Legislative Assemblies of Alberta and Saskatchewan,
8 April 1902, Alberta and Saskatchewan Debates over Confederation with Canada.
1THE LEADER.REGINA, N.W.T., THURSDAY MORNING, APRIL 17, 1902.
AUTONOMY DEBATED
Full Discussion of the Most Important Territorial Subject.
THE OPPOSITION PLATFORM.
Mr. Haultain Moves His Resolution
Expressing Regret at Dominion
Government's Refusal to Grant
Provincial Powers—Dr. Patrick
Moves a Long Amendment Agreeing With Most of the Terms Asked
But Declaring for Two Provinces.
TUESDAY, April 8th.
The announcement that Mr. Haultain would move his resolution expressing regret that
the Dominion Government had not introduced legislation at
the present session of Parliament granting provincial autonomy to the Territories
resulted in every member with the
single exception of Mr. Greeley, who is
ill, being in his seat to-day, and in
addition the space reserved for the
public was crowded.
Mr. Simpson (Red Deer), presented a
petition to incorporate the Red Deer
memorial hospital.
Mr. A. B. Gillis presented the report
of the committee on standing orders
recommending that the following
petitions be received: To incorporate
the National Trust Co.; to amend the
Ordinance incorporating Lethbridge:
and to grant additional powers to the
city of Calgary. The report was concurred in.
Mr. Sifton moved that the public
accounts and the auditor's report be
referred to the public accounts committee. Agreed.
Mr. McKay asked the Commissioner
of Public Works the following questions: (1) When did his department
first receive information that the
bridge on Red Deer Creek between
sections 28 and 27, township 47, range
26, west of the second meridian was
unsafe for traffic? (2) When were instructions for the construction of a
new bridge to replace the above-mentioned bridge first issued; (3) Was the
said bridge constructed under contract
or by a bridge gang: If under contract, who was the contractor and
what was the contract price? If by a
bridge gang, who was the foreman?
On whose recommendation was this
bridge paid for? What was the total
cost of the bridge which is mentioned
on page 68 of the Public Works Annual Report, 1901, as one of the 113
bridges constructed? (4) Whether, a
separate report was submitted by
Cyrus Carroll, Esq., L.S.D., on his investigation as to the possible drainage
of a large slough on section 25, township 47, west of the second meridian
and if so what was the finding in the
said report?
Mr. Sifton replied: (1) Notice was
received on May 8, 1901. (2) Tenders
called for June 8, 1901. (3) Bridge was
constructed under a contract let to a
man named John Courtney, of Prince
Albert. Cost $190, but bridge not yet
completed and no report has been
made upon it. (4) No, he has not submitted any report of survey.
PUBLIC WORKS IN YORKTON.
Dr. Patrick moved for the correspondence between the Department of
Public Works and all persons on and
after March 16, 1901 relative to bridge
work over the Little White Sand
River, Cussed Creek, Wild's Creek, Insinger Creek, and certain other creeks;
also as to construction of dam and reservoir on branch of White Sand
River and on road allowance between
S. 13 and 18, 18-8w2; and as to a large
number of road improvements, deviation surveys and inspection of public
works in the Yorkton district; 26
items in all.
Dr. Patrick in speaking on this claimed that the correspondence would
show that the Government had not
supplied sufficient means for the public works of the country and that what
they did spent was not spent in an economical manner. Some bridges which
should have heen built early in the
season were delayed until there
were several inches of frost in the
ground. Ample notice had been given
and the delay clearly rested with the
department.
Mr. Sifton said he presumed the
object of the motion had already been
accomplished, which was to show that
the Government had not supplied
sufficient means for carrying on the
public works of the country and had
not used them in a proper manner,
more especially in the Yorkton district.
That object having been attained by
the long motion and short but interesting speech of the member for Yorkton he did
not see any reason why the
department should further exhaust the
means at its disposal in the preparation of a statement of the accounts
asked for in this very voluminous motion. If all the members of the House
had taken the remarkable attitude of
the member for Yorkton it would require a staff of three or four times the
size of the present one to prepare returns alone, let alone doing some of the
work they had been able to do. He fully agreed that the Government of the
Territories had not sufficient means to
do the work for this country. All
agreed on that. Every member would
also agree that there required and asked for a good deal more than they expected to
obtain with the means at the
disposal of the Government. He
agreed tat it was their duty to make
demands for what they thought was
necessary in their constituencies, and
they hoped to get a portion of it, but
few took the position of the member
for Yorkton, who went through his
constituency asking the people what
they wanted and then published a list
in a newspaper stating that he had
asked for all these things and threw all
the responsibility on the Government.
For the same reason he brought up
this resolution for the purpose of showing that he threw the responsibility on
the Government. The people knew
already that the responsibility was on
the Government, and not on the member for Yorkton. The district of
Yorkton had been treated in a fair
mannerWorks had been done there.
as far as the means at the disposal of
the Government and fairness to other
parts of the country would permit.
The hon. gentleman got all the work
he ought to ask for and certainly all he
would obtain.
Dr.Patrick in reply said, it had
always been his policy to give his public acts that publicity which every
man's public nets should have, so he
had nothing to be ashamed of. In
publishing that list of public works, he
also said he would hold the Government responsible not for doing all the
work but for what there were good
and sufficient reasons should be done.
He took the hon. gentleman's remarks
as an admission not only that sufficient ways and means had not been
provided but also that his department
had not been as efficient as it ought to
have been. Dr. Patrick devoted
some time to discussing the delays
which had taken place. The motion
was lost.
Mr. Haultain introduced and moved
on the first reading of a bill to amend an
"Ordinance respecting the Legislative
Assembly of the Territories." This is
the redistribution bill. It was read a
first time and set down for a second
reading on Friday.
The AUTONOMY DEBATE.
Premier Haultain rose at five minutes after three o;clock and seconded
by Mr. Bulyea moved: Whereas the
larger powers and income incidental to
the provincial status are urgently and
imperatively required to aid the development of the Territories and to
meet the pressing necessities of a large
and rapidly increasing population. Be
it resolved the Federal Government has decided not to introduce legislation at the
present session of Parliament, with a
view to granting provincial institutions
to the Territories.
In speaking to this resolution the
premier said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution and in drafting this
resolution I have endeavored to make
it as broad as possible and so far as
possible non-controversial. In spite of
the amendment before the House of
portentious length I still have some
hopes that before the debate, which
will probably arise over this resolution,
comes to a conclusion that we will see
that this is a subject upon which all
can unite in expressing, a general
opinion on a general question of large
importance, to the Territories, The
recital might, I suppose, be considered
as non-controversial. I suppose all the
members of the House, except the
member for Yorkton and the member
for Prince Albert East, agree that the
time has come for the Territories to be
granted these larger powers.
Dr. Patrick interrupted that he
agreed the Territories required the
larger powers.
Mr. Haultain —Am I to understand
that he agrees with the recital? It
then indicates another of those kaleidoscopic changes for, which the hon.
member for Yorkton is noted. (Laughter.), I would say then, Mr. Speaker,
that I certainly have every reason for
believing that, notwithstanding the
various opinions which the hon. member for Yorkton has expressed on this
subject up to the present moment, and
the hon. member for Prince Albert
East has expressed on this question, I
have at the present moulent the unamimous consent of the House to the recital which
precedes the resolution. I
will go further and say that the resolution must state the real feeling of
every member of the House who gives
his consent to the recital (Cries of no,
no). This resolution presents the
broad statement that provincial institutions are necessary and immediately
necessary in the Territories and that
this House regrets that the Dominion
Government has not seen fit to bring
in legislation at the present session of
parliament to grant those institutions.
It is not intended in any way to ratify
any proposal made by the Government.
It is not asking the approval of the
House or of any member to the terms
we have asked for, or the methods we
have adopted in trying to obtain these
terms. We are not asking for the
judgment of the House now upon
what we have asked for. We must
look for that and the judgument of the
country at the proper time. But whatever differences there may be with
regard to details, this Government cannot hope to escape from the judgment
not only on the general question but on
details. The time for that judgment
will come before the House and the
country at large but not now and not
with reference to the resolution I have
offered to the House.
GENERAL DESIRE FOR AUTONOMY.
Above and beyond all terms of controvesy and differences of opinion with
regard to area and with, regard
to other terms upon which these
institutions should be granted, there is
the general sentiment, the general
desire, the general recognition, of the
necessity for the establishment of provincial institutions in the Territories.
No matter what difference of opinion
there may be as to details, there is ab
solute unanimity over the desirability
of granting provincial powers to the
Territories. With regard to form
there is not unanimity; the country is
not unanimous. That is the final matter upon which and in regard to which
we are not the final arbiters but the
Dominion Government are. Again I
say in introducing this resolution I
have done so in the broadest terms and
in such terms that it can be consented
to unanimously by members who believe in the broad principles I have just
laid down.
There are various opinions, in this
House with regard to area, but only
one as to the institutions themselves.
We have the one province men, two
sets of two province men, the northern
and southern and the eastern and
western. We have at least from the
hon. gentleman from Yorkton the declaration that the good faith of the
Parliament of Canada and the Government was pledged to three provinces
on the lines of the provisional districts.
So we have had one three-province
man in the House. There are also
those in the country who believe in
annexation of a certain part to Manitoba. We have three, four, yes five
phases to this question, which if not
represented in the House at least have
been presented at different times by
different people. Unanimity, therefore, is impossible.(Hear, hear). These
divergencies of opinion are known not
only to every man in this House and
Territories but to the Dominion Government and if there is any necessity
for proving that, a simple reference to
the correspondence will show that the
Dominion Government are alive to it
that this is an important question and
still more alive that those different
opinions are held among the people in
various portions of the Territories.
Their reply is a comment upon the undesirability when dealing with them of
parading our differences. This is a
practical question. No member or
group of members of this House or the
whole House are in a position to settle
it. The Dominion Government are
the final arbiters and while I believe
we will unite in pressing, upon the
Dominion Government the immediate
necessity of granting provincial institutions, it would be a useless waste of
time for us to spend a very large amount of time in discussing these questions. I
believe that it is desirable
that the House should discuss them
and it is right that the House should
question our way of dealing with the
matter, but a resolution which deals
exclusively with the Dominion Government should be dealt with in the manner it should
be dealt with.
NECESSITY CREATED THE SENTIMENT.
All are agreed that provincial powers
are necessary. It is not necessary to
try to convert the hon, member for
Yorkton or the hon. member for Prince
Albert East. It is not necessary to
direct any lengthy argument to this
House to prove that the only solution
of the problems that are presented to
this House and country is the granting
of the necessary power to help ourselves. The people of the Territories
are ready for this movement, and are
expecting this movement. I believe
that a sentiment has been created and
an interest aroused and the expectations of the people raised by the discussions which
have taken place in this
Assembly, and by the statements made
by ministers at Ottawa, and by statements of members of the Government
in the Assembly and in speeches at
public meetings. I will go further and
say I believe the very large sentiment
is a matter of somewhat recent growth.
I believe it has come by the great force
of necessity. It has been forced upon
the people of this country by necessity,
and until these necessities became
apparent possibly for years to come
there would have been no very large
sentiment in favor of a change. The
sentiment was created and the opinion
made by the fact of the necessity.
The question of transportation, the
grain blockade, which depends for its
solution on the question of transportation, the question of our financial
position which will be felt very much
more acutely before these great questions are settled, have forced this
matter upon us. The question of
transportation is more than a Territorial question. It is admitted to be the
great Canadian question. The boards
of trade of Montreal, Toronto and
other cities have taken it up and
referred to the conditions in the West.
I need not make any argument as to
the great importance of this question.
SHOULD PRESENT A UNITED FRONT.
I will again come back to the original theme that with regard to our
method of dealing with the Dominion
Government this legislature should be
unanimous. So I would say then let
us so unite in making the general demand and let us press as we have and
will continue to do, trusting to the
strength and reasonableness of our
case, and forcing our opinion upon the
Dominion Government and carrying
them through the Dominion House.
There is no question about this that an
expression of opinion by a large majority or a small minority of the
Assembly with regard to the provincial idea or annexation will not help
the Dominion Government very largely
in coming to a conclusion. As a House
in making a general recommendation
there would be. If we divide up as
one province men, two province men
and annexationists, and one used to be
for three provinces, if we present ourselves in that attitude we are not going
to help the Dominion Government
very nuch. They know of these differences, but I do not believe if we can
convince the Government of the necessity for provincial institutions in the
West that the Government would
postpone or should postpone the general question. The onus for that postponement must
rest where it belongs,
at Ottawa.
Now, as unanimity is, possible on
this, then I say that in dealing with
the question in our foreign relations,
if I may use the term, in our foreign
relations with Ottawa we should present as unanimous a front as possible
and should take all the steps we can in
order to obtain the institutions which
we consider are indispensible, and without regard to areas, and after we have
presented these arguments to the
Dominion we must take chances its to
areas. I believe the overwhelming
mass of evidence is in favor of one
province. (Hear, hear, and cries of
no, no.)
WOULD ACCEPT TWO PROVINCES.
I am so impressed with the necessity
of provincial institutions in the west
that I consider the question of the
area within which provincial institutions are to be granted and carried out
is a question of secondary importance
and I am willing to go so far as this.
While believing in the one province
idea, and while continuing to press for
it, I am so convinced of the necessity
for provincial institutions in the Ter
ritories, that having exhausted all
means to obtain this, I would much
prefer to see provincial institutions established under two provinces than
have provincial institutions indefinitely postponed in the Territories. (Hear,
hear.) But let us have one province if
we can. The amendment in asking
the Dominion Government to give two
provinces is making a fatal mistake
and those who advocate it are making
a great mistake, showing a want of
faith in the institutions of the country.
But I believe the necessity is so pressing that the worst of two bargains is
better than none at all. But I would
never agree to annexation. (Cheers).
THE QUESTION OF THE NUMBER.
Now, hon, gentlemen opposite will
say that we have come out for one province. That is perfectly true; we
asked for one province. We had to
express an opinion (Hear, hear and
cries of No.) We were carrying on negotiations with the Dominion Government making
a bargain and we had to
make the best we could. Those who
say we should have submitted an
alternative were recommending a bad
policy. They think we should have
taken the position of a man selling a
horse who asked $100 for it but at the
same time said he was willing to take
$80. Now that is not the way this
Government does their business. We
stand out holding strong views as to
what is best for this country. We had
to admit in our discussions with the
Government that there were other
opinions in the Territories; at the
same time we naturally and properly
said we believed in the one province
idea. We first had to impress them
with the necessity of provincial institutions, and being impressed would they
not have said, "In what area?" Would
we have been justified in , saying:
"There are a number of other opinions, therefore, we will not take the
responsibility of expressing an opinion?"
That is not the position of men going
down to negotiate should have taken.
It is not the question now. There
will be ample opportunity as to the
question of the number of provinces of
testing the feeling of this House, and
before the next year of testing the
feeling of the people of the country, in
the constituencies on it. At this point
we should deal with the larger question and as far as possible present a
united front to the federal authorities
on the broad question upon which we
can all agree.
WHAT THE RESOLUTION MEANS.
I do not propose to discuss or ask
the House to discuss, and the resolution does not lead to a discussion of the
one, two or three province idea. Nor
does it lead to a discussion of out methods of approaching the Dominion Government.
The question is as presented
in the resolution, are these larger
powers necessary? Can the Territories
go on as at present? Are we in a position, financially or constitutionally to
adequately deal with the problems
confronting us? There is only one
answer to that. I think every man in
the House except the two I have named , the hon. members for Yorkton and
Prince Albert East, will agree that we
are ready——
Mr. McLeod—I do not think the hon.
gentleman is justified in making that
statement.
Mr. McLeod—I agree that we are
ready, but if we are prepared for one
province we are prepared for two or
three.
Mr. Haultain –Do I understand the
hon. gentleman to say that I misrepresent him as saying that he is not in
favor of the immediate granting of
provincial instituents?
Mr. Haultain—I am glad to know
that the hon. gentleman can make up
his mind at the eleventh hour. He
had expressed an entirly opposite opinion to his constituents.
Mr. Haultain—The hon. gentleman
not only stated that he was opposed to
the establishment of provincial powers
at once but that he had gone to Ottawa to prevent it. I say again that
with the exception now of only the
hon, gentleman from Yorkton, who is
in his ordinary attitude of glorious
isolation (Laughter), on this subject in
this House there is only one answer.
Every man in the House except the
hon. member—I regret that I always
have to make this exception—must be
forced to the conclusion that provincial powers are necessary. Without
going into the method of conducting
the negotiations I say that it will be at
least admitted that a strong case was
made out by the Government for more
power and more money, and these are
the only questions which should he
considered to-day, and even this is not
included in the present resolution,
With regard to the resolution itself
I feel I can confidently ask every memof the House, whether a one province
man or a two province man, or an annexationist, to sink these minor differences and
unanimously concur in a resolution which states our greatest need
and formulates our common aspirations.
We must all regret that, the Dominion
Government has ignored our claim and
shut its eyes to the crying need of this
country and upon most superficial
grounds. I do not propose to go any
further but simply repeat what I have
said so often. We stand face to face
with the greatest problem which confronts this House in its general aspect,
If we differ in detail here and in the
country and constituencies, we should
at least in pressing this point upon the
Dominion Government present a united front on these broad principles.
Mr. Haultain resumed his seat amid
cheers, having spoken for half an hour.
DR. T. A. PATRICK.
Dr. Patrick on rising to reply was
given a good reception by the Opposition members. He said: Mr. Speaker,
I quite agree with the hon. the prime
minister that the question we have to
deal with today is an exceedingly
important, one, because not withstanding his endeavor to lead us aside from
the question, the real question we have
to deal with to-day is whether the proposition made to Ottawa, and the
circumstances under which it was made
were justified by a mandate from the
people of this country. Shall we agree
in censuring the Minister of the Interior
and the Government of Canada in refusing a particular piece of legislation drafted
for them by this Government? That is the question. The
reply of the Minister of, the Interior
raises the question whether these gentlemen had a mandate to make the
proposition they made because he says
a divergence of opinion exists.
I have admired the skill with which
the hon. gentleman endeavors to crawl
out of the one province idea. He is
afraid of the convictions of the members of this House on that question.
(Laughter.) He endeavors to get both
those who believe in one province and
in two provinces to vote for a resolu
tion censuring the Dominion Government for not granting provincial
autonomy on the basis of one province.
His distinct request to the Government,
at Ottawa was not that legislation
establishing provincial institutions
should be introduced, but legislation
providing for the establishment
of one province. Therefore
we are quite right in discussing the
motion to go further and discuss the
demands made and the circumstances
under which they were made before
we can decide that they were right and
justified in refusing at this particular
season and time to introduce legislation.
Had they any right to believe that
this Government had a mandate to
demand one province to be established
400,000 square miles in extent, then I
would regret, but the Government of
Canada had no right to believe that
the Government had a mandate. The
hon. gentleman has referred to kaleidoscopic views, may I retort in kind.
May I direct the hon. gentleman's
attention to the fact that in a speech
delivered at Yorkton in 1900 he made
the statement that he was in favor of
incorporating every acre from the
international boundary to the North
Pole (Laughter), and that is considerably in excess of 400,000 square miles.
He said further in discussing the matter at that time that as yet they had
no mandate from the people, but that
it was the the duty of the legislature
to educate the people on this question
of entering confederation, and in response to a question he said he would
take in every acre and oppose annexation, and said further that "at the next
meeting of the legislature the attention of the Government would be devoted to bringing
these questions before
the people. The Government had no
mandate from the people to plunge
them into a province. It was the
Government's duty, to consider and
discuss interests which affected the
Territories, but now it was a duty to
investigate and advise upon terms of
confederation and then say, 'will you
send us to power to work for these
terms.'"
HAD NO MANDATE.
As to that speech made in
Yorkton, in my hearing (and
in the hearing of every member of this
House then present) he admitted the
correctness of it, The effect of that
speech on the people of the country
was this, that he had come to the conclusion that provincial autonomy was
necessary and he was going to the
people for a mandate. A man after
hearing that speech moved from Yorkton to Saltcoats for the purpose of contesting
that constituency. (Laughter.)
But there we have out of the hon.
gentleman's own mouth the fact that
he had no mandate to discuss the question of provincial autonomy. He had
a mandate to educate the people upon
it, and that was his attitude, according
to his own words, "will you send us
back to power on those terms," yet in
the face of that he, who had no mandate, who expressed himself so decisively and changed
his mind on it, he who
believed every acre from the international boundary to the Pole should be
included, he who went further and
was going to the foot of the throne to
prevent the Yukon being taken away
was now willing that only 404,000
square miles should be taken in as one
province. His intention was that his
own particular view should be incorporated in legislation drafted by himself and foisted
upon the people of this
country. Notwithstanding he had no
mandate, and both at Yorkton and in
this House he admitted he had no mandate, he demanded autonomy and in a
breach of faith with the people of this
country he attempts to foist upon them
institutions they never asked for,
(Hear, hear.)
TOLD TO GET A MANDATE.
That is the reason I cannot regret to day that the Minister of the Interior
has refused to take action. The Minister would have been a traitor to the
country had he done so. He knew
that the hon. gentleman had no mandate, no authority, and was acting
without authority or instructions, and
for that reason he sends him back and
refuses to consider his proposition, and
practically tells him to "go way back."
and get a mandate from the people of
this country, and that is the reason he
will have to ask for a mandate from
the people, that he had endeavored to
force these institutions upon the
people.
I admit very freely the right of the
Dominion to carve the country into
one, two or three provinces. These
rights are very fairly set out. But
there are rights theoretical and practical. There are rights the exercise of
which are highly inexpedient and undesirable, and though the Dominion
Government has the right to pass legislation legally making a province or
provinces in this country, they will
not do so without having the opinion
of the people of this country. If it
were otherwise what would be the use
of discussion? If it were otherwise
why express any regret: For these
reasons we are justified in going into
the terms which the hon. gentleman
proposed in his draft bill and in asking
if the terms are such as will justify the
members of this House in regretting
that action was not taken.
AGREES WITH THE TERMS.
With respect to certain of the terms
sought by them in the draft bill, some
of them meet with my unqualified
approval and some my disapproval.
The hon. gentleman's claim, on behalf
of the people of these Territories for
the crown lands, timber royalties, etc.,
will commend themselves to every
member of this House, He asks for
the school lands absolutely. I do not
5THE LEADER, THURSDAY MORNING, APRIL 17, 1902.
AUTONOMY DEBATED.
(Continued from page 1)
believe we have a right to ask for the
absolute control of the school lands.
We have a right to ask for them as a
trust. They have been set apart for a
sacred purpose I helieve the ownership of them should be vested in the
province and also the administration
of them as a trust. I may say also that
I am quite in accord with the hon.
gentleman in respect to compensation
for lands alienated for federal purposes.
That is a complement to the other
proposition, that we should have the
crown lands. Also with respect to
compensation for the impairment of
the right tax we are agreed. As to
the matter in respect of irrigation, I
have no fault to find, nor in asking
that the powers possessed by the Territories with reference to the prohibition of
the liquor traffic should be
continued in the provinces which may
be formed.
VALUE OF WILD LANDS.
But, sir, this man who was not going
to yield a claim to a stick, straw or
stone is willing now to yield up the
greater part of the territory of Athabasca. Why should our provincial
area not extend as far north at least as
British Columbia. If that province
has a right sofar north we have surely
a right. That north country is a market to a certain extent for the people
living on the frontier of the country.
It is now a market to the Edmonton
country. A commissioner of this Government went through to Athabasca
to report on that country and his
going was justified on the ground that
it was under our legislative jurisdiction. From a provincial point of view
those parts of the country which are
likely to be sparsely inhabited are
often the most productive of revenue.
In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec
that revenue is realized but from
the wild lands, timber royalties, etc.,
and from a provincial point of view we
should have as much of that wild land
as we can get.
LARGE VS. SMALL PROVINCES.
Now we come to another important
question, the question of a large province, the question whether 404,000
square miles is to large for one province, or whether 279,000 or 239,000
square miles is not large enough. The
area comprised within the provisional
districts of Alberta, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan and, Athabasca is approximately 550,000
square miles in
extent. I will make a few comparisons of that with other local
governments, and we will find
that the area of the Territories is quite
large enough to divide into two provinces which would have approximately 275,000 square
miles. The largest
state in the United States is 262,000
square miles, while the average State
is about 54,000 square miles; Ontario
has 220,000 square miles. The area of
each of the two provinces would be
four times as large as the New England States, five times as large as New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia together,
and, having regard to their size, each
would be quite large enough to enjoy
any advantages thought to belong
to large areas.
I requested the hon. gentleman the
other day to establish this proposition, which underlies his claim for one
province, that a large province could
be more cheaply administered than a
small one. The hon. gentleman has
not done that.
Mr. Haultain — Does the hon. gentleman want me to establish the proposition that it costs more
to run a large
province than a small one?
Dr. Patrick — Not exactly. They are
both administered by a local government but in one case the province has
supplied what the other province has
not supplied. If you add the cost of
local government you have got to add
the cost of district government. the
province of Prince Edward Island does
practically the whole of the municipal
work in that province. Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick do a very considerable amount of work that in Ontario and Quebec
devolves on the
municipalities. The system of district
government is very much cheaper
than the system in Ontario and Quebec.
The township councils of Ontario alone
cost more than seven times as much
as the government and legislature of
New Brunswick each year. They have
had to create township councils in Ontario because they are a large province,
and three institutions were found
necessary because of the enormous
amount of work to be dealt with.
These institutions alone cost seven
times as much as the New Brunswick
government and legislature and they
do not serve seven times as many people
nor seven times the area. If you take
the cost of civil government in this
province, or any province, you will
find that it may fairly be divided into
two kinds,—the actual work and the
supervision of the work. The amount
expended for supervision differs in
different provinces. Nova Scotia has
an attorney-general and he has no
deputy, though his department is
charged with the administration of
criminal justice. Ontario has an attorney-general who also has a deputy.
His department has several other
branches over which other offices preside.
Mr. Haultain — Does that not merely
prove to your mind that the province
of Nova Scotia is better administered
than is Ontario?
Dr. Patrick — Not altogether. In
Nova Scotia 5 7-10 cents per head per
year; 7 1-2 cents in Ontario and 13
cents in Quebec is the cost of
legislation and executive supervision. Where there are large
areas there is a large amount of
expenditure and where there is a large
amount of expenditure there is a large
amount of supervision. The larger the
provincial areas are, the more extravagantly they are administered because
the people are not able to maintain
that close supervision over them which
is essential to economical administration.
Dr. Patrick — Yes, by my observation
of it under the present government in
the Territories it is inevitable.
(Laughter.) I will make a comparion
between Nova Scotia and the North- West Territories. The Attorney- General of Nova
Scotia is Hon. J.
W. Longley, with 550,000 people in the
province. His department is entrusted
with the administration of criminal
justice and he has a reputation quite as
large, broad and extensive as the
Attorney-General of these Territories,
yet he manages without a deputy, and
also without a private secretary. So
it would appear that if extravagance is
not inevitable it is at least fairly
certain.
WHY NOT INCLUDE ALL CANADA?
Out of these Territories we can make
two provinces each as large as Ontario
and quite large enough for all local
purposes. They can borrow money
just as cheaply. I believe from the
point of view of the Dominion, and
that is the point of view from which
the matter must be dealt with,
it is a desirable thing that the
provinces should be of an approximately equal area. I am
hot taken with the idea of one grand
predominating and overshadowing
province. It is contrary to the spirit
of our federal constitution. If I could
put on the hon. gentleman's political spectacles and look over these
Territories and say I do not see
where one system of govern
ment, should begin and another
should end, then I might also say I do
not see why one system should begin
at range 30 and another end at range
29 west of the first meridian; I do not
see why we should have two governments to govern Manitoba and the
Territories. Why not annex Manitoba
and make the whole thing into one?
Why not go further? Why stop at
English River? Why not take in the
whole of Ontario and the whole of the
Dominion as one province? It would
save duplication of machinery according to the hon, gentleman.
Mr. Haultain —We shall be quite
prepared to annex Manitoba later on.
(Laughter.)
CURSE OF SECTIONALISM.
Dr. Patrick —I only desire to show
that the hon, gentleman is not guided
by the spirit of confederation.I believe the federal system is the best
system, yet devised. I believe in the
principle of local government for
localities, and in general government
for the whole. The Dominion of Canada has pronounced on the question of a
legislative union. That has been settled for all time. The question is not
shall there be a legislative union. The
question is shall we be true to the federal principle upon which our government is
founded. A large province is
contrary to that principle. The trouble
is that when provinces are too large
there is too much sectionalism. We
already have too much Quebecism and
too much Ontarioism, to much one provinceism. Sectionalism is the curse
of Canada. What we want in Canada
is less sectionalism and more Canadianism . Let us be true to the federal
principle. It may be objected that the
federal areas of Australia are larger
but is that a case in point? Why do
we hear murmurs that the Commonwealth is not any too strong? The
fact is that the weakness of the units
of a confederation are the measure of
its strength. Switzerland, the mother
of confederations, was founded because
the units were too weak to stand alone.
The same, was true of the early history of the United States. It was
founded because its states were too
weak to stand alone. Wherever possible these units should be of approximately equal
area.
CAUSE OF MANITOBA's DEMAND.
This claim for one predominating
province has had a certain result. In
Manitoba men who disagree on almost
every subject are agreeing and agreeing unanimously in imaking a demand
that a part of this country should be
annexed to Manitoba and the one province agitation is the reason for it. It
was the hon. gentleman's claim for
one grand, overshadowing, predominating province that first moved the
people of Manitoba to this action.
They have no desire to be overshadowed and to have a predominating province next to
them would have that
effect and that is the reason for their
demand. He who clamors for one province, is putting arguments into the
mouths of the people of Manitoba.
Are we weaker than Manitoba in that
parliament which must deal with that
matter? If we recognise the fact that
it must be dealt with from a national
point of view, and parliament would
not do otherwise, then the representatives of Manitoba will have a voice in
the matter. Have we a representative in the cabinet or they? Is our representation,
larger or smaller than
theirs? Is their position and influence
weaker? If not have we any right to
place in their mouths arguments in
favor of that annexation? This gives
the Dominion Government, the opportunity of saying: "We will make one
province and annex the reminder to
Manitoba." I say that I firmly believe
that the only alternative is two provinces or annexation.
The hon. gentleman has conferred
with the Government at Ottawa.
Now I feel justified in referring
to what he said to the member
for Saltcoats privately , in 1898.
He told us that it was his opinion,
that it was Mr. Clifford Sifton's opinion, that annexation to Manitoba was
the proper thing to be done. I did not
intend to refer to this, but the hon.
gentleman, has transgressed the rules
of this House, and the canons of good
taste in referring to a private conversation of the hon. member for Prince Albert
East, and I say that the hon.
gentleman did say to us privately that
he knew that was the opinion entertained by the Minister of the Interior.
My suggestion to him at the time was
that he should take a stand to prevent
it. Two provinces would do it. The
idea of a predominating province would
if pressed give us an antagonistic
Manitoba, while two provinces
would conciliate that province and we
could co-operate, with Manitoba in
matters where we have a common interest. The transportation question is
one of these. One large province may
do much to solve this problem but two
or three co-operating can do more.
TRIED TO GET TOO MUCH.
The reply of the Minister, of the
Interior is an indication that the Government of Canada is not in a hurry to
consider provincial autonomy. In 1900
the hon. gentleman said he did not
expect to get all he asked. He believed
he would not get all. His action was
like that of the boy and the jug of nuts.
The boy put his hand in the jug and
grabbed a handful and them discovered
he could not get his hand out, but by
taking the nuts out one at a time he
secured them. The hon. gentleman
attempted to grab too much at once;
My opinion in respect of this provincial
autonomy question is to practice the
line followed by the boy. There are
certain things we can get if we ask for
them, and there are certain things we
cannot get until we have force. We
should not go asking for everything;
we should not go making an absurd
proposition, (cries of no, no,) and to
enter into secret deals and negotiations,
and should not attempt or profess to
do what we have no power to do.
PROPER ATTITUDE TO TAKE.
I believe that the proper course to
take is a public course in which the
propositions shall be made in the light
of day. I believe that in the next legislature a bill of rights should be
prepared claiming everything to which
we are entitled. There is little disagreement in that respect. And then
we should say to the Dominion authorities we recognise that we are not in a
position to make a contract. We are
creatures, you the creator. You are
the strong one: you can wipe us
out. We have no power to
make a bargain, no power
to make a contract. Naturally after
we are created a province then we will
be in a position to make bargains and
get our rights and cannot be starved
into submission, and it is no new
thing for a province to approach the
Government of Canada for better
terms. Manitoba did it twice. It
made two bargains with the Dominion
but in the last one unfortunately for
itself admitted it to be a final one. The
Quebec conference is a case in point,
and the matter of the new terms
recently granted to Prince Edward
Island is another case in point. It is
folly to talk of doing things that you
have no power to do. I ask the hon.
gentleman what right have we to make
a bargain? We have a right to make
our demand, but is not our proper
attitude to adopt the high and mighty
methods of the hon. gentleman. It is
not to go down on a false pretense;
not to go down on a pretense that we
have power to do certain things we
have no power to do. We should act
through our representatives at Ottawa.
We should incorporate our views in a
bill of rights and ask for the help of
our representatives at Ottawa. We
should press upon them our rights and
what the people want. But to express
regret because the propositions that
were made under the false pretense
that we had the right to negotiate
when we had not; to regret that the
result of this autocratic mission without a mandate, this misrespresentation,
this hole in the corner business, is to
place ourselves in a false position. To
say to the Dominion Government you
are to obey the behests of this man who
because he has a fine gift of sarcasm:
this man whom the Creator has endowed with a most extraordinary ability
(hear, hear,) and offset it with a most
extraordinary indolence (Opposition
cheers), to say you must do as he says:
to regret that he did not get what he
had no authority to ask for; to regret
that the Government did not do what
he had no right to ask them to do,
because he was told to "go 'way back
and sit down," and ask the people of
the Territories, for a mandate, to go
and find out if they wanted one province or two, and that is practically
what it amounts to do, is, I say, to
place ourselves in a false position.
Because he went down on false
pretences we are asked to regret that
the mission failed.
DOES NOT REGRET DOMINION'SACTION.
Personally I do not regret; I rejoice
that it failed. I would regret to go
back to my constituents and say, I am
so under the thumb of Mr. Haultain, I
am so scared of election patronage, I
am so frightened of his power to redistribute the constituency, send me
back as an approver of this dictator.
I would be a traitor to the trust reposed in me. I feel that I would be
misrepresenting the opinions of a very
large number of the people of this
country. They believe that any action
should be taken through their representatives in Parliament. Had this
been done than I might have regretted.
I regret the delay in provinciol autonomy. I regret that when the hon.
gentleman came to the conclusion that
autonomy was the only solution of our
difficulties that he did not formulate
some bill of rights and then go back
to the people as he said he would. I
regret that he did not do what he
should have done. Some believe in
provincial autonomy yet do not agree
with the hon. gentleman. I believe
the Government should act as if they
realised that they are the servants
and not the masters of the people of
this country. I believe in acting under
the representative system of government under which we live and I believe in provincial
autonomy. There
is room for differences of opinion and
there are differences of opinion and it
rests with the people of this country
to say through the next legislature
when they have put up candidates in
each constituency that they declare
for one province or two as the case
may be.
NEGOTIATIONS WERE SECRET.
These negotiations were secret and
kept out of the public press. There is
always some reason for suspicion when
secretthings are done and a government is afraid of publicity for its acts.
I can understand that people might expect that the asking for one province
would result in annexation to Mianitoba
and if the annexation should follow
and people were forced into Manitoba
against their will as a result of the
hon. gentleman's negotiations in secret, when election time came the
people could not punish him for this
result of his conduct.
I hope an opportunity will be given
to the people to express an opinion on
these questions. This is a busy country and this is an especially busy year
and season and these are days of rapid
development and, extraordinary progress. I hope the busy season will be
allowed to elapse before the opinions
of the people are asked. Nothing can
be done until the next session of the
Dominion Parliament and it would be
a good time in October or November
to take the will of the people of this
country. I hope that the people having been kept in the dark will be given
time to make up their minds as to
one province or two.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF TWO
PROVINCES.
This reminds me of a fact I have
overlooked. If we have two provinces
we have a right to $50,000 for an extra
legislature. The Dominion Government over and above any subsidy gives
$50,000 for the support of the government and legislature of a province.
The hon. gentleman asked for $50,000
for his province. That is what Manitoba gets. If he had asked for two
provinces he could have asked for
$50,000 for each of them. As each
would have as large an area as Ontario
it would have been entitled to as large
an amount as Ontario gets, which is
$80,000. This was sacrificed to the hon.
gentleman's ambition of being prime
minister of a vaster province than has
been. (Hear, hear.) I admit we have
to pay our share of that. But $50,000
among over 5,000,000 people in
Canada is less than a cent per
head, and one of the results
of the hon. gentleman's plan, is that
rather than place a burden of less than
one cent per year on each person, he
would rather have the predominating
province asked for and lose the $50,000.
Again in the draft bill submitted by
the hon. gentleman it is proposed that
the per capita grant be on the same
population as Ontario, 1,369,000. Had
he asked for two provinces, each larger
than Ontario, he would have had a perfect right to ask that we should have
that grant of 80 cents per head on
twice that number of people, and his
action in asking for one province
means that the people of the Territories will ultimately lose $1,116,000 per
year.
SHOULD WORK FOR COMMON INTERESTS
I have heard some statements from
men in the west that if they lived in
the east they would for two provinces
but that annexation did not affect
them. That is not the view that should
be taken. All should have the view of
having our rights and all should work
together for our common interests.
I have also heard the insinuation
made that those advocating two provinces want possession of office. I
believe after the next election the
Opposition will occupy the treasury
benches, but it is because we believe
that two provinces is the proper and
only solution of this question that we
are advocating two provinces. We
must win the treasury benches of the
Territories first.
THE POSITIONS CONTRASTED.
I have proved the breach of faith on
the part of the prime minister of this
country with the people out of his own
mouth, by his own words, and I wish
to say in conclusion that on the one
hand we have one province, on the
other hand two provinces; on the one
hand annexation as the inevitable result, on the other hand a policy of
political identity; on the one hand an
antagonised province of Manitoba, on
the other hand a conciliated province
of Manitoba: on the one hand the
federal principle violated, on the other
had the federal principle maintained:
on the one hand a dual municipal
system as a necessary result of the
large province: on the other hand
cheap district government; on the one
hand extravagance, which results from
ineffective supervision of the affairs of
the country and lack of close inspection of expenditures, on the other hand
economy as a result of that closes supervision; on the one hand one great
province reaching the seaboard on
neither side with a lone hand in transportation, on the other hand co-operation in
transportation between two or
three provinces: on the one hand futile, negotiations with junketing trips
back and forth to Ottawa, on the other
hand effective demands through our
representatives in parliament; on the
one hand secrecy, on the other hand
publicity: one the one hand a breach
of faith with the people and a false
pretense of the right to negotiate. on
the other hand a mandate from the
people and everything free and open
and an admission that we have no
power to make a bargain: on the one
hand, a dangerous course, on the other
hand a safe course; on the one
hand the sacrifice of a portion of
Athabasca, on the other hand
no sacrifice but the retaining of
the whole of Athabasca; on the one
hand unreasonable demands made on
the people of Canada, on the other
hand reasonable demands on federal
principles.
The people have been given no
chance to consider this question and
they should be given every chance to
consider all the points that they will
have to vote on that they may cast an
intelligent vote.
THE AMENDMENT.
Under these circumstances I feel
constrained to say that I do not regret
the action taken by the Minister of the
Interior and the Government of Canada. The result of that action will be
to force the hon. gentleman to go to
his constituency and get a mandate. I,
therefore, Mr. Speaker move, seconded
by Mr. Bennett, that all words after the word "population" where it
first occurs in the motion be struck out
and that the following be substituted
therefor:—
"While maintaining that the claims
of these Territories against the Dominion will never be settled and satisfied
until provinces have been established,
on a plan of equality with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in respect of
ordinary provincial powers, including
ownership of all Crown lands, mines,
minerals, timber and royalties, except
such lands as have been reserved for
the use of Indians, or reserved for and
earned by any person or corporation or
entered for as homesteads or pre-emptions and not granted, or reserved to
provide a fund in aid of schools: and
Until such provinces have been vested with the ownership in trust, of all
school lands and revenues therefrom;
and
Until such provinces have been compensated for such lands as have been
alienated otherwise than as free grants
to settlers or in settlement of Half- Breed claims; and
Until in addition to the ordinary per
capita grant, such allowances shall
have been granted them for the support, of their respective governments
and legislatures, and for "Debt Capital" as are fair and just: and
While believing that it is expedient
and necessary that the exclusive power
to make laws in relation to Irrigation
should be granted to each such province: and that, such provinces will
desire for their legislatures a continuance of such power to legislate in
relation to prohibition of intoxicants as
is now possessed by the Legislature
of the Territories:
Nevertheless this House also believes
That the people of these Territories
have never given to this Government
and Legislature any instruction, direction or authority to ask for the establishment
of the area hetween the
western boundary of Manitoba, and
British Columbia, and between the international boundary and the 57th
parallel of north latitude as one province: and that in unanimously passing in its
session of 1900, a resolution
praying His Excellency, the Governor
General "to cause enquiries to be made
and accounts taken with a view to the
settlement of the terms upon which
the Territories, or any part thereof
shall be established as a province"
this House did so on the distinct understanding and condition that before any
such province was established opportunity should be given to the people of
the Territories to consider and discuss
such terms and conditions; and further believes
That the people of these Territories
have a right to ask that the northern
boundaries of the provinces established
for their local government should extend at least as far north as does the
province of British Columbia; that is
to say near to the 60th parallel of north
latitude; and
That the area comprised within the
provisional districts of Assiniboia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Athabasca is
approximately 550,000 square miles in
extent and should be divided into two
provinces of approximately equal area
each of which would be more than 59,000 square miles larger than Ontario;
would be more than five times as large
as the aggregate area of Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick; would be more
than twice as large as the aggregate
area of the British Isles, more than
four times as large as the aggregate
area of all the New England States;
would be larger than the largest State
in the United States; would be large
enough to enjoy whatever advantages
in the way of economical government
large provinces may be thought to
possess; would be large enough to
borrow at the very lowest rate of
interest, whatever sums may be deemed necessary for their proper developinent: and
quite large enough to
satisfy all aspirations and ambitions of
their inhabitants consistent with their
proper relation to the other provinces
and the Dominion, and
That all the arguments used by the
Territorial Governinent in favor of the
establishment in these Territories of
"One predominating and overshadowing province," are really arguments
against having any provinces at all
and are, in the ultimate analysis,
arguments in favor of one government
and legislature for the whole Dominion
and as such are opposed to the spirit
and purpose of our federal constitution
and to the principle that the states of a
confederation should, where possible,
be of approximately equal area; and
That the opinions hitherto, from
time to time, expressed by members of
the Territorial Government, in favor of
the establishing of one predominating
and overshadowing province has called
forth expressions of dissent from public men in other provinces, and has led
the legislature of Manitoba to pass
unanimously resolutions expressing its
consent and wish that the Parliament
of Canada extend the boundaries of
that province in a westerly and northerly direction in order that the great
central plain of Canada may be fairly
divided between the enlarged province
of Manitoba and the new province:
and that the result of this action of the
Manitoba legislature is to vest in the
Dominion Parliament full power to
pass an Act extending the boundaries
of that province; and that the said
Parliament will necessarily deal with
any requests made by the people of
the Territories for the establishment of
provincial institutions, not, from a
local, but from a national point of
view and that, before exercising its
powers, it will necessarily listen to and
consider the objections raised against
the establishment of "one predominating and overshadowing province,"
and that in the event of the annexation of a portion of these Territories
to Manitoba the inhabitants of the area
annexed will have no constitutional
remedy and no means of holding the
Territorial Government responsible
thereafter, and
That if, on the other hand, at the
next election a legislative assembly be
returned with instructions to prepare
a bill of rights demanding that the
ptovisional districts of Assiniboia, Alerta, Saskatchewan and Athabasca
be established as two provinces of approximately equal area, neither Manitoba nor
any other province of Canada
will have any reasonable right to object, nor can; it be urged that the establishment
of two provinces would be
inconsistent with the interests of the
confederation as a whole; and
That the establishment of two such
provinces would not, as alleged, result
in a complete duplication of the machinery of local government, but on the
contrary, the records of the smaller
provinces show , them to be more
cheaply governed owing to the closer
supervision over provincial expenditure by the electorate, affording a more
effective check on official extravagance
than is possible in the larger provinces: and
That two such provinces, each larger
than Ontario, should each be entitled
at the outset to a grant of eighty cents
per head on an estimated population of
and thereafter on their actual population until such time as that population reaches
the number upon which
this grant is paid to Ontario, which
would ultimately yield to such provinces an aggregate maximum grant twice
as large that received by Ontario
or $1,116,872.80 more per annum than
is claimed by the Territorial Govern
ment in its draft bill to establish one
province; and
That, in any case, two provinces
would receive from the Dominion over
and above every other allowance, subsidy, and source of income, a special
grant of at least $50,000 each per annum for the support of their respective
governments and legislatures while all
that the Territorial Government has
asked, in its proposed bill by way of
special grant for the support of the
government and legislature of its proposed one province is $50,000 per annum and that
therefore the cost of
whatever additional machinery two
provinces might be believed to entail,
would be borne by the Dominion while
the people of these provinces would receive the advantage of the more efficient service
that two governments
would provide, and the further advantage of that more effective supervision
of provincial expenditures which is
ever desirable in the interests of economy: and would prevent the desire of
division which the establishment of
province would necessarily entail;
and
That, the establishment of two such
provinces, would pave the way for
united action with Manitoba to secure
a fair and equitable settlement of our
common claims against the Dominion
for "better terms" and for co-operation in the great and necessary work
of providing facilities for the transportation of our products to the markets of the
world; and
That with our present small representation in the Parliament of Canada.
we may not obtain at the outset, a
fair and equitable settlement of all the
claims of these Territories against the
Dominion, and moreover, owing to the
fact that our provincial boundaries are
not determined and that the Territorial government and legislature, is, in
the ultimate resort, not only dependent on the Parliament of Canada for
the greater part of their revenue, but
also for their very existence, and owing to their having no status or capacity to
make a final bargain with the
Dominion, the only practical and effective way to secure prompt recognition of their
rights is with the co-operation of the Territorial representatives
in the Parliament of Canada, through
whom, the action will be given that
publicity which has hither to been
denied;
Therefore be it resolved that this
House repudiates the action of the
Territorial Government in asking
without the sanction of the people,
that one province should be established,
more especially as there exists "a
divergence of opinion respecting the
question whether there should be one
province only, or more than one province" and declares
That it will be the duty of the next
legislature to adopt a Bill of Rights
demanding on behalf of the people of
these Territories that the Parliament
of Canada pass Acts establishing in
the area comprising Assiniboia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Athabasca two
provinces approximately equal in size
and provided that adequate subsidies
be granted them pending the final
settlement of all claims in dispute between such provinces and the Dominion; and further
declares
That it will also be the duty of the
said legislature to request the several
members of Parliament who represent
constituencies in these Territories to
use all constitutional means to place on
the Government and Parliament of
Canada full and undivided responsibility for refusing or delaying to grant its
demands.
1THE LEADER.REGINA, N.W.T., THURSDAY MORNING, APRIL 24, 1902.
THE GREAT QUESTION
A Continuation of the Assembly
Debate on Autonomy.
ONE OR TWO PROVINCES?
Speeches Delivered by Dr. Elliott and
Messrs. McKay, Gillis, Villeneuve
and Smith — Expressions of Regret
and Rejoicing Over the Dominion
Government's Action — The Question of a Mandate.
The report of the debate on provincial autonomy in the Legislative Assembly on April
8th, which arose on Mr.
Haultain's motion of regret that the
Dominion Government had decided
not to introduce legislation at the present session of Parliament with a
view to granting provincial institutions to the Territories, is continued
below.
Dr. Elliott (Wolseley) followed Dr.
Patrick. In rising to support the
resolution he said he could not but
express his surprise at some of the
statements made by the hon. member
for Yorkton. That hon. gentleman
knew full well that this question of
provincial autonomy had been discussed not only in the House but throughout the country,
and in almost every
constituency was brough before the
electors. Even in the hon. gentleman's
own constituency of Yorkton it was
brought prominently before the electors, and every member of the House
knew that the Government did have a
mandate from the people to deal with
the question, and if hon. gentlemen
opposite had only taken the trouble to
feel the pulse of the people they would
have found that there is a strong and
general desire that the Government
should deal with it and at once. If
there was one point raised it was because the Government had not proceeded rapidly
enough in their negotiations with the federal government
and had not succeeded in getting
provincial institutions before this time.
The little annexation feeling
which existed had been worked up
because the local government had not
proceeded more rapidly than they had
in getting the desired institutions.
The most prominent agitators in that
annexation movement had said that it
was purely for the purpose of getting
provincial institutions. One stroke of
the pen would put them into Manitoba
and then railways could be built in a
very short time.
A DIVIDED OPPOSITION.
He, the speaker, would like very
much to know where the gentleman of
the Opposition stood on this as on
other questions. The hon. gentleman
from Yorkton had believed in one
province and in two provinces. He
had stated that we should have provincial powers 25 or 26 years hence.
Dr. Elliott —I refer the hon. gentleman to reports of his speeches in this
House in 1899. He can find them in
the records if he will look them up and
if I have made a false statement I will
be pleased to apologise for having done
so. Do the hon. gentlemen opposite
believe in provincial autonomy and do
they want it at the present time or at
some indefinite time in the future?
They are not riding one valuable horse
to death, neither two, but a whole
band of bronchos travelling in different directions at the same time.
(Laughter.) They are divided in two
instead of being united. Had the hon.
gentleman from Yorkton forgotten
his scheme of three provinces with one
legislature governing all three?
The hon. gentleman believed in two
provinces that we might save the
whole Dominion of Canada. If the
Dominion could be saved by being
divided into two provinces; if such an
immense benefit would be derived
by being two provinces, why
not a much greater benefit by
being divided into four or
into eight. The hon. gentleman said
the weakness of the present confederation was too much Quebecism and too
much Ontarioism and that the provinces should be approximately of equal
size. Then, why should they not be
the size of Prince Edward Island? If
the small provinces could administer
their affairs so successfully, cheaply
and satisfactorily was it not a great
pity to divide into two instead of 102?
But when the hon. gentleman attempted to prove that small provinces were
administered more economically than
large ones he took a few figures and
drew deductions from them which could
not be drawn if he followed a careful
science of reasoning. One would think
to hear the hon. gentleman speak that
he was the representative of eastern
Canada or Manitoba when he said that
they would not permit of one province
being formed.
ALL WORKING FOR CANADA'S BENEFIT
The Dominion Government had not
refused to comply with the demand of
the local Government but had simply
postponed the matter for the present,
giving the flimsy excuse of a divergence
of opinions as a reason for their action.
If they waited for unanimity they
would never get it until the millennium. It was said that the Dominion
would not allow one great overwhelming province. Why should a large
province endanger the rest of the
Dominion? They were Canadians and
quite willing to do their duty as
citizens of the country and were not
desirous of getting any mean advantage over the other provinces of Canada. Throughout
Canada the people
were Canadians and not Ontarioites,
Quebecites, Nova Scotians. They were
working for the benefit of Canada as a
whole. Of course there were some of
the narrow minded individuals who
could not see past the township in
which they lived.
The hon, member for Yorkton had
told them that if they had one province
they would have an antagonised Manitoba, and if two provinces, a satified
Manitoba ready to fall in and help
both provinces. But then the hon.
gentleman proposed to add the whole
area of Athabasca and then divide into
two parts and form provinces three
times as large as Manitoba. (Hear,
hear.) He did not think that the people
of Manitoba who would be so excited
over the formation of a province four
times their size would be satisfied with
two provinces, three times as large as
they were. The Assembly was not
there to act to suit the people of Manitoba, but to work for themselves, and
work out their own salvation. Their
duty was to propose to the Dominion
Parliament what was necessary and
then let it take the responsibility of
saying what it would do. If the
Dominion Government had made a
proposition to the local Government
that they would give them two provinces upon the terms asked for one, then
the Government would have been called upon to consider it, but it would
have been foolish to go and say:
"Give us one province, but if you are
not satisfied to do that, give us two or
more."
NEGOTIATIONS WERE NOT SECRET.
He (Elliott) did not think the Government of Canada did their duty in
sending such a reply after what the
House and country had been led to
expect by members of that Government.
He considered it unwise of the member
for Yorkton to speak of the negotiations having been done in secret.
Should the premier have taken all the
members with him when he made his
demands, or wired to each individual
or newspaper in the Territories what
he said in the negotiations? The demands made by the premier were there
and were known to every reading man
in the Territories before they were
laid on the table. They were contained in the different speeches made by
the premier and in the budget speeches
made by the late commissioner of public
works, and on several occasions had
been stated by the present commissioner of public works. It ill became any
member to charge the premier with
attempting to make secret deals and
as being insincere, as the member for
Yorkton had done in regard to this
matter. Every member of the House
knew there was nothing secret about
it but that all was open and above
board, and that the demands made on
behalf of the people of this country
were known to the people. The hon.
member for Yorkton had spoken
of the exorbitant demands made by
the premier in his bill to Ottawa.
Dr. Elliott —I will think of the word
later. It was "unjust" I think.
Continuing Dr. Elliott said this matter and that it must be dealt with
in a clear and definite manner. The
premier of Canada asked the premier
of the Territories to put his terms in a
clear and definite statement and all
must be agreed that they could not
have been put more clearly or definitely than they were in that draft bill.
Every member knew that it was a
clear and plain statement and he supposed that it would be charged against
the prime minister that there was
nothing new in it. There was nothing
new in the demands made in that bill.
The hon. gentleman from Yorkton had
referred to the speech made by the
premier in Yorkton in 1890.
Dr. Elliott —If the hon. gentleman
for Yorkton were only ten years behind the times he would be much better informed
than he is to-day. (Laughter.)
If the hon. gentleman referred to
the speech made in 1900, and if the
man who sold out his business in Yorkton and moved to Saltcoats for the
purpose of contesting that constituency
based his conclusions on that speech,
then he (the speaker) must say that if
this man had no better idea of that
speech than the hon. gentleman had
he did not wonder that he drew
erroneous conclusions from it.
Dr. Patrick —It was not a conclusion;
it was a direct statement by the
speaker.
PEOPLE PREPARED FOR AUTONOMY.
Dr. Elliott continuing said the people
were demanding provincial institutions
at once. They must have power to
build railways, etc. They had given a
mandate to the Government. In the
last general election they had expressed confidence in the Government, and
in the members of the House, and it was
not the duty of members to appeal to
the people on every flimsy excuse that
might come up. They knew the people
were prepared for provincial autonomy
on the lines laid down by the Government. The hon gentleman form Yorkton said the
school lands should be
held in trust. They certainly would
be. He also agreed with everything
proposed in the memorial to Ottawa,
except that the Territories should be
divided into two provinces instead of
one. The hon. gentleman changed his
mind so frequently that he should not be
taken very seriously when he proposed
two provinces. He might be back the
next week to three provinces,
or follow the suggestion he (the
speaker) had made and ask for
14, 15 or 500 provinces in this country.
They had been told that things were
being done in secret and that members
of the Government had abandoned the
stand they had taken in speeches
made on other occasions. This was
not so. The Government had taken
the most manly course and expressed
its opinion on the question and made
a definite statement which nobody
could say they could not understand.
Everybody knew exactly what had
been asked for.
TERMS THE IMPORTANT POINT.
Much had been heard about one
overwhelming, predominating province. They proposed to make one
province that would be a prosperous,
successful province an honor to the
Dominion, and would supply the
necessaries of life to millions of people
yet unborn. Why should they be
putting it before the people of Manitoba that the proposed province is so
many times the size of Manitoba when
that province again is so many times
the size of Prince Edward Island? They
had able men to look after their
own interests. The most important
point was not whether there should be
one province or two provinces, but
on what grounds were they
going to be admitted into confederation, whether they were
going to be allowed compensation
for the lands taken away and compensation for the exemption from taxation
of a very large portion of the country,
and what allowance they were going
to receive to meet the responsibilities
they would have to assume. These
were the most vital questions to the
country which overshadowed to a very
large extent the question of one province or two provinces.
If a member of the House had made
up his mind as to the number of provinces, and was in favor of two, he
should give the approximate boundaries of those provinces. Would the
gentlemen opposite say the question of
northern and southern provinces, or
eastern and western should be left for
future consideration and then when
the question came up to be decided as
to how the Territories were to be
divided would they say to the Dominion: "We do not know; you will have
to take the responsibility?" If it was
time to know that the Territories
should be divided into two provinces it
was time they knew how it should be
done. (Hear, hear.) This should have
been discussed in the speech made by
the hon. member for Yorkton. He
compared the demands made by the
Territorial Government on the Dominion Government to the boy trying to
get a whole jugful of nuts at once. He
thought they should take one by one.
The hon. gentleman was probably
thinking of the time when he thought
they should get full provincial powers
about 26 years from the present time.
GOVERNMENT DEMANDS REASONABLE.
Dr. Elliott said he did not wish to go
any further with the question. The
hon. gentleman had taken up so many
things and gone over them in his
characteristic and erratic manner that it
was very difficult to follow him. (Hear,
hear and laughter.) If his conclusions
had been founded on facts and arrived
at by proper methods of reasoning it
would not have been a difficult task,
but when he proposed to form a province containing 220,000 square miles
and said the provinces should be approximately equal in area he was making
a very grave statement, when Prince
Edward Island was only an insignificant area compared with the one he
proposed. Manitoba was only a third
the size of the province he proposed.
It was not wonder, therefore, that a
man could not follow the reasoning of
the hon. gentleman. That gentleman
also claimed that the demands made
were unreasonable demands. If this
was so it was his duty to tell him in
what respect. He knew full well that
the demands were reasonable and
would receive the sanction of the
people, and he agreed with everything
except to say that a large area should
be added to the territory demanded and then be divided into two provinces.
It was time, continued the speaker,
that the Territories had provincial
institutions. Last year the census
had been taken and the ground work
was these upon which to build. There
would be no more favorable time. The
people were almost animous in favor
of one province and the vast predominance of opinion against annexation.
He believed the Ordinances of the
Territories were more suitable to conditions here than were those of Manitoba. He
was anxious to go forward
and build up a large, prosperous province. (Cheers.) It being 5:30
o'clock the Speaker left the chair.
EVENING SESSION.
When the House re-assembled at
eight o'clock all the available space in
the chamber was occupied by an interested and expectant audience.
Many ladies occupied seats within the
bar of the House.
Mr. Thos. McKay (Prince Albert
West) immediately resumed the debate.
He said there could be no differences
of opinion as to the great necessity of
obtaining full provincial powers, not
only because of the increased financial
assistance thus obtained, but greater
even, so as to be given power to grapple with the questions with which they
had to deal. The great question was
the transportation question and unless
they got full provincial powers they
would be unable to grapple with it. It
was quite true the federal authorities
were grappling with it to a certain
extent but they themselves could do it
much more effectively if they had the
power, and that was one of the great
problems with which they came face to
face every year. It had been almost
impossible during the past few years
to get a fair remuneration for their
crops. It was all very well to produce
large crops and have an increased
acreage but it was useless unless they
could get a good price for it. He desired to discuss the question from the
standpoint of the farmer, for being a
farmer himself it appealed to him very
strongly in that way. They were on
the eve of great changes. People were
coming in from all parts of the world.
There was no large vacant lands to the
south as there were a few years ago
and Canada was now advertised and
known throughout the world. The
question of transportation, therefore,
was one that would have to be dealt
with. All were aware of the serious
loss sustained through lack of transportation during the past year but that
was only a beginning of what would
have to be faced. The growth of population would be much greater than
the growth of railway development
and the only way to grapple with the
question was to obtain full provincial
powers on the same conditions as the
other provinces.
EXCEEDED THEIR AUTHORITY.
The second part of the resolution he
could not agree with because he believed the Government exceeded its
authority and asked too much in their
negotiations with the federal authorities. It was quite true the Government were authorised
by the House to
negotiate with the Dominion Government. It derived its authority from
the resolution passed on May 2, 1900.
The latter part of that resolution said:
"We do most humbly pray that Your
Excellency will be graciously pleased
to order enquiries 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." It
appeared to him that the Government
went about the matter in a wrong way
by assuming too much and exceeded
the authority given it under that resolution. After going to Ottawa and
suggesting the conditions and terms
which they thought advisable, it was
their duty to come back to the legislature and submit those conditions and
terms to the legislature and people and
ask for their approval. He believed in
conducting business by the people for
the people. The Government had exceeded its authority in this matter and
could not say that a mandate was given
to deal with the question of provincial
autonomy.
It had been said by some previous
speakers that the subject was discussed
in every part of the Territories before
the last election. It might have been
in some parts but the Territories were
large and speaking for the part he represented, he would say that it was
not discussed there and he would challenge any member from north of the
Saskatchewan to contradict him. As
far as he was concerned it was not
brought up. He thought it was time
we should lead up to it but he also
thought that before we were given full
provincial powers the people should
have an opportunity of discussing it at
another election. He had said then
that it was the duty of the Government to negotiate and see what could
be obtained and then ask the people for
their approval, and that if they did not
do so there would be at least one constituency which would have an opportunity of
expressig their opinion
on the matter, because he would resign
his seat in the House if such a measure were forced on the people. He
had also made that statement in the
House.
A DYING LEGISLATURE.
He could not understand by what
process of reasoning the premier came
to the conclusion that he had a mandate, more especially for a dying legislature to
deal with such an
important question. Such an action
would be very unwise. A year's delay
was all that was asked for and what
was a year in the lifetime of a nation.
The people might have to suffer the
disadvantages under which they were
placed but he was prepared to do so
rather than have that legislature deal
with the subject when another election
would be held in a short time.
The premier in speaking to the resolution in 1900 had said that the question was not
one that could be settled
in a day nor possibly within less than
a year or two. He was bringing it
down to be discussed. He had also
said that that the Government had no
mandate to plunge the people into a
province. Therefore it was very improper that the Assembly should deal
with it, having no mandate to do so,
more especially on the eve of a general
election. It was quite right and proper
to discuss it in the House and lead up
to it gradually but they had no cause
to complain that the federal authorities did not grant what was asked for
last session.
THE QUESTION OF LANDS.
As to the terms the Government proposed there ought to be no difference
of opinion but unfortunately there had
been a difference of opinion and it had
come from a quarter from which
it should not have come. In the budget
last year it was claimed that the land
question was settled and that we had
no lands. This statement had not been
made on the spur of the moment but
after mature consideration for the
Territorial Treasurer had gone to the
trouble of getting a map from Ottawa
highly colored to prove that the question of the the lands had been settled
once and forever. It was quite proper
that there should be differences of
opinion between the members of the
[?] but under our constitutional
[?] Government there should be
no differences of opinion in the Government itself. Now they claimed
there were lands worth asking
for. Such differences of opinion
weaken the lands of those who were
making the request and to a much
greater extent than a mere difference
of opinion in the House.
The premier when speaking to the
resolution which gave him authority
to deal with this question, at the close
of his remarks said: "I hope, sir, I have
established a sufficient ground for
asking this House to say that enquiries
should 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 a proposition should be
submitted to the people of the Territories, through their representatives,
before any final action is taken." It
appeared that the premier must have
changed his opinion because he asked
the federal authorities to take final
action. What use would it have been
for the House to discuss it if the
federal Government had passed what
was asked for? They might discuss it
for all time and it would make no
difference to them, but it would
have made a difference if the
proposition made was laid
before the Houes and people after
the premier's return from Ottawa.
Therefore, they had no ground for
complaint when the federal Government failed to agree to pass that legislation. One
of the principal reasons
why the people should be given theself
local Government which they were
asking for, was that they might govern
themselves as they saw fit and work
out their own salvation, but owing to
the way in which the Territorial
Government had dealt with the people
the Dominion Government may have
thought that the people were not
capable of governing themselves, for
on every possible occasion the local
Government took self-government
from the people and governed them
from Regina. The clause of the Public
Works Ordinance with reference to
small local improvement districts did
not show that the Territorial Government thought the people were capable
of self-government. If they did think
so it was a very poor way of showing it.
FEDERAL GRANT FOR GOVERNMENT.
The hon. member for Wolseley
thought that if it was good to have two
provinces it was better to have half a
dozen. Well, if they could convince
him, and he thought they could, to
have two instead of one he was quite
at liberty to have them cut up
into a dozen. They were not
asking too much in asking
for two provinces. True it would
mean a larger expenditure from federal
sources for government but it must be
remembered that they were asking for
this not for nothing. They would
have to give up something for it. The
provinces had to give up the right to
levy customs taxes which now amounted to something like $40,000,000, an
average of $7.50 per head of the
population. Thus the Territories had
given up the right of collecting $1,200,000 and their population was only
160,000.
When anyone advocated cutting up
the Territories into a dozen provinces
they were asking for an absurdity.
They might as well ask for townships
to be formed into provinces. It had
been asked where the Opposition stood
on this question. The amendment
outlined their provincial autonomy
platform at the present time. It declared for two provinces, was clear cut
with nothing unreasonable about it.
A voice from the Government
benches—Which two?
Mr. McKay—I will answer you in the
words of your leader. He says the
Government wishes there should be
unanimity on this question and they
wish to avoid all controversial sides to
this question. (Hear, hear, cheers and
laughter.)
CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS.
He admitted frankly that when the
division of the Territories came it was
quite possible there would be a divergence of opinion on the Opposition side,
but at present they would do as the
premier had asked and avoid all controversial subjects. If that was a good
answer for the Government to give, it
was certainly good when given by the
Opposition. But, continued Mr. McKay when we occupy the treasury
benches if there are controversial questions we will be prepared to fight it
out. (Hear, hear.)
We voted for the resolution in 1900
unanimously for we did not wish
to weaken the attitude taken
by the Government, and, therefore, we were prepared to
vote that they should go as far as the
resolution indicated and in accordance
with the explanation of the Attorney
General that the resolution did not
commit any person to one, two or
three provinces. There are controversial aspects to this question but in
its most important aspect it is not.
We take the same attitude; it is a
reasonable attitude and the only one
that can be taken. The controversial
questions have got to be threshed out.
In the face of his explanation and getting the House to vote unanimously
on that resolution the premier went to
Ottawa and drafted a bill and asked
the federal authorities that this large
area should be erected into one province. We take exception to that,
because we did not expect it would be
done and we are, therefore, not prepared to vote for this resolution. We
accordingly submit an alternative and
are prepared to fight the next election
out on that ground and the hon. gentlemen can bring it on just as soon as they
like. (Hear, hear.)
MANITOBA'S UNFAIR ATTEMPT.
I think questions of this kind should
be approached very slowly. It is very
important and however great
we may feel the necessity of
dealing with the question we should
first give the people an opportunity of
discussing it. This is a large country
and the people are scattered over a
very wide area. I believe that the
members of this House at one time
were prepared to see a portion annexed
to Manitoba, but if so they have
changed their minds. The asking for
such a large area would be a good excuse for the Dominion Government to
give Manitoba a part. By asking for
two provinces it would do away with
any grounds for giving it to her. We
must admire the attitude of Manitoba
in desiring a portion of the Territories.
They know it is a good country and
that the people would give just as good
an account of themselves as the Manitobans. We do not wish to antagonise
Manitoba but to gain Manitoba's sympathy, and I believe that the proposition submitted
by the Government and
Opposition would help to that extent
by leaving out the northern part. It
was unfair of that province to try and
steal our property when we were not
in a position to say yes or no. If we
were a province the federal authorities
would have no power to take away our
territory, but unfortunately as we are
we have nothing to say in the matter,
only protest.
In dealing with this question as we
have done, the people will be well
satisfied with the attitude we have
taken as we propose to give them an
alternative proposition. Hitherto
they have had only one before them.
The Opposition have now adopted a
platform on provincial autonomy and
the people have an opportunity of
having an alternative. If they are
satisfied with the proposition given by
the Government I will be quite satisfied
to abide by it, but if they adopt ours I
will be still better satisfied. (Cheers.)
followed Mr. McKay. He said this
was certainly the most important
question the House ever had to deal
with and probably the most important
it would ever be called upon to deal
with, and it was, therefore, the duty of
6THE LEADER, THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 1, 1902.
THE GREAT QUESTION
(Continued from page 1)
every member to at least give an expression of opinion on the matters relative to
provincial autonomy. The
hon. gentleman from Prince Albert
West had referred to the question of
transportation and he quite agreed
with him that it was the most important question. The experience of the
past year had taught them a lesson in
that respect and the matter must be
dealt with without delay. After stating this the hon. gentleman had gone on
to say that he could not agree with the
resolution brought in, which regretted
the action of the Dominion Government in refusing to grant powers
necessary to deal with this question.
To say the least, he considered the hon.
gentleman's position inconsistent.
The member for Prince Albert West
had also stated that the Commissioner
of Public Works said that there were
no public lands left. True, there were
few lands left, but the Commissioner
had not said there were no lands. The
proposition made by the Government
asked for the lands that were left over
and above those alienated.
AN EXTRAORDINARY POSITION.
As to the statement that the Government had no mandate, and the statement of the member
for Prince Albert
West that if the autonomy question
took any definite shape during the
term of this legislature he would
resign. Mr. Gillis said this was an
extraordinary stand to take, to resign
his seat to show that he was opposed
to taking any steps in that direction
yet he voted for the resolution to enter
into full negotiations with the Ottawa
Government. this was a most extraordinary stand to take.
Mr. McKay — I said that it is time to
lead up to this question, but if the
legislature was to plunge the people
into the matter and create us into a
a province during the term of this legislature, I would resign my seat and the
people of Prince Albert West would
at least have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter.
Mr. Gillis was pleased the hon,
gentleman had made the explanation
but it did not alter the case one iota.
No time was fixed in the resolution and
the Government were empowered by
the unanimous vote of the House to
enter into negotiations for our entering
confederation. The hon. gentleman
should have moved a resolution that
the Government should not have done
so before an appeal to the people.
That was the proper course and the
one he should have taken.
DR. PATRICK'S STRIDES.
Mr. Gillis then said he desired to congratulate the hon. member for Yorkton upon the strides
he was making in
the House. Up to a few days ago that
gentleman had occupied a seat on the
back benched but now he had taken a
step forward and occupied the third
position in the Opposition ranks which
meant that he would occupy a position
of eminence and prominence in this
great conutry if the Opposition ever
got to the treasury benches. He did
not wish to build up any false hopes,
however. That hon. gentleman in his
speech referred to the draft bill submitted by this Government to the federal
government and went on and recited
several of the principal provisions of that
bill, discussed them carefully and agreed
with the main principles all the way
through. (Hear, hear.) He agreed
with all that and then went on and
moved his extraordinary amendment.
If he had read his amendment and
said nothing the country would have
been just as wise. (Laughter.)
The hon. member for Yorkton dwelt
at length on the subject that the Government had no mandate. He (the
speaker) quite agreed with the hon.
gentleman from Wolseley that provincial autonomy was the live question
at the last election. In his district it
was the prominent question and it was
thought iliat during the life of this
Assembly it would have to be decided.
The premier at the last meeting in
Whitewood had stated that during the
life of this Assembly it would be discussed and in all probability full arrangements
made. As far as he knew
in the other districts in Eastern
Assiniboia the candidates also had this
plank in their platforms and were agreed
that it would be a question which this
Assembly would have to discuss. The
statement that the Government find
no mandate was contrary to the actual
facts in the districts he knew of.
THE MISSION TO OTTAWA.
The hon. gentleman from Yorkton
also objected strongly to the manner
in which the local Government approached the federal Government on
this question, and claimed that they had
no right to go to the federal government and Parliament but should have
done it through the Territorial representatives at Ottawa. What was the
premier elected to this House for if not
to look after their own business. It
was the duty of the federal representatives to look after Canada in general,
and it was the duty of the local legislature to look after their own interests,
and in going to Ottawa the
premier did nothing but what
was right and his duty, and nothing but what would have to be
done by the present or any other government in the Territories. It was a
local question that must be dealt with
by them. One would imagine to hear
the hon. gentleman talk about secret
negotiations that the draft bill was
something new and the principles in it
unknown to the people. Everyone
knew them and yet the hon. gentleman spoke of secret negotiations which
were not divulged when they ought to
have been.
Mr. Gillis stated that on the question
of the number of provinces he had
always held certain definite viewes
which he had expressed in the House
and his constituency, and that was that
when they came to be a province they
should enter confederation on the lines
laid down in the draft bill. He had
heard nothing to lead him to change
his opinion. The conclusions of the
member for Yorkton had very little
weight. The question they had to
deal with was a practical one.
LET US DOUBLE EVERYTHING.
The change the hon. gentlemen who
occupied the Opposition benches had
taken was a marvellous one. Last year
when it was proposed to increase the
salaries of the hon. gentlemen occupying the treasury benches a great howl
was raised by the Opposition: and
only a few years ago one hon. gentleman up site advocated cutting off the
small allowance of $500 to the Speaker.
It was all right to economise but that
was carrying it too far. They had
changed their front entirely and now
said in effect that the country was too
cheaply governed. They said instead
of one lieutenant governor let us have
two: instead of three or four paid
ministers let us have seven or eight;
instead of five or six deputy heads let
us have ten or twelve: let the civil
service be multiplied by two and let us
double everything. If, said Mr. Gillis,
we have two provinces it will cost just
double and that is one thing the people
of this country will not for a moment
tolerate.
AN ECONOMICAL GOVERNMENT.
There wasa reference made to the
amount of $50,000 they would receive
as the grant made to each province
from the Dominion for legislative purposes. A cent a head was not much
but the item would be considered in
bulk. They had examples in eastern
Canada but he did not think a comparison could be fairly made between
conditions prevailing there and here.
In this country they hail a system of
their own intended to cover and meet
all requirements and deal out proper
treatment to all parts of the Territories. The people were wisely and
economically governed and no matter
how far away they were, they enjoyed
the same privileges as those near
Regina or any other central point, and
it would be unwise, therefore, to make
any changes in that respect. Under
their system of overnment they had
built up in th a country the most
economical system of any province in
Canada. In one large local improvement district it cost less than $50 to
collect $4,500 in taxes, while it cost $600
to collect the same amount in the
municipality of Indian Head. No part
of the country suffered or was being
ill-treated, and, therefore, they should
endeavor as far as possible to continue
that form of government.
Who wanted two provinces? The
farmers did not, and the only answer
that occurred to him was a few ambitious politicians. The majority of the
people were strongly and very strongly
opposed to two provinces. Our duty,
concluded Mr. Gillis is to get together
and establish a system by which this
country can be well and economically
governed. (Cheers.)
was the next speaker. He said the
question had been brought so
suddenly on the people that they were
not quite read to discuss it in all its
important details. The Government
did not want to proceed on the question last year without the sanction of
the Assembly and yet they had done
exactly the opposite of what they
promised, and although he was in
favor of provincial autonomy as soon
as possible he could not express any
regret at the refusal of the Dominion
Government to grant it without the
people having been consulted by a
general election. or a referendum
(laughter), or by the premier taking the
advice of the members of the House.
The Government party had told the
country that the members of the
Opposition took no interest in
this question or even thought about
it. They practically said to the member for Yorkton: "You should not
have spoken. You did not clear off
the deck and you did not enlighten the
member for Whitewood or the member
for Wolseley.
There were, howeverm going to move
now and if it came a little late it was
the fault of the Attorney General who
for the first time had come before the
House with a regular and straight announcement of his policy of one province. The
resolution of May, 1900, was
never intended to give the Government
authority to go to Ottawa and pledge
the Assembly or people of the Territories to accept whatever proposal the
Government of the country wished to
present them without first asking the
approval of the House or people. The
last paragraph of the resolution of 1900
said. "and that a proposition should
be submitted to the people of the
Territories, through their representatives, before any final action is taken."
THEIR DUTY TO GIVE ADVICE.
Have we, the accredited representatives of the people, asked Mr. Villeneuve, been
consulted and asked some
advice? (Laughter.) The premier
never condenscends to ask advise from
us. Well, we have a right to give it to
him. (Loud laughter.) I hope he will
take my advice in the same sense of
duty I give it. I give it as a duty to
myself, my district, the Territories and
Canada, because I consider that this
question must be approached by a
western man not only as a resident
of the Territories but as a
Canadian who has not only the
interest of the Territories themselves at heart, but at the same time
Canada as a whole, and it is in this
frame of mind I intend discussing a
few of the proposals.
In the resolution of May 1900, the
premier had asked them to drop all
controversial questions. It was not
one, two or three provinces but the
provincial autonomy question, and
before it came to the front they had to
make an enquiry into their accounts
and see how they stood with the federal Government and whether they were
in the good column or not, and on
what terms the Territories should
enter confederation, and then at that
time the Assembly would have occasion
to discuss them. Had they? No, the
Government went to Ottawa and presented their memorial purporting to be
the ideas set forth by the assembly but
which they were not because they
certainly were not discussed there.
They had been discussed in an exactly
contrary manner.
Dr. Elliott—You should have done
your duty and discussed them.
A CAUSE FOR REJOICING.
Mr. Villeneuve said that was what
they did. He said no advice had been
given at all by the House. to
the Government. The only instruction that was given—and that had
been taken a little rashly by the Government— was when the House decided
that the boundaries of Manitoba shonld
not be extended westward. That was
the only instruction given and since
then they had never been asked for
any. Why should they regret because
that proposal was not accepted?
lnstead of regretting they should
rejoice. When he saw the sad face of
the Commissloner of Agriculture he.
too, should rejoice with them for in the
event of a general Dominion election
he might have to support some of the
candidates of this Government they
were asked to condemn. (Laughter.)
He thought the Federal Government
did right in refusing to entertain Mr.
Haultain's proposal.
WOULD ACCEPT THREE PROVINCES.
He agreed with the Opposition in
declaring for two provinces. He was
not against three provinces and if the
Federal Government granted them it
would only be following the idea of the
Government when the provisional
districts were made. Sir ohn Macdonald thought there should be three
provinces and if the member for Wolseley ridiculed the idea he (Villeneuve)
could stand with Sir John Macdonald.
But that was not the question now.
The hon. member for Whitewood
had referred to economy. If the
Government at Ottawa were prepared
to give the money for two legislatures
western people should not object. The
people of the north were for two provinces. and a representative was to re
present the ideas of the people and as
his constituents were in favor of two
provinces he must come there and
state the facts, and again the eastern
provinces would never allow the
equilibrium of the confederation to be
broken. Was it possible that Ontario
and the other provinces would say that
fifty vears hence the country west of
Lake Superior will control the rest of
Canada? No, they would say: "We will
make it into provinces so that while
they will have some general common
interests they will not have that overwhelming influence one province
would possess. The Opposition
were pledged to two provinces and
would give evidence that it was fighting a good fight, and whatever the result of
their battles everyone would be
satisfied that the Opposition had been
working for the best interests of the
people. (Cheers)
MR. A. S. SMITH.
Mr. A. S. Smith (Moosomin) said for
some years this had been a very important question but this session was
the first time that they had any indication that the Opposition had an opinion
on it. The people expected the Government to have opinions. He had
discussed this question through every
portion of his district and he considered it the duty not only of the Government,
but of the Opposition as well to
lay before the people their ideas so
that public opinion would be educated
up to the position of being able to vote
at the elections this year. If the people
were not familiar with the question,
the different members of the House
were responsible for that condition of
things, and the Opposition seemed to
say that the people were not prepared
for the step the Government had
taken. One of the first questions dealt
with in the House after he had a seat
in it was the provincial autonomy
question, and since then it had been
taken up at every session, and last
session the Government introduced a
resolution which went to Ottawa asking for provincial powers. If the Opposition were
not acquainted with it
they would find when they went to the
country that the people were quite
acquainted with the conditions the
local Government had laid before the
federal Government. The member for
St. Albert said this was very sudden,
but he feared that hon. gentleman had
not been in the Territories for a year
or more if that was the position he
took. Every paper in the Territories
had been discussing the question and he
failed to see where there was anything
very sudden in it.
He was surprised that some gentlemen should say they were in favor of
two provinces but were unable to state
in what shape they would have them.
Some would have the Territories cut
from north to south: others from east
to west. As he was not in favor of
two provinces it did not make much
difference to him, but when the Opposition went so far it was regrettable
they did not tell the people what shape
the provinces would be. The Government had been quite frank in taking
the people and the House into their
confidence on this question, although
there were some gentlemen who state
they have not been taken into the confidence of the Government but every
member of the House knew that that
was not the fact.
CANADA WAS OVER-GOVERNED.
Here in Canada We were over-governed. There were too many local
legislatures and in the opinion of himself and many other men it would be
better if the eastern provinces were
united. It would be a benefit to the
whole Dominion. The argument
brought before the House that afternoon that it was cheaper to govern
small provinces than large ones would
be a revelation to the business men of
Canada, and of the Territories in particular. It was like cutting a farm of
100 acres up into two-farms of 50 acres.
Mr. Smith contended the Bell farm
was not a case in point. If if were not
put on a business basis it would not
pay but if it was it would pay.
Dr. Patrick — Politics in policitcs;
business is business.
Mr. Smith went on to state that the
hon. gentleman put himself up to
educate the people on business matters
in this country. The large financial
and commercial institutions were
amalgamating and putting them under
one head and management. For what
purpose!— For the purpose of cheapening the management.
Mr. Smith replied that Dr. Patrick
was referring to monopolies, he was
not. The trend of times was along the
line of increasing amalgamations, and
putting all lines of business under a
proper head so that one man could
look after the whole of it and do it
more cheaply. This applied to the
business of Government, and if it was
done properly it could be done more
cheaply. The argument used by the
hon. gentleman would have no weight
with the business men of the Territories and other parts of Canada.
ECONOMICAL CONDUCT OF BUSINESS.
He would refer the House to the
Government of the Territories and by
the last returns in the Public Works
report he found that the percentage of
cost was 3.86 for the expenditure of
money in the Territories, and he claimed the people should be prouid of the
economical conduct of business in the
North-West. It was further stated
that in the large local improvement
districts taxes were collected and all
services done for 2.5 cents on the dollar.
That was a marvellous thing and it
must be very gratifying to the people
of the Territories to find that the
money of the country had been spent
so well. The percentage of cost for
expenditure on superintendence and
inspection was 2-16. It was a most remarkable thing from a business standpoint that
the Government were able
to give such a service for a small an
expenditure. If they took the Financial
Year car Book of the Dominion they would
find that no province in the Dominion
spent money so cheapl as the North- West Territories. This was very
gratifying to him and be was sure it
must be even to the members of the
Opposition.
He thought when the time came the
hon. gentlemen who had been asking
for two provinces would find that the
people had pronounced ideas
on the question, They had
been giving it their consideration
for some time and realised the
fact that this country must be developed. He regretted that the hon. gentleman who
preceded him was not
sorrv that the Government had been
blocked and that the time for the establishment of a province was in the
future.
They had a great deal of trouble and
loss over the grain blockade. They
felt that something must be done; that
transportation facilities must be
provided; there must be a
better way of getting the grain
out of the Territories and if that was
the case the local Government had
a part to play and a responsibility,
and the Assembly had a responsibility
at the back of the Government,
and it must in every way see that
proper transportation facilities are
given to the people who were developing this great country. They were
only on the eve of a great development.
If they sat down and said they were
glad at the action of the Dominion Government he would leave the responsibility to
those who said it, but for himself
he was sorry that the Territorial
Government had not been placed in a
position to be able to take hold of that
great question and give the relief the
people expected. They needed railways and needed them quickly. They
could not wait for four or five years
and leave their grain in grainaries.
They must have railways and at once.
With the immigration that was pouring in, and the responsibility thus
placed on the local Government, it was
amazing that the Opposition was so
glad that the Government could do
nothing, and it would find that the
people did not sympathise with it.
He had noticed in a newspaper report
of a meeting held in Prince Albert that
the member for Prince Albert West had
said that the people of the Territories
were not as well fitted to govern themselves as the people of Manitoba were
when they entered confederation. He
thought this a remarkable statement,
that the people were not qualified to
govern the country and thought possibly the hon. gentleman had come to
that conclusion not by travelling
through the Territories, but by staying
at home. He certainly was not speaking for any of the eastern districts and
he was sure that the western country
was on a par with the east as far as
development was concerned. When
Manitoba, nearly 30 years ago, entered
confederation the people had not the
training to start out with the people
in the Territories had. Here they had
a provisional government for many
years, and the people were as well
qualified to govern themselves as were
the people of any province in the
Dominion. He hoped the member for
Prince Albert West was wrongly reported but he had not said he was or
was not. The Territories had very
nearly all legislative powers except
to borrow money on the public credit.
That was about the only difference.
The question had been fully discussed
from all points of view. If the Opposition were sincere in their views it was all
right. and if they had taken the same
stand two years ago he would have
thought they were going in the right
direction. At that late date the Opposition said they had a policy and their
amendment was the policy. It was
not quite completed yet as they did
not know how they would cut the
Territories up. They would have to
fight that out amongthemselves and
the people would also have something
to say about it. (Cheers.)
Mr. McKay rose to a question of
privilege and stated that he was incorrectly reported in the newspaper quoted by Mr.
Smith with reference to the
Prince Albert meeting.
A report of the closing speeches in
this debate will appear next week.
1THE LEADER.NO. 11. REGINA, N.W.T., THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 1, 1902.
BENNETT AND SIFTON
Continue the Debate On Provincial Autonomy and Ask That
BOARD VIEWS MAY PREVAIL.
The Former Reviews the History of
the Negotiations and Declares the
Government Had No Mandate — The Latter Deals With the Inconsistent and Absurd Positions
Taken by Opposition Members.
Following are reports of the speeches
by Mr. R. B. Bennett (West
Calgary and Mr. A. L. Sifton, Commissioner of Public Works, in the
Assembly on provincial autonomy:
Mr. R. B. Bennett said: Mr.
Speaker, it is quite unnecessary for me
to say that I approve of provincial
autonomy and that I desire it as much
as anything in this world. You will
recollect that some three years ago I
stated in this House the time had arrived for the Government to take some
action to better conditions in the Territories. I have never changed the
opinion then held, and it is a source
of some satisfaction to me to find an
unanimous opinion in the House to-day
that there is a necessity to take
some action along the lines of provincial autonomy. I am, however, this
afternoon face to face with a difficult
problem and am asked to vote yea or
nay on a resolution, the preamble of
which I fully approve, it is clothed in
better language than I could have put
it and expresses in concrete form the
opinion I have expressed, and gives
voice to the sentiments I then held and
still have, and then follows these
momentous words: "Be it resolved
that this House regrets that the Federal Government has decided not to
introduce legislation at the present
session of Parliament with a view to
granting provincial institutions to the
Territories."
ONE OF TWO MEANINGS.
Sir, that means one of two things.
Leave not for the sophistry of the Attorney General or his cunningly devised arguments.
It means that we
regret that the Parliament of Canada
did not pass legislation founded on the
draft bill presented by this Government or that they did not give us
anything they liked on this question.
Edefy the gentlemen on the treasury
benches, and I challenge hon. mem
bers, to deny that we are asked to regret that the Dominion Government
did not pass the draft bill laid before it,
or that we regret that the Parliament
of Canada did not without consulting
us, asking our opinion, or giving us a
right to be heard pass any legislation
they saw fit. I cannot agree to either
of these propositions. I say it with
regret. I would have liked to have
that unanimity continue to prevail
until this question had passed out of
existence so far as this country is concerned. I should have wished that.
And yet, sir, I think it is no fault of
myself, or any hon. gentleman on this
side of the House, that that condition
of affairs did not prevail, and in order
that I might make perfectly clear
the opinion I have and the faith that is
within me, I propose to take some little
time to discuss, go over and review the
history of these negotiations in order
that it may never be afforded to any
hon. gentleman to go on the hustings
or by deliberately false statements or
misrepresentations to say that on any
act or word of mine any construction
could be placed other than that whatever could be done should be done to
solve this problem with which is wrappred up the future of this land.
The Attorney General referred to
the transportation question and my
mind was carried back to some years
ago and I found that I once, in language almost identical with the language of the
hon. member for Moosomin, said that the question of transportation should be dealt
with by this
legislature. I said the questions of
of grain combines and elevators were
questions of vital importance, and
while we might discuss local questions,
that over and above and beyond all
these questions there was that great
question of transportation, which was
placed before us, and in our hands for
solution, and that as we solved or failed
to solve it the people would give us
credit or mete out disapproval. I donot propose to go over that question
and review it at length, but in order
that no misrepresentation may exist I
desire to draw attention to these facts
and say them again. I have nothing
to retract, nothing to apologize for.
My only regret, my keenest regret, is
that I cannot support the demands of
the Government in the resolution they
have placed upon the order paper, because I regard it as of utmost importance and
greatest moment, to the
people of the Territories that we should
have unanimity in all these matters
which are in controversy and which
deal with the future of this great
land given us by Providence, and in
order to make this clear I desire to
look over the history of this subject.
WAS DISCUSSED IN ALBERTA.
I do not hold the same opinions as some
gentlemen on this side. I will be perfectly frank. I do not propose to indulge in
recriminations or to descend
to the level of personalities, but on
this question at least I do not wish to
be misinterpreted in endeavoring to
arrive at an honest conclusion. As to
whether or not provincial autonomy
was an issue in the elections of 1898
there may be a difference of opinion.
I know nothing of what took place in
Saskatchewan, or Eastern or Western
Assiniboia, but I do know of the constituencies surrounding Calgary and
up and down the line in Alberta. It
was discussed,—the hon. gentleman
from Wolseley knows nothing about
it, though—it was discussed incidentally
by the Attorney General in the city of
Calgary. The members of the Government were dealing rather with the
record of the Government and giving
an account of their stewardship, but in
a speech then made the premier pointed out that the time had almost arrived
when some great constitutional
changes would have to come and it
would be necessary to deal with them
as men, and in the Speech from the
Throne at the opening of the session
that followed the general elections it
was said we were then 25 years of age
and had attained to that large dignity
and sense of responsibility that brought
with it the necessary of grappling
with the question of a provincial constitution and provincial Government.
I will say frankly that in the speeches
I made in my constituency. I did as
strongly as possible advocate provincial autonomy as a relief from the ills
from which we were suffering.
Now following that up, in the session
of 1899 no reference was made in the
Speech from the Throne to this question. The question of our future
status was not dealt with. A slight
reference was made in the budget
speech for some relief wherewith to
meet our pressing necessities. There
were no public utterances by ministers
of the crown, but in the fall of 1899 the
first minister was in various sections
of this country and at Yorkton and
Carnduff he gave voice to the sentiment that the time had arrived when
representations should be made to the
Dominion Government, and pointed out
that we had not power to deal with
the transportation question or pledge
the public credit. From these speeches
a certain amount of public opinion began to circulate, and people met and
discussed them, and I believe that from
those speeches a certain large public
opinion grew up in relation to this
matter.
THE EARLYSTAGES REVIEWED.
When the legislature met in 1900 in
the Speech from the Throne the follow
ing language was used:
"It is gratifying for me to be able to
inform you that the Federal Government has proposed to Parliament now
in session a moderate increase to your
annual grant and a large special vote
for the purpose of restoring public
works destroyed by the floods. In spite
of this very substantial increase to the
revenue, my Government can only
look upon it as affording a temporary
and partial amelioration of otherwise
impossible financial conditions, and
will ask you to take action leading to
the earliest practicable solution of
Territorial financial and administrative
problems."
In these words His Honor met the
legislature. On May 2, 1900, a resolution was passed by the Assembly which
called, not for the establishment of
provincial institutions in these Territories, but for certain well defined and
positive things to which I will call the
attention of the House. Had the first
minister asked for power to commit
these Territories to the provincial
status, then I say that the action he
has taken would have been
justified, but he did not do so.
In the concluding portion of the fifteenth paragraph of that resolution, as
printed and published in the speech
delivered by the premier on that occasion, these words will be found:
His Excellency also be prayed to order enquiries 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 now you will observe that there
are a few words in conclusion that call
for most careful scrutiny,
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.
This resolution the premier moved
in a speech of great ability in which he
reviewed at great length the history of
this country so far as the tenure of
lands was concerned. That speech
divides itself into two heads. Any
gentleman who has read it over carefully will remember that there are two
distinct heads: first, that he did not
commit himself to a province or provinces and desired to eliminate from
the discussion all controversial matters.
I think that is a perfectly fair statement of what was done. It was not
contentious and did not deal with the
question of a province or provinces,
and that the people were to be consulted before a final action was taken. If I
understand the English language it
must follow that these two are the
heads of that speech: first, avoiding
all contentious matters, never mining
the question of a province or provinces, and, secondly, there must
be a reference to the peoplele
or their accredited representatives before any final action is taken
by his Government. I think that is a
fair summary of that speech. Turn to
page 9 of that speech and you will
that I was fearful that the Attorney
General might bring in words which
would be construed as an expression of
opinion as to the number of provinces
and that I asked the question:
Mr. Bennett Would you not consider it incidentally dealt with in that resolution?
Mr. Haultain: No.
Mr. Bennett: What, not the use of the
single word "province"—"shall be established
as a province?"
Mr. Haultain: "Before any such province is
established?"
Mr. Bennett: Yes, "before any such province."
Mr. Haultain: Any part of the Territories
can be established as a province. I am perfectly willing to make the present resolution
perfectly clear on that point. There is no intention to convey the impression in the
smallest
degree of any opinion I may have ever held or
expressed with regard to this side of the
question.
Mr. Bennett: That is the way it is taken.
Mr. Haultain: But this is not the way it is
intended, and if it is so taken it is a mistake.
However, if it is so I am perfectly willing to do
away with the misapprehension by stating
frankly that there was no such intention.
I, therefore, took it that the Attorney General was anxious, that there
should be no misapprehension on the
part of the country and members as to
the impression he intended to convey,
that he did not intend this resolution
in any way to express his private or
public opinion as to how the Territories
should be divided. You will find that
on page 16 he also makes the same
statement practically. He says: "I
need hardly dwell again on the necessity for unanimity. If we are not unanimous we
are not going to accomplish much. Our individual opinion will
not be of much use unless backed up by
a strong public opinion. The duty of
every member of this House is to develop that public opinion by discussion
and to bring these matters before the
people of the country in order to show
them that there are large interests at
stake, and that they have many claims
and rights which it may be they have
hitherto not realized, and which can
only be established by the fullest enquiry and negotiation. Exaggerated
claims may be made, and possibly
have been made, but the matters which
I have referred to are not matters of
fancy or speculation. We have an
enormous country with tremendous
interests and an almost boundless
future. We should not be staggered
by the realisation of the splendid
heritage we are entitled to but should
rather be uplifted and urged on to try
to establish these rights and have these
claims satisfactorily adjusted."
So you see at the close of his speech
he said there was nothing controversial in it and that unanimous consent
should be given.
As to the second point that the people
were to be consulted you will find
this:
"Afterall, we are not assuming on the
part of the people of the Territories,
if this resolution is accepted, the right
to make an agreement. We are asking simply that negotiations should be
opened. In fact the most important
side of this question at the present
time, the most important result, that
will follow from this resolution being
introduced at this stage, and from the
discussion which may follow it, will
be further discussion which wil
take place throughout the country. The
people of the Territories need to have
explained to them what are the actual
conditions under which we are working and what would be the position
under the only further extension we
can look forward to."
There are other references but I take
it that the references I have read establish abundantly the summary I
have already made.
I say further that the people of this
country accepted that opinion. I stated, and other members stated, that
they so understood that resolution as
authorizing, directing, instructing the
Government to take such steps to deal
with this large question. That, I think
was the spirit in which the Government itself entered upon the negotiations, for I
find that when
they met the House in 1901 they had
been unable to arrange a meeting with
the Privy Council owing to the electors. This excuse was not an unreasonable one in
view of the circumstances
that then prevailed.
WHAT HE EXPECTED.
I would like to bring the correspondence of 1901l to the attention of the
House for a moment. It was pointed
out by this Government that something must be done to provide facilities for the new
people coming in.
Then we have the answer of the Minister of the Interior suggesting a conference to
consider the question. On
March 30th a reply was sent accepting
the suggestion. The next step I think
the Government had a right to take,
but my complaint against the Administration commences at this point, and
I think it is a fair one. I expected and
the country expected, and had a right
to expect, that to supplement the resolution passed in 1900 they would have
conne and asked for instructions as to
what terms they should ask. What
might be urged is that I did point out
certain demands to be made, and there
would not be so much objection to the
action of the Government if the hon.
gentleman had left out that one point
which was controversial, and which
has brought about the downfall of
these negotiations, and has set back
this matter I know not how long.
They asked for no instructions from
this House as to what they should ask
for or do at Ottawa. The House was
told there would be a conference in
which it was hoped this large question
would be dealt with by the first minister and his colleague and the Privy
Council. and so we have before us the
next correspondence of 1902.
ACTED WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS.
We find from that correspondence
that certain telegrams passed as to the
time and place of holding this conference and that it was ultimately held.
What authority had this legislature
given these gentlemen before they
went to Ottawa? No man can go and
open negotiations without producing
his authority, and I take it that the
Minister of the Interior, being an
astute man, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier
and other astute members of the Government knew just what the instructions of these
men were. They were
also negotiating and had their instructions, powers and privileges, jurisidiction,
and they knew to a nicety just what
authority the hon. gentlemen had to
bind these Territories. Why did they
know it? Because they had the memorial of May, 1900, and the speech of
the hon. gentleman in moving it.
These documents explain themselves.
These gentlemen were limited in
their powers: they admitted it
when they asked that this
memorial be passed. They had
power to deal with the non-controversial matters. If language means anything,— and
if any gentleman has the
ability to use language to make his
meaning clear, the hon. gentleman
has,— just what did it convey to the
ordinary reader and hearer? That the
gentlemen composing this executive,
representing this House and country,
had authority to enter into negotiations to have accounts taken and
enquiries made and placed before the
people of this country. And I challenge any hon. gentleman who may
follow me to point out in any written
document any authority that this
House gave no such authority and I
defy any person to show it. The hon.
gentleman himself was so particular
and anxious to avoid any possible conflict of public opinion that he framed
his resolution so carefully and said it
was a matter of extraordinary diffculty to avoid all controversial subjects
and deal with the matter as one man.
Therefore, I say that this Government
had a right to make their demands
with relation to the lands, mines, minerals, compensation for alienated lands
and for exemptions from taxation, control of school lands, and the non-controversial
matters dealt with in the
speech and resolution, but they had no
power to plunge this country into the
step they did, and which the hon.
gentleman himself says is a controversial uestion. I challenge the Attorney
General, the Commissioner of Public
Works, or any man who supports them
to show any authority this House has
given to pledge this country to one
province. Is it here in any statute
books or Journals? Let the men who
will tonight stand up and vote yea
show where any authority exists in
writing, which is the only way it could
exist, to say that these great Territories should be erected into one province.
If they do no it proves my case.
If the Government had not come to
the House in the first place and asked
for express powers the doctrine that
they had the power might prevail, but
having come and asked for express
powers, and those express powers being
to deal with non-controversial matters,
it follows that there were only two
ways in which the other powers could
follow, either by an appeal to the country or to the legislature. Under our
system of Government these were the
only ways but they preferred to take.
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAY.
They went to the Government of
Canada and asked to be made into one
province. Sir, had they come to this
House and asked for and got that
authority by a bare majority of one
they would have possesed it and would
have been authorised to make the proposition they did. But they did not
do it. They went down and said:
"We are the people." (Laughter.) The
hon. gentleman may think he is the
people but there are some few people
in Canada who hold the opinion that
he is not the people. (Hear, hear). Of
course it is very much to be regretted
that there are a few people who feel
that the hon, gentleman is not the
people, but so long as constitutional
methods prevail, so long will there he
people who hold up their heads and say
we do not think Mr. Haultain is the
people. (Laughter)
It was not necessary for this Government to declare for one province to
carry on negotiations. They could
have laid claim to all the things set up
in the draft bill for they are alike common to one or two provinces. Therefore I submit
the argument must
be convincing that they had no power
to plunge this country into the discussion of a controversial question, and
that in dealing with the question of
the lands, mines, etc., they had no
need to go into it. That is my position
and the documents warrant it.
What follows? They did undertake
to speak for this country. Now, I hold
a different opinion to what some have
said. Some have said they no mandate.
I think this Government had a mandate from this House to open these
negotations, We gave them the
authority They are the servants of
this House: we are the principals. But
we gave them no authority to ask for
one province. It was not necessary to
do so to deal with these non-controversial matters. They did exceed their
authority and have permitted the
Dominion Government to take advantage of them.
IGNORANT OF FAILURE.
The little conference took place,
they put their views in writing, and
sent them to Ottawa enclosing a draft
bill. Then certain telegrams followed
urging an answer, I do not impute
bad faith but I heard two months ago
that these negotiations had failed. Yet
the premier apparently has been
travelling over the country with the
Minister of the Interior in his private
car—
Mr. Haultain –Pardon time, I never
travelled either in a private car or
with the Minister of the Interior on a
train.
Mr. Bennett —I withdraw the statement. But the hon. gentleman meeting the Minister of the Interior
as he
did and discussing thes, matters with
him must have known something of
the minister's mind in dealing with
these questions. Do you mean that
you can discuss several matters and
not get an intimation of what their
mind was? On March 27, 1902 we find
the Minister of the Interior sending
to the first minister of this country:
"I presume, however, that you would
have gathered our views from the
expressions of opinion which took
place during our interviews, and our
conclusions will not, therefore, I trust
come in the way of a surprise." Now,
sir, that answer was inadequate and J
think the reply sent by the first
minister is a rather conclusive reply,
and he met every argument fairly,
but unfortunately he had no authority
to put in the controversial matter.
The agent exceeded his authority. The
other men new it andsaid we do not
know you, consequently there was no
bargain.
It is a significant thing that while
the Attorney General was exercising
his mind about this matter the Commissioner of Public Works did not
trouble much about it. All I can point
out is the day this reply was sent to
Ottawa, the Commissioner of Public
Works was in Calgary, and it was,
therefore, the reply of the premier,
binding his colleague so one would
imagine that after all it was
not such a surprise. The Minister
of the Interior says it will be no surprise: the Attorney General says it
was not only a surprise but a deep disappointment. I have no opinion to express: it
is not my business. There
exists a very well developed opinion
that so far as it being a suprise is concerned they knew well what the answer
would be, and the Minister of the Interior gave them the cold steel by
saying it will be no suprise at all
(Laughter). I am not expressing my
opinion but only stating one I have
heard.
A POLITICAL FOOTBALL.
There exists another opinion among
a large number of people that the question of provincial autonomy is only a
political football to advance the interests of one party. It has been said in
public print that it is being used in
order to work to the advantage of one
set of men over another, and to redound to the credit of one man belonging to one
great political party. I cannot believe that is so. There exists
again another opinion that a portion
are in favor of annexation to Manitoba.
I think I have laid down some good
reasons why I am unable to support
the resolution of the Attorney General.
I regret I cannot support it because
upon the records, documents and correspondence this delegation went to
Ottawa and attempted to do what they
had no authority to do, and the Dominion Government took advantage of
that. If that draft, bill had passed the
Parliament of Canada what chance
would the people or the members of
this House have had of discussing it?
No man can assume to take the reports
of Speeches. The Attorney General
said the people had a moral right to
discuss it, but they have had no chance.
Because the Government have undertaken to do what they said they would
not do they have committed a breach
of faith. It is a breach of faith to say
on May 2, 1900, that the people have a
right to discuss the matter and on Dec.
7, 1901, to say that it should be one
province.
ONE PROVINCE NOT EXPEDIENT.
By this resolution I either vote for
one province or I vote that the Dominion Government can do as they like
with the people. As I understand the
resolution I believe I have no alternative but to say whether I am in favor
of one province or two. I would bave
wished to avoid doing so. When I
came here and saw the copies of this
correspondence and resolution I regretted that this controversial matter
of one province or two had been thrown
into this Assembly for discussion, but
sooner or later every man must give
voice to his convictions. The conclusion I have arrived at may be erroneous and the
hon, gentleman's correct:
then his judgment is better than mine,
but I wish to be distinctly understood
as saying that I do not desire in any way to embarrass the Administration or the
carrying on of these negotiations. I
have coine to a conclusion from reasons which the House may consider as
wholly inadequate. I trust they will
accept my convictions as my honest
belief, as much as I do that they have
arrived at theirs in the same manner.
There has been much said about consistency. Consistency sometimes
means narrowmindedness. A man
who retains the saine views for 25
years is a fossil, a Rip Van Winkle.
Times come when men must change
their opinions. A man may, hold an
opinion today which he condemned yesterday. The vice of today is that men
hold opinions without study or consideration. The opinion I have arrived at
on this matter, and it may be
good or bad, is that it is
not expedient that the Territories
should be erected into one province. I have given it much consideration and have arrived
at the conclusion that we cannot in this country at
this time commit ourselves to one province without violating the principles
upon which this confederation is
founded.
WOULD FAVOR ANNEXATION.
It has been said that I declared myself as supporting the annexation of a
portion of the Territories to Manitoba.
I never did so, except in the course of a
private conversation I said it would be
better if Eastern Assiniboia and Manitoba were to come together and the
rest of the Territories be erected into
one province. I repeat that if Manitoba and Eastern -Assiniboia could unite
it would be a happy solution of an
intricate question. Much as I would
like to see that, not so long as I have a
vote or a voice to express my views
will I consent to a country being annexed against its will and put in
another province (Hear, hear), and any
gentleman who says I ever favored
annexation against the wishes of the
people of that country does me grevious wrong, I never said it. Every
time I have spoken I have said that
the wishes of the people themselves
should prevail. It may be that some
people have been allured by a solution
of the transportation problem, but
much as they would appreciate that I
believe that the people of Eastern
Assiniboia do not desire to become a
part of Manitoba, and since they do
not we have to consider the question
whether these Territories shall become
one great province or more than one
province.
VIEW IT AS A CANADIAN.
I am not going to review the economical arguments tonight: the member for Yorkton
has done that. But I
propose to ask the House to consider
the matter from a national standpoint.
It is said that every man loves his
village or country or province or land
of adoption, and I yield to none in
faith in this great country and its futture. But I am a Canadian and although I do
owe my first duty to my
community and the land of my adoption I owe a larger and a greater duty
to the great confederation of Canada.
The men who framed this confederation were inspired with the thought
that the various provinces, might live
in harmony, and yet I find to the east
today there is a little province and the
language of this Government has
alarmed the people. What has caused
the attention of the people all over
Canada to be diverted to this question?
It is the use of the words "one grand,
predominating, overwhelming province." Sir. I would rather be a citizen
of two provinces work together in
harmony and unity than of one doing
violence a to the spirit of confederation:
5THE LEADER, THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 1, 1902.
BENNETT AND SIFTON
(Continued from page 1.)
Every man must remember that we
owe some degree of toleration to other
men. No intolerant man ever left his
mark on a country.
I submit that by reason of the area
of 404,000 square miles, the largest of
any province in confederation,
being formed into one province, there
would follow jealousies and friction
which would make it impossible for
provinces to work together in
unity. Let me give you the authority of a greater than I, Mr. Haultain.
In his reply to the Minister of the
Interior he said: "With regard to a
divergence of opinion as to one or
more provinces, I might say that that
is a difficulty which will always exist
and which any postponement of action
will not remove."
Then, sir, this House is to be asked
to do something to plunge the people
into a difference which will always
exist. These local differences will
become so strong and so insistent by
time that they could only result in
injury to confederation. The hon.
gentleman knows of the resources of
the country and that it will contain
the wealth producing class. The development of these resources involve
the expenditure of large sums of
money, and as there were divisions
between New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia and between Upper and Lower
Canada, we would have ultimately
that difference of opinion which woudd
bring about a division into two provinces, and I submit that in the interests of harmony
we should pronounce
for two provinces and avoid this
friction.
A PREDICTION.
I have arrived at these conclusions
deliberately and although they may
wrong I venture this prediction.
In so far is the organised districts are
concerned, and you may include
Athabasca, they will never be directed
as one province, and if not in the
nature of two provinces that portion
to the east will ultimately go to Manitoba.
In conclusion I wish to say that I
regret as much as the Attorney General that we have a motion on the order
paper tonight that will not permit of
that unanimity which I would like to
see when we approach the Dominion
Government. We desire to go upon
record on this point and we have incorporated into our amendment a
declaration of unanimity with the
Government on every non-controversial matter they introduce. We have
met them and declare for everything
they ask for, but now that you have
introduced this controversial matter
we put the responsibility where it
belongs by saying that in so far as
these matters are concerned we will
agree, but in regard to the controversial matter we have an opinion contrary to yours.
There would be no province anyway.
now until after the next general
election. The Dominion Government
has said it will not introduce legislation
and this House will have expired and a
new House will pass on the matter
after receiving direct authority from
the people to do so, and they will have
an opportunity, of expressing themselves for one or two provinces. There
will be that direct mandate from the
people which every government should
have, and it may be that the Government's opinion may prevail, but it does
not follow that the Dominion Government will carry it out. Some say two
provinces will mean annexation. Our
only safety is to divide into two provinces. As to the question of extravagances,
I do not propose to deal with it.
We should get as much as possible out
of the Federal treasury.
When the Attorney General moved
his resolution in May, 1900, in closing
he pointed to that table and said there
sat around that table the Fathers of
Confederation, and tonight, when the
question of the division of the area of
these Territories is before us let the
ghosts and memories of those great
men rise up before us and let their
aspirations be with us. It was no local
considerations that influenced Tupper,
Macdonald, Brown and Tilley. Let us
remember this and with a broad minded desire to do justice to all men let us
ever remember that this country was
not given to us pioneers to work out its
future for our own ends but as a great
inheritance and legislating today we
are legislating for posterity. Let us
not be influenced by considerations of
a great overwhelming, overshadowing
province. Let us be national in our
aspirations and not sectional in our
ambitions. Let us remember that we are
are all Canadian subjects of a great
sovereign. (Loud cheers.)
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS.
Mr. A.L. Sifton, who was received
with cheers on raising, followed and
said: Before this question finally
comes to a vote I would like to address
a few words to the House. It is a question that has been of very deep interest to
me for many years. There are
some gentlemen throughout the country who have been talking about the
rights and privileges of this country. I
am glad having been interested in this
question for such a length of time, that
the last remaining doubt has been
swept away in reference at least to
this one question,— that the time has
arrived that it should be settled in
some manner. We have at least
reached a stage where we can work
together in that matter; also in regard
to another matter. I have been interested for some time as to what was the
particular policy upon which the members of the Opposition in this House
would be able to unite. During the
somewhat limited time I have been a
member of this House it has only been
upon a very few occasions they have
been able to unite on any question,
their numbers varying from three to ten
on various questions. I was, therefore,
curious as to what policy they would
unite on on this great question. I do
not wish to consider any member of
this House my enemy, but on reading
this 2,000 word amendment I was reminded of the saying of Scripture
"Oh that my enemy would write a
book." (Laughter.) We have here
expressed the condensed feelings of
the members of the Opposition on this
great question. After years of consideration on the part of some after
months some others have taken and
in after days some two or three have
taken we have this document, and in
regard to this matter although the
speeches of hon. gentlemen have
varied, although all have a different
reason for opposing the resolution,
they are willing to unite before the
House and country on this amendment
and to say that although we have done
wonderful things in going against the
constitutional privileges of Canada, and
the Territories in the action we have
taken in this matter and committed
many transgressions, they are willing
to condone everything except the asking for one province, while in their
amendment they ask for two
NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSALS.
I am thankful that we have so much
the confidence of the members of the
Opposition when they are united. Individually they have not got that confidence, but
when united they have at
least, that much confidence in us to say
that we asked for everything this
country was entitled to, for there has
not been one single objection raised as
to the draft bill with reference to asking less than the rights of this country
and the people of this country are
satisfied that the Government, have
looked after their interests, and if they
were able to get provincial autonomy
tonight they would be pleased to get it.
on the terms of the bill presented by
this Government.
The Opposition say the principal
objection is that there is no, mandate
with reference to the particular matter
of the number of provinces. The resolution of May, 1900, certainly did give
this Government the right to discuss
and negotiate with the Dominion
Government. I would like to ask the
gentlemen who have spoken to say
what we have done that this
House did not authorise. They knew
they were stating matters that were
not of any interest to the people but
simply to make some charge. When
they could not say anything against
the proposals they had to say something against the manner in which
they were made. They also complain
that the negotiations were carried out
in secret. A good many people will
not blame the Government that they
did not take newspaper reporters with
them when they went to Ottawa and
the conference took place with the
ministers of the cabinet, and not the
Minister of the Interior. It is not
necessary to go over the conversations
which took place but the Ottawa
ministers did take an interest and did
negotiate with the representatives of
your Government, notwithstanding
their limited authority and no objection was made to their authority in
regard to that matter. They knew,
just as we knew and as the members
of this House knew and as the electors
knew, that we had no authority to
bind this country or House. And we
would never do it had we the express
authority to bind the people. That
was legally, entirely and absolutely
under their control and they had absolute power to consider and settle it
without regard to the people of the
Territories if they saw fit, but instead
of taking that position they treated us
with courtesy and said we are willing
to discuss it and they did.
No absolute answer was given to this
Government until that letter arrived
the other day. We may have had
suspicions as to what they were going
to do but they never gave us an answer
verbally or otherwise.
SECRECY CHARGE EXPLODED.
As to the charge of trying to keep
this matter secret and doing business
behind their backs and trying to deceive the people. The Government
took the only possible action that
could be taken to bring it before the
attention of the people and House
before it could be introduced. This
House was summoned in order that it
might meet before any bill could possibly have become law so that we
would be in a position to meet this
House and discuss this matter, to object if any members saw fit in regard to
any legislation and to express the
views of their constituents whether
they were members of the Opposition or supporters of the Government, and they have
the right and
would have had the right had any bill
been introduced. Parliament is still in
session and probably will be after the
members of this House have gone home.
And that is the reason when we call
this House, we are told we intended
to settle it behind their backs.
We did submit a bill to the members
of the Dominion Government which in
the estimation of the members of this
House was in the interest of this country. We did it at the request of the
council that they might have before
them in concrete form the ideas of this
Government. It is no secret that I
have expressed opinions on this subject at various places throughout the
country.
PROVINCES FOR EACH AND ALL.
The question is not so much as to
one or two provinces, but to settle it in
some form as speedily as possible.
The Oppression say the people should
have an opportunity of settling in a
concrete form the question as to which
particular set of ideas as to the shape
of the province would suit them best.
But that would not satisfy hon. members of the Opposition on this question. There
are some people in East
ern Assiniboia who desire an eastern
province; there are some people in the
neighborhood of Calgary that would
like a western province; there are
people in Saskatchewan who would
like a northern province, and the
people of St. Albert would like another
northern province. Each one of them
can go to his constituents and say we
will have a province right here and run
it ourselves. One province in the east,
one in the west, one in the north, one
in the south. Is it that each member
can claim: that the policy of the Opposition is the policy of the people? That is
the perfectly clear cut proposition that
members of the Opposition have. More
power to them if they think this question can be settled in that manner and
the people deceived. But they say
wait until we are elected and then we
will say whetherthe provinces are to
be east and west or north and south.
(Hear, hear.)
THAT NORTHERN PROVINCE.
I would gather that the three gentlemen living to the north would favor a
northern province and the other three
would be the other way, but when we
consider a division I fear that the three
gentlemen, with those who might favor
a northern province, have got a little
the worse of the matter. I fear that
if they try to persuade the people up
there to their view they will have a
hard time of it, as there are some
pretty clever people up there. They
will begin to examine the question and
will find that the area proposed of 550,000 square miles is to constitute, according
to the amendment, two provinces of approximately equal area.
The three districts of Alberta, Assin
iboia and Saskatchewan as now represented consist of 296,000 square miles.
Each of these two provinces is to consist of 275,000 square miles so that the
southern province would take 275,000
square miles off of the area of the
whole of Assiniboia, the whole of
Alberta, the whole of Saskatchewan and what would it leave? 21,000
square miles of the northern end of
Alberta and Saskatchewan to make
the northern province. (Cheers) I am
afraid that the genius of the members
for Yorkton and North Qu'Appelle has
been rather too much for the northern
men. (Laughter and cheers). 21,000
square miles! When you come to get
the long length of that country it
stretches out a long way east and west.
These hon. gentlemen would have
found had they examined the map that
Prince Albert. Edmonton and St
Albert would be included in the southern, province, that even the North
Saskatchewan river, that even Athabasca Landiug would be included in
the southern province (Loud laughter
and cheers), and that out of the whole
immense territories of Northern
Saskatchewan and Northern Alberta.
only a little strip four townships wide
would be included in that northern
province. It would be better almost to
take one province for then they would
have a little of that, valuable northern
country at least in the province and
would have their constituents to vote
for or against them. (Hear, hear)
WHICH SIZE TO COPY?
Some attempt to argue that the
smaller you make the provinces the
better, and even claim that the whole
history of Canada and the principles
upon which the confederation of these
provinces was founded, show that the
provinces should be almost one size.
One would have imagined that after
considering the differences in sizes that
already exist such statements would
not have been made. The provinces
vary from 2,000 square miles in extent
to considerably over 200,000 square
miles, so one would think that the
whole principles of confederation
would have been smashed to atoms
long ago. The Opposition have not
met the question as to which we should
copy were we to be confined to any one
of them. The province of Prince Edward Island has been held up as an example by the
hon. member for Yorkton
and I do not wonder at it in view of the
fact that he constituency of Yorkton
would nake two Prince Edward
Islands. (Laughter) He would not have
to come down here any more as the
hon. gentleman himself could be lieutenant governor of one and premier of
the other. (Loud laughter.) When we
come to size we find that the 404,000
square miles of the Territories would
make 202 provinces the size of Prince
Edward Island, and if the argument
as to economical administration is
good as to Prince Edward Island why
not have 202?Carry out the hon. gentleman's argument to its legitimate
conclusion and we should form
these 202 provinces and then
our hon. friend from Medicine
Hat would have 20 provinces in his constituency (laughter). He would have
a lively time of it advocating 20 provinces among his constituents. Some
ranchers think that one is more than
they want. What was done unfortunately a good many years ago with
reference to Prince Edward Island we
have as people of Canada to accept,
but we need not repeat such a mistake.
WATCH OUR OWN INTERESTS.
We have heard a good deal to-night
about looking on this question in a
broad statesmanlike manner as people
of Canada. This is to a certain extent
right. We should take an active part
with reference to the affairs of Canada.
But the Government of Canada and
the members of Parliament, are men
who can safely be entrusted to look
after their side of the bargain, even as
the people of Manitoba, can be entrusted to look after their own interests,
and the people of the other provinces
to look after their local affairs. This
House and Government has been honored with the confidence of the people
not for the purpose of looking after
the interests of Manitoba or Prince
Edward Island, but to devote our best
time and ability to looking after the
Affairs of these Territories, not with
reference to the far northern portion
or the eastern, western or southern
portions, but in reference to the affairs
of the whole people of these Territories
whenever their interests are involved.
Supposing the representatives in
this House passed a unanimous resolution in favor of one or two provinces
would that authorise us to accept it
and say the people had no right to pass
on it? It is their duty to say whether
we have exceeded the jurisdiction reposed in us and whether in our negotiations we
have neglected a single interest of the people of this country. How
are they going to say it? How in regard to two provinces? By electing representatives
in favor of two provinces
who do not know where those provinces
are going to be? or electing representatives supporting this Government?
or by taking the opinions of the memers of Parliament from the North- West? It is
the duty of the Dominion
Parliament to come to a conclusion
upon this important matter, —important not only for us but for the whole
Dominion,—with all the evidence they
can get from all sources.
I hope the Opposition will spread
this amendment of theirs broadcast all
over the Territories and if they will
only guarantee to go along and give
the explanations they have given to
this House tonight, give their different
reasons for their conduct and make
their diverse speeches, the members of
the Government and the members
supporting the Government need have
no fear. We would be quite safe in
leaving it to the judgement of the
electors.
PEOPLE HAVE SELF GOVERNMENT.
We have been told that we have
taken away self-government from the
people in the large local improvement
districts. It is unfortunate that statements should be made which are liable
to create an impression that this country is not a self governing community.
The fact that we are here shows that
the people of this country are governing themselves so far as local matters
are concerned and shows that up to
the present time the people have had
confidence in us, and the fact that the
Opposition are not governing the country does not show they have not self government
but that the people have
shown a certain annount of discretion
in selecting those who will govern
(Hear, hear.)
As to the statement of Mr.Bennett
that the reply sent by Mr. Haultain to
the Minister of the Interior was his
own reply sent, while the Commissioner
of Public Works was in Calgary, Mr.
Sifton said he had seen the communication and agreed with it before it was
sent.
WOULD ACCEPT OTHER SOLUTIONS.
With reference to the final settlement of the question of the number of
provinces Mr. Sifton said they never
would be unanimous. No important
question had ever yet been settled by
the unanimous opinion of the people
and never would be and so long as the
people of Canada retained their intelligence so long would they differ on
public questions. Mr. Sifton continued: I have expressed an opinion that
although I would be prepared to accept other solutions, and although, as
I told members of the Dominion Government in council that I would be
prepared, as Mr. Haultain told them
he would be prepared, to accept a different solution, our individual opinions
were the one province would be to the
advantage of the people of this country, and we told them then and there
that not only now but always would it
be impossible to secure an unanimous
opinion, and although I am of that
opinion yet I do think it is the duty
of every member of this House to
carefully consider before he casts his
vote. And I say that the people who have
come to this country, no matter what
portion, should seriously consider this
question before they vote on the
amendment which has been brought
in by the Opposition for the first
time.
There has never been any complaint
that any legislation has been to benefit
one section and to the disadvantage of
another, or that the spending of money
has not been fairly distributed.It
is a very poor argument that the
people of the Territories could not
agree and get along in regard to
these affairs. It is an argument that
will not appeal to the people.
OPPOSITION AMBITIONS.
Although the Opposition talk about
national considerations and look at the
rights of other provinces and never
mind our own, they all want the province nearest to themselves. It would
prevent quarreling because it would
separate them one from the other.
They have had experience and know
they are not safe together. (Laughter
and cheers.) Again they say: "These
two provinces will be quite large
enough to satisfy all aspirations and
ambitions of their inhabitants."
(Laughter.) That ought to satisfy the
people of these Territories that we will
have the ambitions and aspirations of
these gentlemen satisfied. In order
to do that, however, we will have to
have four provinces as we cannot have
four premiers in one province. The
eastern and western might go to the
members foe Yorkton and West Calgary and the northern and southern
to the members for St. Albert and
North Qu'Appelle. We would have
have these four provinces to satisfy the
reasonable ambitions of the inhabitants (Laughter.) We do not need to
bring to the people of the Territories
the fact that we cannot agree and live
amicably together.
SETTLE IT FOR ALL TIME.
When the question is settled it will
probably be settled for all time to
come. The statement has been made
that we should have a sort of temporary province and take what we can
get. They say, have the Territories
created into one province or provinces
and then go down and fight for better
terms year after year: other provinces
have done it. Yes, those little provinces by the sea have had an interesting time
in the past. It has been the
case of one government after another,
as in Manitoba, to win election after
election on the cry that they were
going to get better terms from the
Dominion for the local Government.
This is the policy of the Opposition
would like get a province and then
keep on fighting and fight year after
year. That is not the policy of this
Government and not the policy I hope
will be adopted by the Dominion Government. I hope it will be settled on
terms equal to those of the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec. We
have asked for nothing less and so far
as we are concerned we are willing to
accept nothing less than has been
granted to those provinces. (Hear
hear) Those provinces have got better
terms by holding up the Dominion
Government but is that the kind of
policy that will appeal to the people
who settle here? We can better afford
to suffer for a few years longer the
privations some people have suffered
and continue our campaign and see
that the question is settled on terms
that will be of ultimate benefit to this
country and not on terms that we will
have to be continually fighting for
year after year. That is the policy we
advocate, that when this matter is
settled it shall be for all time to come
so that we shall be prepared to settle
down and do the work of this province
for the benefit of the country, not in
fighting for better terms but in legislating fro the people and endeavoring
to build up a province that will be the
pride, not only of the people here but
of Canada and of all the provinces:
that in time to come the people of all
the provinces will be proud that they
have a province here second to none,
not endeavoring to exercise a preeminent place in Canada, but taking
the position that the members of Parliament who will be elected from here
in time to come will demand for her.
I hope the members will consider
this question seriously, not from the
standpoint of any particular town
which might desire to be the capital,
or of a district that desire to be a province, or of a man who might desire to
be a premier; but froma broad point
of view to build up a country such as
no other country on the face of the
globe ever had. (Loud cheers.)
1THE LEADER.REGINA, N.W.T., THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 8, 1902.
MORE ON AUTONOMY.
Many Members Speak on the All
Important Subject.
AMENDENT DEFEATED
By a vote of 22 to 7 the Assembly
Rejected Dr. Patrick's Amendment
in Favor of Two Provinces—The
Members for North and South
Regina Express Their views
Other Speeches.
Mr. D. H. McDonald, leader of the
Opposition followed Mr. Sifton in
the debate on provincial autonomy, and took up a line of argument similar to that
followed
by previous Opposition speakers. He
declared theOpposition to be in favor
of provincial autonomy but not in favor
of having certain terms put upon the
people unless those terms received the
consent and approval of the people.
The premier by introducing a controversial matter into the negotiations,
had to a certain extent deceived the
members of the House. As to the
Sifton banquet at Prince Albert Mr.
McDonald said that the Commissioner
of Public Works knew full well that
the people of that country were unanimously in favor of two provinces and
consequently he failed to express the
opinion of the Government or himself
on the question then before the House.
The speaker refuted the idea that
the members of the Opposition wanted
two provinces in order that they might
hold office. The firmly believed that
it was for the best interests of Canada
that there should be two provinces. If
the policy of advocating one province
was persisted in it would drive a large
portion of Eastern Assiniboia into
Manitoba. The Opposition desired
that those people should remain in the
Territories as long as they desired
to do so. It was a mistake to think
that any large number of people were
agitating for annexation to Manitoba.
They had not so declared themselves publicly and had on no occasion expressed
themselves as desirous of joining Manitoba. There might be a certain amount of feeling
that the people of Manitoba were in a better position to carry
out their wheat. This was a fact and
it was largely due to the inactivity of
the present Territorial Government in
pressing for the construction of railways in this country.
It was well that the Dominion Government had seen that there was a div
ergency of opinion as to one or more
provinces as it was possible that otherwise the terms submitted by the local
Government might have been forced
on the people of the Territories. There
was even now some jealousy in some
provinces that other provinces had too
much influence and was it advisable
that they should stir up that unfriendly feeling which might lead to a still
worse feeling? The only question before the House was whether the Territories should
be formed into one or
two provinces. The Opposition laid before the House their views in favor of
two provinces and on those views they
were prepared to go to the country and
on them they asked that the vote be
taken. (Cheers)
MEMBER FOR NORTH REGINA.
Mr. G. W. Brown followed. He did
not propose to take up much of the
time of the House at that
hour, and while he did not impute the
motive for a number of provinces to
be that the political ambitions of hon.
gentlemen opposite might be satisfied,
he would congratulate their leader on
the manner in which he distributed
amongst his followers the work which
generally fell to the leader himself.
In view of the fact that, while the
leader of the Opposition was complaining that the Government had not accomplished
more with reference to this
important subject, the member for
West Calgary was speaking of steam
boiler inspection, etc., and forgetting
entirely the great question his leader
was trying to impress on the House,
the people must come to the conclusion that so far as they were concerned
there had been no great deal of attention given to what the policy of the
Opposition should be. They had the
humble confession of the leader of the
Opposition that for two years he had
expressed no opinion on it. Then after
the member for West Calgary had devoted his time to his private affairs
and the hon. member for Yorkton had
time to make up his mind, the House and
public had that wonderful document —
the, amendment. Just imagine those
hon. gentlemen who had expressed
such divergent opinions at so late a
date, within 2 hours formulating a
policy for the people and coming down
here to ask fro a short respite to produce that document. (Laughter.)
There was no agreement among them
yet.
DR. PATRICK'S UNUSUAL POSITION.
Talk about the Government exceeding their duties and introducing a
question which did not belong in the
negotiations. When the estimates were
being voted in a previous year had not
the member for Yorkton asked if there
was sufficient money to call a special
Session and pay for a deputation to go to
Ottawa? He knew last year the Government were going to Ottawa to treat
with reference to this question exactly
as they did treat with it. Knowing
this, and that the House could be called together, he obtained a specific
promise from the leader of the House
that there would be funds enough to
bring the House together, and then he
came there to-day and said that the
Government had no mandate. This
was a very unusual position to take.
Hon. gentleman opposite declared
for two provinces but claimed it was
not necessary to say what they should
be. The hon. member for West Calgary had said that New Brunswick and
Nova Scotia could not agree, neither
could Ontario and Quebec, and that
the same state of affairs would exist
out here. If the hon. gentleman was
any exponent of the views of the
people he represented then he (Brown)
would like to know if these people
were going to be linked in with eastern
and western Assiniboia. The realreason
for not stating where these provinces
should be was given by one hon, member when he explained they wished to
be in a position to change front whenever they liked.
AN ANNEXATION ARGUMENT.
As to the cost of governing small
provinces Mr. Brown pointed out that
Prince Edward Island was running
behind and getting deeper in the hole
all the time. The claim for two provinces instead of being a reason for not
annexing a portion to Manitoba was
an argument in favor of it. It was the
Opposition who were suggesting it and
the Dominion Government might say
if there is too much for one province
then we will give a portion to Manitoba and make the balance into one
province.
In conclusion, Mr. Brown said the
smaller province had all the rights and
privileges of the larger provinces but
they had not the ability to undertake
large schemes for the benefit and welfare of the people which the larger
provinces possessed. (Cheers.)
Mr. A. E. Cross (East Calgary) moved the adjournment of the debate and
a few minutes later at 1.35 a.m. the
House adjourned.
Source:
Regina Leader, 1896-1904. Digitized by Google Books.
Credits:
.
Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Isabelle Carré-Hudson.
This individual participated in:
