alienated for federal purposes, are to be taken into account and that the North-west Territories are to be compensated for these lands—a statement that he failed to make when in the west, that he does not make here and that is not contained in his amendment to this motion for supply. He must recognize that his general statement in favour of autonomy is not worth very much to the people of the Northwest Territories unless he goes further, as he was pressed to do by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and makes it known to the public just what he means by autonomy, and what position we shall occupy with regard to financial ability to carry on our local government, if we get the autonomy to which he thinks we are entitled. The hon. gentleman cannot this year claim ignorance of details, because he has Mr. Haultain's draft Bill before him. I will ask the hon. gentleman as the hon. mem- her for Alberta asked him, whether he is willing to support Mr. Haultain and the member for Alberta and myself in favour of the 13929 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13930 propositions of this draft Bill, propositions that, I believe, are supported by all the people of the North-west. For I do not agree with all my colleagues from the Northwest on this point, but believe that Mr. Haultain's proposals are approved with practical unanimity by the people of the North-west. Until the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is willing to say that he will stand by these propositions, until he is prepared to say that if we are granted autonomy it will be by the assistance of his vote for these terms, he can hardly command the support of those of us from the North-west Territories, and he can hardly command the support of the voters of the North-west who approve the details of Mr. Haultain's draft Bill.
Now, I made reference a few minutes ago to a condition which had arisen and which made it wise, in my opinion to delay for this year, granting autonomy to the North-west. That new condition is the judgment given by the Supreme Court of Manitoba in March last upon the test case concerning the Canadian Pacific Railway land tax exemption. And, in my view this is a very important consideration. Even in the view of the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories at least a very short time ago this was a very important consideration. In the explanatory part of his draft Bill prepared less than two years ago he says :
The effect of these exemptions is to prohibit any province which may be established, or any municipal corporation therein, from requiring the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to assist in the ' administration ' of the country or the maintenance of 'peace, order and good government ' within its bounds with respect to a part of its property for ever and with respect to another part for a limited period of time. This exemption falls hardly upon the people of the North-west Territories in a number of ways. The nature of the land grant to the company, in that it is spread over the whole country in small blocks of one mile square, alternating with those open for homesteads, causes every dollar spent by a settler in the improvement of his homestead, where it lies within the districts reserved for the selection of the land granted on account of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to enhance the value of the lands held for the company in its neighbourhood. All public expenditures made in such districts for roads, bridges and other works of a similar description improve the value of the lands still held by the company under its main line grant, the company contributing nothing on account of such lands towards the cost of the works by reason of which they are benefited.
Further down in the same document he speaks of these exemptions as making an extraordinary burden on the people of the North-west Territories. Until six months ago, when this judgment of the Manitoba Supreme Court was given, nobody had ever thought to question the right of the Canadian Pacific Railway to exemption from taxation in the territories, as respects its right of way and railway property, from the time the road was built and for ever, nor the right of the company to exemption from taxation as respects its lands for a period of twenty years. The date of commencement of the twenty years period was disputed, but not the right of exemption for twenty years.
The trial of the test case has brought to light an exceedingly important and entirely new contention in behalf of the North-west Territories, namely that so long as that area remains in its present position the company is entitled by law and under its contract with parliament to no exemption either as to its roadbed or lands, and that in reality it has never had a right to exemption from taxation in the territories, and never will until that area is given the status of a province.
And as concerns schools, the Supreme Court of Manitoba upheld the contention, and this year all the land and all other property of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the North-west Territories are held liable for school taxation.
The court did not express an opinon as to whether the company is equally liable to municipal or direct government taxation— the North-west Territories case before the court was the case of a school district only— but the judgment given on the school case leaves little room for doubt that the court would give the same judgment as regards municipal and government taxation.
Now, upon a legal question of this kind I speak with some hesitation, not being a lawyer, and I have been careful to put on paper just what I wish to say so that I may make no error. But, I followed closely the press reports of the argument at the trial in Winnipeg. I have also seen the judgment. And before judgment was given I met Mr. Howell, counsel for the government and for the North-west people, who kindly took the trouble to explain to me the contentions he advanced in behalf of the North-west Territories. I believe I have grasped the main features, which are as I have described.
He contended that with respect of school taxation, before the Canadian Pacific Railway contract and Act were passed in 1881, granting exemption from taxation ' by the Dominion or by any province thereafter to be established, or by any municipal corporation therein,' an Act (North-west Territories Act, 43 Victoria, chapter 25) was in force, and under section 10 power to assess and collect school rates was conferred. Therefore, the Dominion government had already delegated taxing power to at least this extent, and, the Canadian Pacific Railway contract not providing for the abrogation of such power on the part of the North-west Territories the power and right to levy taxes was not cancelled by the Canadian Pacific Railway Act, which Act therefore must be considered, as far as exemption is concerned, as subject to the right already conferred upon the North-west Territories in this respect. The 13931 COMMONS 13932 court upheld the contention, and the judgment means that the company enjoys no exemption from school taxation.
The feature that concerns this autonomy question is this—that upon the creation of a province parliament would become liable, under the contract, to secure and safeguard the company in the exemptions granted in the contract. The language of the contract means plainly that the Dominion government or parliament will not tax for twenty years the lands and for ever will not tax the other property of the company, nor permit such taxation to be levied in any province whenever such is created ; in other words, parliament contracted with the company to restrict the taxing powers of any new province.
When new territory was added to Manitoba this provision of the contract was observed, and the company was safeguarded against taxation as agreed. The added portion was brought under provincial status, and specifically made subject to the exemption provision of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract.
It is true that the North-west Territories urge that when they made a province it shall not be subject to the Canadian Pacific Railway exemptions.
This feature of the autonomy problem tends to prove the wisdom of the words used by the Minister of the Interior last year respecting the advisability of taking time to develop a full, general and popular understanding of the question. If the settlement with the North-west Territories had been made last year I very much fear, in view of the lack of full comprehension by parliament of the details of the whole matter, that the Canadian Pacific Railway would have been left in enjoyment of its contract rights, no matter how unfair as against the people of the new province, and that the new province would have been in the same position as the added portion of Manitoba, which, by the Manitoba Supreme Court judgment, ls left under the exemption handicap for twenty years as to lands and for ever as to roadbed. It is for this reason that I think it is extremely fortunate that autonomy was not granted us last year. I have not the slightest hesitation in declaring that it is vastly better for us to await autonomy two or three years, and finally obtain it free from these exemptions than to obtain it immediately with the heavy handicap of the exemptions.
I have already occupied so much time, and the hour is so late, at this late stage of the session, that I do not feel justified in going as fully into the question as otherwise I would feel it incumbent upon me to do. Let me say, in conclusion, that in face of the position of this Canadian Pacific Railway tax matter, in view of the millions of acres of land that are involved, of the millions of value in railway property of the company that are involved, it appears to me that the people of the North-west would be simply crazy at present to accept autonomy unless driven to it as a last resort—and we are not driven to the last resort this year because our immediate financial needs are fairly well met ; the lack of the borrowing power remedied by the capital advance method ; and little room for complaint is left us as regards railways. Such being the case, I certainly approve of delay until all doubts as to the Canadian Pacific Railway tax question is removed. I hope this doubt will not exist very long, I hope the case will soon be settled by a judgment of the Privy Council. Possibly it may be too much to hope that it may be settled before next year, because the law courts move slowly. But the position I take is that the government should obtain from the Privy Council a final decision upon this Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption, and that as soon as it is obtained the people of the North-west should be granted provincial autonomy.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Borden, Halifax) :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn, Gourley, Avery, Hackett, Ball, Haggart, Barker, Henderson, Blain, Kaulbach, Borden (Halifax), Lancaster, Boyd, MacLaren (Perth), Broder, McGowan, Bruce, Morin, Carscallen, Pope, Casgrain, Roche (Marquette), Clancy, Sproule, Clare, Wilmot, Clarke, Wilson—29. Cochrane,
NAYS :
Messieurs
Bazinet, Mackie, Beith, Macpherson, Bernier, McCool, Bourassa, McCreary, Brown, McGugan, Bruneau, McIsaac, Bureau, Madore, Campbell, Marcil (Bagot), Champagne, Marcil (Bonaventure), Christie, Matheson, Davis, Mayrand, Delisle, Mignault, Demers (Lévis), Morrison, Desjardins, Oliver, Dugas, Parmelee, Erb, Paterson, Fielding, Préfontaine, Fisher, Proulx, Fitzpatrick, Reid (Restigouche), Fortier, Roche (Halifax), Galliher, Ross (Ontario), Gauvreau, Ross (Rimouski), Geoffrion, Rousseau, Gibson, Schell, Grant, Scott, Holmes, Sutherland (Oxford), Kendall, Tobin, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Turcot, Lavergne, Turgeon, Leblanc, Wallace, Lemieux, Wright.—63. Loy,
13933 OCTOBER 14, 1903 13934
PAIRS :
Ministerial. Calvert, Logan, Hyman, Johnston (Lambton), McColl, Fraser, Guthrie, Cowan, Costigan, Gould, Heyd, Mulock, Talbot, Ross (Victoria), Copp, Girard, Monk, Thompson (Haldimand), Cartwright, Dyment, Emmerson, Charlton, Sutherland (Esex), Harty, Wade, Riley, Maclaren (Huntingdon), Stephens, Belcourt, Stewart, Blair, Borden (Sir F.), Johnston (Cape Breton), McCarthy, Power,
Opposition. Taylor, Lefurgey, Gilmour, Simmons, Ward, Bell, Porter, Pringle, Hale, Thomson (Grey), Tolton, Brock, LaRiviere, Bennett, Calvin, LĂ©onard, Melgs, Ingram, Tupper, McCormick, Fowler, Tisdale, Northrup, Reid (Grenville), Smith (Wentworth), Earle, Rosamond Seagram, McIntosh, Halliday, Roddick, Birkett, Culbert, Maclean, Osler,
Amendment negatived : motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

Source:

Canada. House of Commons Debates, 1875-1949. Provided by the Library of Parliament.

Credits:

.

Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Gordon Lyall.

Personnes participantes: