19
THE LEADER, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 13, 1899.
THE DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY IN THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE.
Bennett of West Calgary "Shoots His Bolt" Against the Administration—The Life of the
Government not Seriously Endangered—The Aspiring Leader of
the Opposition Preaches the Doctrine that the "End Justifies the Means" and Wants
to Se a Government With a Policy to "Make Things Happen"— Serious Charges Against
the Executive Freely Made, but Easily Disposed of by Mr.
Bulyea, Commissioner of Agriculture, Who Replied for the Government—very Effective
Reply Made by Dr. Patrick to a Portion of the Theories and Fancies
of Mr. Bennett—Condensed Summaries of the Speeches of the
Mover and Seconder of the Address in Reply, and the Other Members Who Joined in the
Debate.
ICE BROKEN.
Thursday, April 6, 1899
Speaker took the chair at 2:45.
THE ADDRESS IN REPLY.
EVENING SESSION.
At 8 o'clock Mr. Speaker resumed
the chair. It had been rumored and
expected that Mr. Bennett of West
Calgary intended entering the debate
with an onslaught against Government. When the sitting opened Mr.
Bennett was not in the House and
Mr. HAULTAIN arose to close the
debate. He explained his somewhat
unusual position in the debate as leader
of the Government. Under an ordinary and well defined party system
there would be a regularly appointed
leader of the Opposition. In the absence of any regularly formed Opposition or recognized
leader of the Opposition, and as there was possibility of
hearing from members or leaders of an
Opposition or Oppositions, he had postponed his remarks, it being generally
understood that the leader of the government had a right to reply to the chief
criticism levelled against the administration. He presumed that the House
had now heard the principal critician,
and he would make his own remarks
brief. The Premier heartly complimented the mover and seconder of the address, and
agreed with
Mr. Lake that
if any apology were called for it was
the old members who should apologise
for their continued existence. (Laughter.) The seconder also laid down the
proper position as regarded the occasion
of the address, that it was better to
leave the controversies to a later stage.
While there was perhaps controversial
matter in the address, it was not placed
in a controversial way. In fact the
Address in Reply was framed, as far as
possible, to avoid controversy, and a
member voting for its adoption was
mot committing himself on any important question one way or the other.
The Premier alluded to
Mr. McKay's
statement regarding his (Mr. McKay's)
attitude and wrong classification by a
newspaper characterised as a Government organ. He said if it was a question between
the statement of
Mr. McKay and a statement appearing in any
newspaper whether an organ of the
Government or not he could assure the
House that he was perfectly ready
in the latter event to disown the organ
and accept
Mr. McKay's frank and fair
statement. In his opinion
Mr. McKay's position fittingly belonged to
every member of the House, and was
a creditable and proper position. It
was right that members should deal
with the propositions of the Government on their merits; and he was
glad to hear that that was
Mr. McKay's
attitude. The hon. member for Banff
had referred to the speeches of
Mr.
Villeneuve and
Mr. Lake as being
unique because of their independent
expressions. If the hon. member
was referring to things within that
Assembly, then he (
Mr. Haultain )
could say the statement was very wide
of the mark. There was nothing
unique about the independence of the
hon. mover and seconder. There had
never been any servile following in
that House. If their tone was
independent, it was simply characteristic of the North-West Legislature as it always
had been
found. The member for Banff's
VAGUE AND MYSTERIOUS
reference to prosperity had created apprehension in
Mr. Haultain's mind—it
had a familiar ring, and seemed like an
echo from another arena. If he were
not introducing a foreign subject, he
might say that, belonging to the political party to which like himself
Dr.
Brett owed allegiance—a party which
at least was accused of claiming that
good harvests and the conditions of
prosperity were managed by Acts of
Parliament and affected by governmental interventions:—belonging to that
party the member for Banff might consistently give the North-West Government a measure
of credit for the favorable conditions which are found to exist throughout the country
to-day—
some little measure, after thanking
Providence and the weather and other
toward conditions. (Laughter.) The
Speech, continued the Premier, in one
respect was like the speech of the member for Banff,—it contained both hopes
and regrets. The first part dealt with
some causes of congratulation, and unfortunately some regrets were expressed. He desired
simply to re-echo all
that had been said respecting Lt.-Governor Forget. It would not be fitting
in his position to attempt any eulogy.
He endorsed
Mr. Lake's remark that in
that case the proper course had been
followed in appointing a North-West
man and thus giving recognition to
home industry. In their choice the
Dominion Government had made no
mistake. The appointment had
been favorably received throughout the whole Territories.
Any eulogy from him respecting the
late Lieut.-Governor Cameron, too,
would be unbecoming at that time,
Hon. Mr. Cameron had made his reputation in the larger field of Dominion
politics, and of any man in the sphere
in which Mr. Cameron had moved and
been an influence, there was bound to
be very marked differences of opinion.
But no one could say that from the
very moment of his entrance upon the
duties of the office of Lieut.-Governor
he had not shown a keen interest in
this country-shown that he was resolved to devote his time and the
strength of his high position to promote the interests of the country. (Applause.)
The Premier repeated that
the Speech should be dealt with in a
non-controversial spirit, particularly
the first Speech given by His Honor.
It seemed to him that the reply should
be made as unanimous and as counteous
as possible. Of course he did not wish
to deprecate critician or stop debate,
but upon the subjects of the Speech
criticism could be made much more
effectively later on in the session.
The foreshadowed subjects of legislation,—on each one of them a bill would
be brought in. On other matters—
matters of administration—well, the
Supply Bill had to be introduced, and
when it came down there was opportunity to discuss all such matters.
Every subject would come up later
in more definite and practical
form. In other legislature, it was
true, very extended debates on the
address seemed to be the rule, but
judging by what we heard of the debates themselves and their effect, it
would certainly seem that a different
course would cause no loss. The
Saturday Review, he thought it was,
which said that the debate on the
Address in the Imperial Parliament was
a "rambling discussion upon things
in general," and suggested that if those
who participated had written an
article or hired a hall on equally good
result would have been accomplished.
The member of Banff made the usual
critician in perhaps different words
that the Speech was remarkable for
what it failed to contain—that it was
barren or at least meager—that no useful legistlation was promised, etc.
Whether the criticism was merited or
not it was certain that the Speech
seemed to contain nothing upon which
the hon. member could declare his own
position, and it was fair to ask if the
remark should be taken as coming
from one who was
HUNGRY FOR WORK.
anxious to be making himself useful,
or was it simply the commonplace remark of an Oppositionist who flet a
compulsion to criticise. As the House
had no recognised Opposition, the
Premier supposed they would have to
assume that it was the remark of one
who disappointed that he could
not at once roll into hard work. Leaving aside that question, however,
Mr.
Haultain challenged comparison with
Speeches made to any other Assembly
or to Parliament. He said the statement could not be contradicted that
none of them contained mention of
anything like the variety of important
subjects contained in the Speech for
which he and his collegues were
responsible, and this notwithstanding
the more extended work and greater
organization of provincial assemblies
or the federal Parliament, with their
well developed parties and greater
scope. The statement that work
of the country had increased so as to
necessitate a third member of the
Executive Council was important, and
would come before the House again in
a practical way. Unless the House
saw fit to vote Supply and provide for
that third member, his services could
not be continued. The matter of the
Consolidation of the Ordinances was
by no means unimportant. The remarks of the hon. member for Banff
on that subject, coming from an old
member, were not very appropriate.
That hon. member had been in the
House and knew perfectly well what
had caused the delay. The dela was
made at the request of the Commission,
and this
Dr. Brett knew or
should have known. The Commission
was first appointed in 1897, and in 1989
after they had done through the work,
they advised various changes before
the Consolidation should be completed
and adopted.
Mr. Haultain thought it
was desirable that the delay should
have occurred. The Consolidation
now contained the whole of the
work of the last Assembly, and
was certainly much more complete
that if it had been issued earlier. In
any event the delay was not caused by
the Government, the country had not
suffered but benefitted, and to-day the
whole law was to be found in one
volume.
Dr. Brett spoke of amendments he had proposed to the local improvement law in former years;
he
advised that those amendments ought
to be made now, and at the same time
protested against the Consolidated
Ordinances being amended. That was
a lesson to the House in consistency.
Dr. Brett had much fault to find with
the local improvement Ordinance. At
an elelction meeting in Banff district
(at Jumping Pound) the hon. member
had referred to the Ordinance in very
different terms.
Mr. Haultain quoted
from a report of
Dr. Brett's speech at
the meeting, highly commedning the
Ordinance. The report went on to say
that
Dr. Brett declared he "had always taken an active part in the business of the House, that he
had always
held at the Statute Labor law was
good, and that the people would like it
when they got a proper understanding
of it." This was the way, said
Mr.
Haultain, that the member for Banff
expressed himself when he was not
filling in the time alloted to the
gentleman who assumes to lead Her
Majesty's loyal Opposition.
Dr. Brett—If you will permit me, I
will say that I always approved the
principle of the law, and said nothing
this afternoon inconsistent with that
approval.
Mr. Haultain—The explanation does
not meet the point. To-day the hon.
gentleman criticised the law as it stands.
At his election meeting he approved
the law entirely and completely. The
Premier, continuing, said that another
very important subject mentioned was
that of water supply. He was sorry
that it was so important, and that its
importance had to be admitted in the
Speech, and in speeches in the chamber. He felt very much disinclined to
include reference to it in the Speech
and to so advertise the fact of its importance to the world. But it was one
of the conditions the Government was
compelled to deal with, and which had
to be considered. If it were not in the
speech, the bill of fare would be lacking still more and the hon. gentleman
from Banff would have still greater
reason to complain. Then there were
the subjects of stock inspection and
farming experiments, both highly important. Another subject was that respecting elections.
The hon. member
was very free in criticisms after the
event. The Speech accurately indicated the position. It was the test made
by the general elections which showed
the weak points in the law. The involved questions arising in the Banff
election, for instance, called for remedy.
He would not say it absolutely, but believed that the imperfections of the law
influenced
THE RESULT IN BANFF.
On that score the Premier was not
complaining. On the contrary he welcomed
Dr. Brett back to the House.
But
Dr. Brett was as much a party to
the law as anyone else. Had he not always "taken an active part in the
business of the House?" He had always been a critic. The assembly
surely could complain that the hon.
gentleman had not given the advantage
of his knowledge and prescience regarding the election law in 1897 or 1898, so
that the Chapter of the Consolidated
Ordinances would not be demanding
amendment. References to the law of
partnership, winding up joint stock
companies, villages, swelled the list of
important subjects embodied in the
Speech. The bill dealing with the law
of Partnership would be found very
important. The Speech itself refuted
the statement that it contained reference to no useful legislation. Of course
whether the legislation as finally adopted would prove useful or not would depend
on the consideration given by the
House. On the other hand, continued
the Premier, the Government purposely refrained as much as possible from
preparing any legislation not urgently
required. The Consolidation was just
out. Of course some amendment was
necessary, but especially at this time
no changes should be made but just for the
sake of doing something. It was
Sir
Geo. Cartier who said he would never
be satisfied until a session could be met
with only one Bill—the Supply Bill.
Certainly at this stage the fewer bills
the better, especially of the tinkering
sort.
Dr. Brett's references to the incompleteness of the statute law did not
fall with good grace from one who
sat through three legislatures and
always "taken that active interest in
the business of the House." It was
late in the day to find the existence of
this incompleteness.
Mr. Haultain
thought that no one who would read the
titles of the various Ordinances and
look even casually into them—many of
them embodying the results of the experiences of older countries adapted to
our special conditions-would find any
warrant for the comtemptous declaration made with a wave of the hand
that the statute law of the Territories
was so incomplete. The Assembly of
the Territories had been in particularly
good circumstances, free from the
drawbacks and sidepullings of other
Aseemblies, for exercising the function
of the legislation. They had not had the
sometimes necessary but in many respects undesirable features of party
strife to contend against, and had been
able to devote an unusual degree of
single mindedness to the work of
legislation. The Premier declared he
was ready to stand on the declaration
that the North-West statute law was in
a high degree complete and useful in
comparison with other countries. It
was not perfect. The House was but
human, as
Mr. Villeneuve had truly
said. The member for Banff seemed
to think there something needed to be
done, but was at a loss to know
just what was required. He reminded the Premier of that curate
out of employment who in the
disputations anent the claims of
the high churchmen, low churchment,
and so forth, took his stand on the
declaration of "No Views," and immediately gained employment.
Mr.
Haultain hoped that the criticisms
would take more definite and practical
form when the questions come before
the House. After all, however,
Dr.
Brett had always been a friendly critic,
and
Mr. Haultain only wished his
Government might always meet with
criticisms as friendly and fair as his
had been in the past. (Applause.)
THE DEBATE BREAKS OUT
AFRESH.
MR. BENNETT (West Calgary) had
come into the chamber near the close
of the Premier's speech. When the
latter sat down the former arose.
Mr.
Bennett's opening sentences proclaimed
him a voluble, eloquent and pleasing
speaker. He commenced by saying
that while he was probably the youngest man in the House, yet he represented a most
important constituency,
upon which fact he would rest his
justification for joining in the debate.
With this brief preliminary he plunged
into his topics. After the speeches
made last fall at Calgary by the hon.
the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Public Works, the House
might have expected on this occasion
the presentation of a programme
meriting their consideration. Every
man who realised the great problems
treated,—was looking to see some
indication that the problems presenting
for solution by the administration of
these Territories would be grappled
with by the Government. He would say
nothing in a spirit of captions criticism:
his remarks would be offered rather in
the spirit of determination to aid to
the full extent of his poor powers the
promotion of the welfare of the country. The Speech, in its reference to
the Lieut.-Governor, noted the fact
that it was twenty-five years ago that
the North-west Territories began to
be organized. Twenty-five years, thundered
Mr. Bennett, was a long time.
Twenty-five years was a
QUARTER OF A CENTURY.
Almost twenty-five years ago Hon.
David Mills, then Minister of the Interior, now Minister of Justice for Canada, in
a speech referring to the North- West alluded to the Territories as being then in
the minority, and declared that they would be expected to do
the work of a grown-up country,—act the part of a grown-up man.
On this day, twenty-five years later, it
was surely not too early to ask if the
time had not come for the people of
these Territories to assume the status
contemplated by Hon. Mr. Mills. Continuing,
Mr. Bennett declared that problems momentous, gigantic, of the utmost seriousness, confronted
the country, and with which it behooved the
Assembly to deal. In the light of this
declaration
Mr. Bennett ridiculed an
address given by the hon. the Attorney
General in October last at Calgary.
Mr. Haultain had professed the Government's inability to deal with the
large questions of competitive freight
rates, elevator monopolies, or the matter of arranging for the people of Calgary a
schooner of beer for five cents.
Laughter.)
Mr. Haultain had accentuated the need of the cultivation of the
philosophy of dullness.
Mr. Bennett
said that while the Attorney General had not mentioned his name
everybody knew that the remarks had
sarcastic reference to his (Mr. Bennett's) election address. The speaker
thought the framers of His Honor's
Speech must have spent a great deal of
time in the study of the philosophy of
dullness, for if ever there was a document distinctly the evolution of such
study that the document was the speech.
But if the Government were unable to
cope with the momentous questions,
he (
Mr. Bennett ) had a mandate from
the people of West Calgary to endeavor to have them dealt with. Were
not the people of these Territories interested in the question of competitive
freight rates, the putting an end to
railway monopoly, the question of the
elevator monopoly? Would not effective dealing with those questions benefit every
man in the country? He
said that Mr. Haultain's remarks at
Calgary were an insult to the intelligence and knowledge of the people
who suffered from elevator and railway monopolies-people who are
hampered and oppressed at every turn
by monopolies, and who intend to remain no longer content to helplessly
bear the drawbacks and burdens imposed by the monopolies. The majority of the members
of the present Assembly were new men: they had come
in with no set ideas of Opposition,—
had come in open-minded, ready and
anxious to support every step in the
line of progress. But if they found
the Government pursuing its old policy
of "drift" instead of seeking to grapple with the problems of the hour,
then it was the duty of the members to
oppose that Government no matter by
what or whom it was composed and
without regard to any services the
members of it may have rendered to the
state in days gone by. If the Government failed in the duty of the hour it
was entitled to Opposition. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. Bennett declared that no
man had more unbounded confidence in
this country than himself. Looking
back over the twenty-five years' history
of the North-West, it was fair to ask
whether this Government had done
aught to facilitate progress or bring
about the prosperity which was being
felt in some measure by the people to- day. This Government had done to
Ottawa year after year asking this
thing and that thing. Whatever was
20
THE LEADER, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 13, 1899.
possessed had come in driblets. Had
all been got that might have been got?
As far back as 1890 Mr. Laurier asked
in Parliament why self-government
was not conferred on the Territories,
yet year after year the Attorney General had been at Ottawa on bended
knee asking driblets. When members
of Parliament enquired why so little
was granted, ministers time and again
answered that all was being given that
was asked, that
Mr. Haultain said the
people of the Territories were not fit
for self-government and did not want
it. Was the proposition true? dramatically demanded
Mr. Bennett. Was
it so that the people here were unfit
for self-government? Did or did not
the people desire the powers to improve
their condition? Did Eastern Assiniboia, for instance, care whether or not
they were monopoly ridden?
PROGRESS OF THE STATES.
Mr. Bennett made a comparison of
the progress of certain States with that
of the North-West to show, as he said,
how much this North-West Territories
Government was to be credited with.
In 1861 Dakota was a Territory with a
population of 4,837. In 1864, Montana was a Territory with
population of 20,595. In 1870, Wyoming, a ranching Territory, had a population of
9,000. Montana in 1880 had
increased to 39,159, in 1890 to 132,000,
and in 1898 to 240,000. The North-West
had just as wide and as good resources
as Montana. North Dakota—a part of
the original Territory of Dakota—had
increased in 1880 to 36,000, in 1890 to
182,000 and in 1898 to 225,000. South
Dakota in 1880 had 98,000, in 1890 328,000, and in 1898 410,000. Wyoming,
still a Territory in 1880, had risen to
20,000, and in 1898 to 85,000. Bring the
comparison nearer home. Take Manitoba, the population of which province
is to-day computed at 300,000, with
facilities of transportation second to
those of no province in Canada, and all
obtained practically without cost to
the people, largely so at any rate, as
the Dauphin line and other lines constructed on similar arrangement, are being obtained
without the cost of a single
cent to the people of Manitoba. He
referred to this because the Executive
Council had attempted to draw the red
herring of taxation into the question
of provincial establishment. On his
responsibility as a member he desired
to declare that neither the people of
Manitoba or any other province were
taxed a single cent by reason of being
a province, and he charged that the
Attorney General knew this fact perfectly well. Then why did he continually seek to
drag in the bugbear of
taxation? Simply because he feared
that his pet projects, his leisure and
his luxury would be interfered
with if his Government undertook
to grapple with the gigantic problems that awaited solution. Proceeding,
Mr. Bennett declared that
municipal organisation was the free
act of a free people. Before any municipality could be formed two-thirds of
the people must agree to formation.
Even without provincial powers these
Territories found themselves obliged
to undertake municipal duties. Had
we not organised local improvement
districts, villages and cities—all established on the municipal principle? The
assertion that provincial establishment
necessarily meant the introduction of
direct taxation, he characterised as
"mere rot;" and declared it a deliberate
insult to every man who possessed a
soul to say that this country was unfit and unable to deal with the problems to be
created by provincial establishment or to use to good advantage the powers of chartering
railways
and raising money upon the public
credit. He claimed no magic for the
name of Province, but did claim that
the name "Territories " was a detriment and prevented capital from
coming into the country.
After making the above very direct
pleas for provincial establishment,
Mr.
Bennett begged the House not to misunderstand him. He was not seeking
to precipitate on the House the question of provincial autonomy. Just two
things these Territories lacked, namely, the power to pledge the public
credit and the power to charter railways.
Mr. Bennett charged that five
years ago the Attorney General advised the Government at Ottawa that
the people here did not wish the power
of incorporating railway companies.
Mr. Bennett modified his assertion.
In 1893 or 1894, he thought it was, Sir
John Thompson, upon a bill granting
certain powers to the Territories, stated
that all was being granted that
Mr.
Haultain had asked.
Mr. Bennett
then proceeded to state the reson why
the people should have power to pledge
the public credit. He laid down the
proposition that the measure of a country's prosperity was the measure of its
power to borrow money. The gist of
the argument appeared to be that with
borrowed money prosperity could be
enhanced and the ability to borrow
more thus created.
Mr. Haultain had
answered at Calgary that the chartering of railways was a federal matter.
He (
Mr. Bennett ) joined issue on that
question. Manitoba had tapped the
Northern Pacific at the point of the
bayonet, with incalculable benefit to
herself. He said he was aware that
even now the President of the Northern
Pacific was prepared to tap the boundary line of the Territories, if connection
could be made from this side. To show
the adverse condition under which the
people of the North-West labored as
regarded transportation,
Mr. Bennett
stated that a single firm, a saddlery
firm in Calgary, last year paid $7,000
upon their freighted material in excess
of what they should have paid had their
place of business been located in Vancouver. That was a single instance. TheÂ
same condition affected everybody and
almost everything. People in Calgary
and Regina pay higher rates on sugar
from Vancouver than do the
people of Portage la Prairie.
These were the conditions which
made every man in the Territories interested in the question of comparative
freight rates. The elevator monopoly
was another burden, felt more severely
in the eastern sections than in Southern Alberta.
Mr. Bennett promised
that he would not be afraid to grapple
with and overcome these monopolies.
Were we less active, less enterprising,
less courageous than the people of
Manitoba or the people of the States on
our southern border? Caution was a
good thing, but overcaution might be
carried too far. He was in favor of
daring something, and declared himself a believer in the proposition that
THE END JUSTIFIED THE MEANS.
He believed that it was possible to accelerate the motion of the machine.
At Calgary last fall the Attorney
General had said that the time for provincial establishment had "just about
come." It had not come last year, but
last year the time had almost arrived.
Upon that statement
Mr. Bennett had
based his expectation that the step
would be foreshadowed this year,
only to be disappointed. The Speech
was barren of mention of any great
project or problem. The elections
were over. The Government could
rest for another four years, pursue the
old policy of "drift," and contemplate
the philosophy of dullness. The
twenty-one new faces appearing in the
chamber should warn the Government
that the policy of "drift" could no
longer prevail.
Mr. Bennett criticised
Mr. Haultain for the departure from
precedent made that afternoon. Never
before had
Mr. Haultain failed to
follow Dr. Brett in the debate on
the address. In the light of precedent there was something peculiar
in the reason offered by
Mr. Haultain
respecting the absence of a recognised Opposition. If nothing else,
sympathy for his colleague (Mr. Ross)
who was quite ill, should have prevented
Mr. Haultain's departure from
the custom of former years.
Mr. Bennett further criticised the
proposal in point of the money consideration involved. He was charged
with a mandate to offer the Government land for nothing. Lots of men
would be glad of the opportunity to
carry on the experiments without
charge. Indeed one man was ready
to offer $500 for the privilege of securing the proposed arrangement. The
land which the Government were
taking was the poorest kind of land.
He knew this because he had himself
sold the land last year for $5.00 an
acre, and now the Government proposed to pay $2 an acre yearly rental.
It was a good bargain for the Irrigation Company. The land had been
cropped for fourteen years; all the
soil was blown off it, and there was
nothing left but gravel. Representing
the people of Calgary West, he was
interested in securing the greatest
amount of benefit from the experimental system. He only asked fair
play for his constituents and for himself; and although the station was
being established in his district he
declared that for the reasons stated his
constituents were opposed to the project. Reverting to his allegation that
an untrue statement had been placed
in the mouth of the Lieut.-Governor,
Mr. Bennett claimed that the annals
of history would be searched in vain
for any similar instance. He next
took up a sometime statement made
by the Premier that the policy of the
Government was to be found in the
statute book, and said he would accept
the statement and prove by it that the
policy had been one of consistent
wobble. The Attorney General had
also claimed that no other legislature
could show the same record of original
legislation.
Mr. Bennett ridiculed the
claim. New Zealand with its advanced
laws was of course not to be compared
with this wonderful legislature! Mr.
Chamberlain, Lord Salisbury, the
Duke of Devonshire and all the Imperial legislators as well as the veteran
statesmen of the Canadian provinces
were of course but children compared
with the original legislators with
which these Territories were blessed!
Mr. Bennett took up the record. In
1889, 31 Ordinances were passed—7 public, 6 private and 18 amending; 1890—4
public, 3 private and 17 amending;
1891-92—12, 11 and 15 (an election coming on; pretty steady); 1892,—10, 7 and
21; 1893—9, 4 and 20 (wobbly again);
1894—10, 6 and 25; 1895—11, 7 and 18;
1896—6, 2 and 23; 1897—29, 3 and 8;
1898—6, 4 and 33. There was the policy
of the past—continual wobble. The
Government had no policy for the future,—no policy dealing with the actualities of
life. That was the reason
there were twenty-one new men in the
House. The people were looking to
men who would attempt to advantage
the country by the tremendous opportunities at hand. In ten years the old
regime had witnessed the passage of
355 Bills—198 amending, 53 private and
only 104 public measures including the
annual Supply Bills. The claim of
originality must be based on the boast
of the boy who disclaimed anything original excepting original sin.
(Laughter.) The policy had been largely one of neglect. If instead of incorporating
useless Sales of Goods laws,
they had cut the legal fees in two, some
benefit would have resulted. The legal
fees in this country were a by-word.
Business firms in the east preferred to
lose their accounts rather than become
liable to the fees. The clerks' fees
should be cut in two and the advocates'
fees split. Executions ought to be
made easy. Instead of some such useful measure, we were to have a law relating to
partnership. Possibly it was
fitting when they recollected the case
of the hon. Attorney General and the
Commissioner of Public Works, yet he
thought, looking over the twenty-one
new faces,
Mr. Haultain might
see something even more appropriate
in the proposal for a winding-up Ordinance. Notwithstanding the recent
Consolidation he saw the Judicature
Ordinance was to be again amended.
If anything should remain constant, it
should be the form of procedure in the
courts.
Mr. Bennett regretted that he had
consumed so much of the time of the
House. Had the speech been different
he should not have spoken at all. But
he could not refrain from voicing his
opinion that that Assembly was past
the stage for dealing with small matters. Twenty-five years had gone by.
Nothing had been done making for the
prosperity of the country. Nothing
was being done calculated to satisfy
the ambitions of young men. The potentialities of these Territories no man
could measure. When we saw the
success which he had shown
was crowning the efforts of other
countries, the young man was bound
to feel that those efforts should be
emulated. What the North-West
wanted now was men who would
MAKE THINGS HAPPEN,
and not sit down and be content to
drift. The country was on the flood
tide of prosperity, but so far as this
Government was concerned no one who
looked at their policy could fail to see
that they were entitled to no credit
and were in no wise responsible for any
progress being made. (Warm applause.)
Dr. Patrick moved the adjournment
of the debate, and the House adjourned.
One of the first men to congraulate
Mr. Bennett upon his speech was
Mr.
Haultain.
FRIDAY, APRIL 7.
DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
RESUMED.
DR. PATRICK resumed the adjourned debate on the Address in Reply. He heartily congratulated the
mover and seconder upon the happy
and efficient manner in which both
had performed difficult duties, and recalled that the hon. member for North
Qu'Appelle (Mr. McDonald) and himself were the only ones in that Assembly who had
undertaken like duties in
circumstances of any similarity.
Mr.
McDonald's and his own case had been
even more difficult as they had to
speak as entirely new and inexperienced members before a House of old
members, whereas Mr. Villeneuve and
Mr. Lake had a majority of members
new like themselves to address. With
recollection of his own task in 1897
fresh in his memory he quite knew
how to sympathise with the mover
and seconder, who had performed the
task in a highly creditable manner.
He considered the mover as especially
entitled to credit, inasmuch as he addressed the House not in his mother- tongue.
He was entitled to the thanks
of the House for waiving his right, out
of respect for their feelings, to speak
in the language of which he had best
command,—a polite consideration characteristic of the French Canadian race.
(Applause.)
Dr. Patrick regretted that
there were not more people in Canada
capable of using the two languages
with equal facility as Mr. Villeneuve
had shown. He congratulated also the
hon. member from Grenfell, who began his speech with some natural
trepidation, but soon warmed up to
the topics and delivered an admirable
address marked by sound sense and
devoid of flourish. The speaker said
he wished to be brief, and asked the
House to consider him as concurring
fully with all the regrets and congratulations which were expressed in the
Speech and which had been so eloquently expressed by other speakers. He
wished to take opportunity of explaining his own position in the debate. He
had not intended to join in. He believed with Mr. Lake that a brief and
harmonious debate was better and
more appropriate. He said that when
he sought re-election in Yorkton he
made it a condition that he should
come trammelled only by his responsibility to himself and his constituents.
He was thus perfectly independent.
The position of a representative in the
Assembly was fraught with weighty
responsibility. The memer's conduct
should be guided by more than personal considerations and motives. Public
not private reasons should determine
his course. He (Dr. Patrick) was
perfectly independent, but he would
not think it right, simply because
of some lack of consideration
shown to himself by the Government
or for any other personal reason, to
seek to obstruct the business of the
House or to upset the Government.
He wished to say at the outset that he
held no brief for the Government. The
Executive Councillors were quite capable of taking care of themselves, if
given the ordinary chance. It was the
custom in that House as well as in
other legislatures to give the leader of
the government a chance to answer the
chief critic of the administration. It
was unfair of the member for West
Calgary that on this occasion the leader had been deprived of this chance.
Certainly had
Mr. Haultain known
that Mr. Bennett would speak, the
former would have deferred his remarks. But when the House resumed
last evening Mr. Bennett was not in his
place, and he (Dr. Patrick) was himself
advised that Mr. Bennett was ill in bed.
That Assembly had been used to fair
and honorable dealing and he did not
think any member would improve his
standing there by resorting to tricks.
Give the de'il his due, said
Dr. Patrick,
and likewise give the leader of the Government his due. (Laughter.) HeÂ
characterised Mr. Bennett's criticism of
the Speech as an insult to the intelligence of the House. He would not
take up time comparing the Speech
with those given in other Houses. The
members all knew what was the result
of such comparison. The Speech under
consideration was more definite and
specific than any speech delievered at
any recent session of any Canadian
legislature. It might, however, be
worth while to compare the Speech
with the election address of the member who had declared that the Speech
was indefinite and unsatisfactory.
There might be need of definiteness in a
Speech, but surely there was far more
need in the election address of one
who sought to be made representative
of a constituency for a term of four
years. Of course the candidate might
contend that he would have opportunity to declare himself specifically on the
hustings; and so a Government could
contend that they would be specific
on the floor of the House when their
Bills and Estimates came down. Those
who heard Mr. Bennett's speech last
night would certainly expect that in
his address to the electors he would
specifically state his position on the
great and momentous questions of
comparative freight rates, provincial
establishment and elevator monopolies.
They would be surprised to learn that
no reference to these gigantic problems could be found in the card of
this candidate before the electors of
West Calgary. The election address
rather than the Speech could be proved
to consist of glittering generalities.
The hon. member stated to the people
of West Calgary that adequate reference to the important subjects could
not be put into the space of an election
card. Now he seemed to think that
the space of an opening speech should
contain everything. Ah, but in the
election card there was
ONE GIGANTIC QUESTION
that did not escape mention. "The
energy and the enterprise of the people
of Calgary should be recognised by the
establishment of that place as the provincial capital!" Mark the great
public reason! Not because Calgary was geographically convenient for the capital.
Not because
there was any good sound reason why
Calgary should be made the capital,
but for a demagogic reason, and for a
reason that only a demagogue would
use. (Cheers.) The energy and enterprise of the people should be recognised
forsooth! Were there no other members with constituents possessing energy and enterprise
deserving recognition? What scale of expenditure was
going to be entailed when the only due
recognition of energy and enterprise
took the form of establishing capitals.
(Cheers.) He (
Dr. Patrick ) himself represented constituents with energy and
enterprise sufficient to guarantee prosperity without having to lean on C.P.R.
car shops. (Cheers.) The people of Â
Yorkton raised and exported cereals
and cattle and worked out their own
prosperity. The speech of the hon.
member for West Calgary had two
notable characteristics. There was on
the one hand propounded two extraordinary doctrines, and on the other
there was captious criticism. The
hon. member argued that we needed
provincial establishment because the
elevator monopoly was bad. It had
surprised
Dr. Patrick to learn that
provincial establishment would free us
from elevator monopoly. He had believed that the question was a federal
matter and embraced in the subject
of Trade and Commerce. If his recollection was not wholly bad the provinces no more
than the Territories
were free from elevator monopolies.
It was not a happy compliment
Mr.
Bennett paid the members of the Assembly to show he thought he could
bamboozle them with the notion that
provincial establishment would give
the power to deal with the question of
grain trade.
Mr. Bennett—On my responsibility
as a lawyer I state that a province
would have such power.
Dr. Parick—Not being a lawyer I
will not challenge the statement of the
hon. member, but I venture to say at
all events that the question of elevator
monopoly will have passed into history
before negotiations could possibly be
completed to admit the Territories
into confederation as a province.
Dr.
Patrick next referred to Mr. Bennett's
second argument for establishment,
namely, that by it railway competiton
could be secured. He said the best
thought of the country was now unanimously of opinion that competiton
was not an effectual remedy against high
freight rates. The best thought of the
country was against the construction
of railways for the sole purpose of securing competition. Unless there was
need of a railway to serve the uses of a
people or a district, no railway should
be constructed.
Dr. Patrick in a clear
manner presented the argument that
if a district had one railway and the
one road could handle the trade and
freight of the district, it was very unlikely that the construction of a second
line would permanently reduce rates,
because the people of that district
would have to meet the running expenses account and the interest account
of two lines instead of one. The result
might be competition for awhile, but
was most likely to be combination eventually. Public control of railways rather than
competiton was now recognised as the solution of the freight rates
problem. The power to bonus railways was a power, and the business
of bonusing railways was a business,
which might be advantageous and justifiable, but demanded extreme care
and caution. A great many people in
this country would fail to agree with
Mr. Bennett that the bonusing power
was altogether desirable.
Dr. Patrick
read a trenchant comment on the subject from "Events," an Ottawa publication, claiming
that the people of
Canada had been "bonus-mad." He
averred that sounder reasons than that
advanced on the railway question
would have to be adduced to warrant
provincial establishment. At least it
would have to be shown that there was
no other way to obtain freight rates relief, which would mean final admission
that the railway company power was
supreme in Canada, that the creature
was greater than the creator, and that
the Government—the public—was not
supreme in its own affairs.
Mr. Bennett argued that provincial establishment would not lead to direct taxation.
If they took Manitoba's case,
Dr. Patrick failed to see how the argument
could be sustained. Manitoba was
paying $100,000 yearly in interest.
Some of the municipalities in Manitoba
had bankrupted themselves by borrowing to bonus railways. If the province
did not now need to pay the large
amounts in interest, the revenue devoted to that purpose could be devoted
to municipal purposes, which certainly
would lessen the taxation that municipalities had to impose on themselves.
So
Dr. Patrick thought the matter was
as broad as it was long. The system in
Manitoba had resulted in taxation.
Pledging the public credit to create
prosperity was a doubtful or at least
serious proceeding, and the last state
of a community entering upon such a
course was often worse than the first.
MAKING THINGS HAPPEN.
Mr. Bennett desired the Government
of this country to "make things happen." His argument seemed to be
that borrowing power was a necessary
antecedent to the power to make
things happen. Judging from his
statistics referring to Dakota, Montana, etc., making things happen consisted chiefly
in procuring population.
Dr. Patrick recalled that the province
from which Mr. Bennett came (New
Brunswick) had had the borrowing
power, the power to make things happen, for fifty years. Why, he asked,
did not Mr. Bennett remain where
there was such power ready to be
exercised? Well, what had been made
to happen in New Brunswick? In the
decade ending 1891, the census showed
that the population of that province
increased by the magnificent number
of eleven souls. Things happend with
a vengeance. (Applause.) With
Mr.Â
Bennett's departure the number was
cut down to ten.
Dr. Patrick had
read just a day or two ago of a woman
in the immigration sheds at Calgary
surrounded by a family of eleven children all under the age of seven years.
This would seem to show that New
Brunswick with the borrowing power
was not to be compared with the Territories lacking such power as a place
where things might happen. (Pro
longed laughter and cheers.)
Mr.
Bennett had quoted many United
States statistics. He neglected to
quote the experience of Kansas, which
State with the power to make things
happen had loaded itself with a
burden of $800,000,000 debt, counting
State, municipal and farm mortgages,
and from which State men were
now fleeing and flocking to this
country in scores and hundreds to escape the results of the power to make
things happen. (Cheers.) That wasÂ
an example which the people of these
Territories would do well to avoid.
The speaker would not argue that the
public credit should never be pledged,
but the proceeding was one demanding
the utmost consideration and caution.
He admitted that municipalities should
be the free act of a free people, as
Mr.
Bennett stated, but found that it had
not always been so in Manitoba. When
the public revenues were mortgaged,
and large sums had to go out in interest, the government was deprived of
ability to meet certain services throughout the country, the result being that
the people were obliged to undertake
those services themselves,—were compelled by circumstances to undertake
municipal organisation.
DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS?
Dr. Patrick took direct issue with
Mr. Bennett on his statement of doctrine that the end justifies the means.
It was so far as he knew the first time
the doctrine had ever been openly propounded in a public assembly. There
had been men willing to adopt and
practise the doctrine, but not before
had there been a man unscrupulous
enough to boldly announce his belief in
such a pernicious doctrine. Dr. Patrick had been sorry to hear the announcement. Alluding
to the rusty
well borer at Olds, the speaker
reminded the House that it was
less than two years since the Government became responsible for public
works and public property. Formerly
individual members had the direction and responsibility, and the
Government should not be held
chargeable for the mis-direction
or neglect of members under
the discarded system. On the irrigation experiment matter,
Dr. Patrick
thought Mr. Bennett would have acted
more appropriately had he abstained
from boring the House with the reading of long correspondence; he could
have had the correspondence laid on
the Table. There was a principle enunciated by
Mr. Bennett with which the
speaker took issue, namely, that the
Government was amenable to the individual member in respect of works undertaken in
his district. That was
wrong. The Government was amenable to the House for every expenditure. Personally
he was not ready to
accept as proper, expenditures in West
Calgary district or in any other district merely because the member representing the
district approved the expenditure. There had to be for every
expenditure a public reason to justify
it with the House and the country as a
whole. The speaker deprecated contentious debates on the address, and
read another comment from "Events"
on that subject, condemning the wasting of time in discussions which resulted in nothing.
Mr. Bennett's remarks
against existing legislation were a reflection upon the old members. Territorial legislation
could well bear comparison. In Manitoba in 1898, 90 per
cent. of the legislation consisted of
amending bills. A similar percentage
would be found in all legislatures. At
any rate before 1897 the Government
here were not responsible for the legislation more than other members. In
conclusion the speaker exhorted Mr.
Bennett to retract his declaration of
belief in the doctrine as to the end justifying the means. He asked Mr. Bennett if
he would retract it and remove
the stigma from the House.
Dr. Patrick regretted the reiteration.
Such doctrine might lead to anything.
If Calgary were made a capital and the
hon. member accepted a portfolio in a
cabinet;—he believed Mr. Bennett not
only thought he was capable of managing a portfolio, but of distributing
such as well;—and if he succeeded in
borrowing that $2,000,000 (the speaker
said he was only following Mr. Bennett's example in referring to things
transpiring outside the House);—if the
hon. member in capacity of minister
of Public Works or Treasurer were approached by men seeking railway
charters and bonuses, and leaned too
heavily on that doctrine of the end justifying the means,—well such men
were believed to be capable of suggestions and who could say to what the
doctrine might lead?
Mr. Bennett—Order. I propose to
let pass no insinuations against my
honesty, integrity or honor.
Dr. Patrick said nothing was farther
from his mind than to insinuate anything improper. He was merely drawing the logical
deduction of the course
of the man who believed in the doctrine. He was sorry that the deduction
led to extreme and deplorable lengths.
The hon. member should retract it and
express regret that he had dared to say
that the end justifies the means. It
was due to the House, to his constituents and to himself that he retract.
Dr. Patrick—He does not retract, Mr.
Speaker. He adheres to his view.
At any rate, continued
Dr.
Patrick, when he gets the $2,000,000, he
will have to provide for repayment
and payment of interest. At 4 per cent.
that would mean $80,000 in interest
yearly, and $40,000 would have to go
yearly into sinking fund. The revenues
would be charged with those amounts
at once, and complex municipal organisation would be an immediate
necessity. The people of Eastern Assiniboia want no two millions borrowed
just yet. (Applause.)
AN EXPLANATION.
Mr. BENNETT moved the adjournment of the House to make an explanation. He had been stating the
policies
of the States to the south and showing
the results, and his argument was that
the ends they attained justified the
means they adopted, and would justify
us in adopting the same means. He
believed their example was our warrant to dare something, to speculate a
little. They believed the end justified
the means. "I believe so, too," said
Mr.
Bennet, "in matters of that kind."
He would fling back any insinuation
that he could be bought by charter
mongers. Because he had hope andÂ
enthusiasm, because he could see great
possibilities for this country, he did
not think justified any such insinuation. The man who would insinuate
that another man could be bought,—
"well, the House knows the proverb,"
concluded
Mr. Bennett.
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE TAKES A HAND.
MR. BULYEA said that partly for
the reason that the third member of
the Executive Council was a subject of
the Speech he had not intended joining
in the debate, and would not have done
so had not certain remarks made by the
hon. member for West Calgary demanded reply. The hon. member had
made a violent attack upon an act of
administration of the department over
which he had the honor to preside.
First
Mr. Bulyea desired to concur in
expressions already made respecting
Lieut.-Governor Forget, the late Lieut.- Governor Cameron, the Aberdeens and
the new Governor General, Earl Minto.
He further was highly pleased to see in
the chamber the man who had been
the first lieut.-governor of these Territories, Hon. David Laird. (Applause.)
Mr. Bulyea was sure that Mr. Laird
could not fail to note wonderful progress since he came into the country
twenty-five years ago, despite Mr. Bennett's complaint that things had not
been made to happen. In reality the
progress made could well bear comparison with any portion of Canada or
even of America. (Applause.) Mr.Â
Bennett had not come to the House
without reputation. His fame as a
speaker had preceded him, and his
speech on the address had been looked
forward to with great interest. As a
display of volubility, a flow of words,
the speech was no disappointment, but
in other respects Mr. Bulyea placed
himself in the judgement of the House
in saying the speech was a great disappointment. They had expected the
hon. member to treat the public questions on a proper and sensible basis,
but they found that he permitted no
illogical argument, no stretch of imagination, no contention however ridiculous to
stand in his way in his attempts to score a point. He would
even set his opinion above that of the
Minister of Justice, for instance on the
question of power to control the
grain trade. The province of
Manitoba had no more power
to overcome elevator monopolies than
the Territories possessed, and it ill
became the hon. member to seek to
support the case for provincial establishment by such mistaken pleas. Such
methods of argument could only find
warrant in the doctrine that the end
justified the means. (Cheers.) TheÂ
hon. member apparently went on the
principle that any port was good in a
storm. Another rash allegation of the
hon. member was the one in which the
Government was accused of putting an
untrue statement in the mouth of the
lieut.-governor.
Mr. Bennett went the
extraordinary length of
BRANDING AS A LIE
a statement presented to the House by
His Honor. The fact that Mr. Bennett
was a young member and a new member, and possibly not quite acquainted
with what was proper in an assembly
of that kind, not quite cognisant of
the decencies of debate, had saved him
from being called to order. The covert
attack made by the hon. member on
the Attorney-General he (Mr. Bulyea)
need not refer to. It was quite unnecessary for anyone to defend Mr.
Haultain in that House. The House
would recognise the unfairness of the
hon. member in taking a couple of
opening sentences,—the preliminary
joke by which most good speakers get
on good terms with their audience—
upon which to base criticism and ridicule of Mr. Haultain's Calgary speech.
If he had wished to citicise it would
have been becoming in him to take the
lines and arguments of the speech as
his text.
Mr. Bulyea had not before that day
seen Mr. Bennett's election address.
From one who was such a stickler for
definiteness he would have expected
some definiteness. But in that
address the House would find little
in line with the stand Mr. Bennett
had taken in the House. The address made no attack on the
policy of the Government; it even
pointed out no fault in the Election
Ordinance. If that law was bad now,
it was surely as bad four months ago
and Mr. Bennett as a candidate failed
to point to its badness. Mr. Bulyea
was pained at the recklessness of Mr.
Bennett's wanton charge that the Ordinance was maintained for a corrupt
purpose. That was a kind of statement which the House as a whole
would resent. The hon. member had
more to retract than was asked by the
member for Yorkton. The complete
answer to the charge was that the
Ordinance had been revised and consolidated by a commission upon which
sat two Supreme Court judges, and
that afterwards it was entirely
recast by one of those judges,
an ornament of the Territorial Bench
against whom no man would dare
to cast an insinuation. (Applause.) TheÂ
Government was accused of dilly-dallying with the
QUESTION OF AUTONOMY.
Mr. Bulyea dealt somewhat gingerly
with this accusation. He said that it
might be that the time has arrived for
establishment. It was time to consider the financial position, and he admitted that
if no other way could be
found of betterment, then the problem
of establishment must needs be faced.
The step could not be taken in a day.
The Territories must first decide what
terms were wanted, and then the negotiations would be entered upon. The
terms were the chief matter of moment. Manitoba had gone into confederation upon terms
which soon proved
inadequate and unsatisfactory.
Mr.
Bulyea thought Mr. Bennett's speech
indicated that he had forgotten that
the election was ended. The speech
was of a campaign character compiled
for local application; it was entirely
unsuited to Eastern Assinisoia. Like
many campaign speeches it was full of
inaccuracies, as for instance the statement that Manitoba's population was
300,000.
Mr. Bulyea showed that the
Manitoba Government's own computation in an application to Ottawa for
increased subsidy, wherein they would
surely not underestimate, was in 1898,
193,425. The hon. member was not
far out,—just a little more than 33 per
cent.
Mr. Bennett charged the Government for the fact that the Territories had not grown faster. Why
did he
not hold them guilty for the slow
growth of the Dominion? He had
quoted United States statistics.
The comparison would apply
equally to any province in Canada. In
all the States population had increased
far faster than in any part of Canada.
Manitoba would naturally fill up faster, or at least earlier, than the Territories
on account of its position between us and the sources of immigration. Now, however,
things are changing, and population is flowing into the
Territories. He was unable to express
his conviction in such glowing and enthusiastic terms as those used by Mr.
Bennett, but he hoped within the next
four years to see the population of the
Territories increase two fold if not
three fold. (Applause.) Mr. BulyeaÂ
had thought that the criticism anent
the proportionate number of original
and amending bills had been killed last
fall. Some candidates had then made
use of the criticism, and it had been
conclusively proved that any comparison with any other legislature showed
in favor of the North-West Assembly.
The Lieut.-Governor of Ontario assented to 91 Bills in 1897, three months
after a volume of Consolidation was
promulgated, and of the 91 no less than
86 were amending Acts. The experience of Manitoba would lead the Territories to be
very cautious with borrowing powers and chartering railways.
The total revenue of the province is
$683,705.67, and of this amount $251,944.49 is needed to pay interest on borrowed
money. The Territories so far
are in the fortunate position of having
no interest to pay. The speaker emphasized the arguments used
by Dr. Patrick on this subject,
and instanced the experience of
the only rural municipalities in
the country—those in his own riding,
whose residents had made a mistake
by too soon adopting the system. One
result in one of the municipalities was
a debt of $20,000, the proceeds of the
bonds going as a bonus to a mill which
has not turned a wheel in ten years.
21
THE LEADER, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 13, 1899.
This individual participated in:
