Bill (No. 239) to amend the North-west
Territories Act, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
I may explain the purport of these various
sections of the North-west Territories Act
under which it is proposed to give power to the legislative assembly.
Section 49 has reference to times and
places of sittings of the Supreme Court in banc.
Section 51 empowers the Governor in
Council to divide the territories into judicial districts. The amendment will give
power to the assembly to make provision for determining the boundaries of judicial
districts.
Section 53 makes a Supreme Court judge
the instrument of authority in any matter which the law specifies shall be dealt with
by a court or judge, in the absence of other specific provision.
Section 64 deals with justices of the peace,
as to appointment, qualifications, &c., and with police magistrates.
Section 88 deals with the jurisdiction of judges in civil matters, and the class of
matters in which either party may demand a jury trial, together with various other
provisions relating to civil trials and cases.
Sections 89 and 90 also deal with judgments and procedure in civil cases.
The sections mentioned in No. 4 are 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of chapter 19 of 1888. All
refer to the constitution of the legislative assembly.
Section 7 prescribes the qualifications of voters.
Section 8 the qualifications of candidates for election.
Section 9 specifies the oath to be subscribed and taken by members.
Section 11 deals with the election and duties of the Speaker.
Section 12 names the occasions when the Speaker may vote in the legislative assembly.
Section 9 of chapter 28, of 1897, which repealed and was substituted for section 18
of chapter 17 of 1894, prohibits members of the legislative assembly from holding
positions of emolument, making the exception as regards members of the executive council
who have procured election after appointment to such office.
In this latter important particular what I am proposing to do by the amendment is
to give the legislative assembly power to define the qualifications or limitations
and to regulate the conduct of its own members, a right and power which is possessed
and exercised by this parliament and by every provincial parliament. I may say that
in every discussion of the question of provincial autonomy by Premier Haultain, the
lack of this power has been a matter of serious complaint. The proposal as a whole,
while perhaps not very urgent or important, will have the effect of narrowing down
still further the difference between the present position of the territories as territories,
and the position of a province in confederation. I may explain that when Premier Haultain
was on his last visit to Ottawa,
13855
COMMONS 13856
in February or March, a tacit understanding
was arrived at, not, of course, with his willing consent, because, as a matter of
fact,
Premier Haultain believes that the question
of provincial establishment should not be
delayed at all, that the whole question of autonomy should not be dealt with and could
not be dealt with at this session of parliament, and as a result of this understandig
he
suggested a number of intermediate changes
in the existing powers of the legislative assembly. He proposed one important change
by which the entire land titles system should
be transferred to the local authority as well
as a number of additional minor changes
of which these I am proposing form a part.
I believe, that, but for the long absence
during this session of the hon. Minister of
the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), all of these
changes which have been asked for by Premier Haultain, would have been introduced
and put through at this session, but on account of the pressure on his time, and
perhaps partly because of the opinion which
I think the hon. Minister of the Interior
has formed that the question of provincial
establishment cannot wisely be delayed beyond next year, he decided not to take up
any of these points at this session, but to
leave them over until next session, and then
finally dispose of the whole subject by
giving the territories a complete provincial
status. On account of provision being made
at this session for an additional judge of the
Supreme Court of the North-west Territories,
and a consequent necessary amendment of
the North-west Territories Act, Premier
Haultain, some time ago, wrote to me suggesting that even if the change respecting
the transfer of the land titles system could
not be made this year it would be a distinct
advantage to the practical carrying on of the
business of his government if certain of
these minor changes were made. It perhaps
would be only right for me to state further
that Premier Haultain's proposals to the
hon. Minister of the Interior included half a
dozen other sections in addition to those that
I have gone over. I have omitted a number
of sections at the suggestion of the Department of Justice, which holds that these
other
sections deal with criminal jurisdiction over
which for the present this parliament's
authority had better be maintained. With
that view of the department, I do not express
agreement or disagreement. At this stage
of the session it is perhaps wise not to
attempt to introduce anything controversial,
and I have therefore left out half a dozen
sections which Premier Haultain desired
to have added to this amendment. These
various sections which I have added to this
proposed amendment are not of very great
moment. I do not imagine that they
can raise any controversy at all. I trust
they will meet with the unanimous approval of the House.
Progress reported.
SUPPLY—AUTONOMY OF THE NORTH-
WEST TERRITORIES.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax). Before
you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish
to bring to the attention of the House a
matter which is of some importance not
only to the people of the North-west Territories of Canada, but to the people of the
entire Dominion. Early this session I called attention to the fact that the speech
from
the Throne made no reference to the granting of a provincial status to the North-west
Territories, and I expressed the hope that
before the end of this session—which at that
time we thought would have been ended
before this—the government would introduce
some legislation for that purpose. According to the census of 1901, there were
158,000 inhabitants in the North-west Terri
13857 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13858
tories; according to the report of the department of immigration there came into this
country in the year 1901 49,149 people; in
1902, 67,379 people; and the Prime Minister
stated only last evening that, according to
the information received from the department of immigration, no less than 110,000
immigrants came to Canada during the present year. That makes a total for these three
years of 227,528, and we may fairly assume
that at least 175,000 of that number have
gone to the North-west Territories. If that
computation is fair, and I believe it is, then
we have in the North-west Territories at
the present time a population of 330,000
people.
It is not contemplated by the government, apparently, to take any steps for
the purpose of granting, during the present
session, provincial autonomy to the people
of these territories. It seems to me that,
having regard to the very large population,
the great territorial area, the magnificent
country which we have in the west, the government of Canada should immediately give
its attention to the granting of a provincial
status to the people of the North-west Territories. It was asserted in this House
by the
Prime Minister the other day that the people
in the North-west Territories have in effect
at the present time all the powers which the
people of the other provinces possess, with
the possible exception of the power of borrowing money. The right hon. gentleman
said :
What are the powers which the territories
have not to-day, which they would have if they
were a province ? If I mistake not, speaking
at first blush, the legislature of the territories
has all the powers enjoyed by a province with
the exception of borrowing money.
The right hon. gentleman greatly minimized the difference which exists between the
powers possessed by the legislative assembly
of the North-west Territories and the powers
possessed by the respective legislatures of
the different provinces. In the first place, the
people of the North-west Territories have
not the same full rights of citizenship as
are enjoyed by the inhabitants of the older
provinces, inasmuch as they have not the
control of their public lands, which are controlled by the government of Canada, and
which are administered, to a very great
extent, from Ottawa. In the second place,
the people of the North-west Territories
have not the control of their minerals, which
in possessed by the people of the older provinces of Canada. In the third place, they
have not the power to charter railways and
certain other companies. That power is
taken from them by an exception to subsection 7 of section 13 of the North-west
Territories Act, as amended by section 6 of
chapter 22 of the Acts of 1891. That exception is as follows :—
The legislative assembly shall, subject to the
provisions of this Act, or of any other Act of
the parliament of Canada at any time in force
in the territories, have power to make ordinances for the government of the territories
in relation to the class of subjects next hereinafter mentioned ; that is to say :
the incorporation of companies with territorial objects,
with the following exceptions :—
Such companies as cannot be incorporated by
provincial legislatures : railway, steamboat,
canal, tranportation, telegraph, and irrigation
companies.
Therefore, in respect to these six classes
of companies, the legislative assembly of
the North-west Territories has at the present time no power whatever to enact legislation.
This exception deprives them of the
power to incorporate a railway company and
the power to deal with irrigation; it deprives
them of the power to incorporate transportation, telephone or telegraph companies.
I am
not aware of any amendment to that section, but if there is any such amendment,
I shall be glad to have my attention called
to it. Then, in the next place, the Northwest Territories have no power to borrow
money for necessary purposes; they have
not the same powers in connection with the
administration of justice as the older provinces have, and they have no power to
amend their own constitution. The Prime
Minister of the North-west Territories, in
a speech which he delivered in 1900, summarized the differences between the powers
of the legislature of the North-west Territories and the powers of the legislatures
of the provinces in the following words,
which I will take the liberty of reading to
the House. His words are as follows :
Where we fall short of provincial powers is
in these points : we have not the power to
amend the constitution outside of the power to
deal with certain phases in our election law ;
we have not the power to borrow money ; we
have not the power to deal with the public
domain ; we have not the power to establish
certain institutions, such as hospitals, asylums,
charities—'eleemosynary institutions' as they
are called in the British North America Act ;
we have not the power to take cognizance of
public undertakings other than such as may be
carried on by certain sorts of joint stock companies ; and our powers are limited
to the extent that we have not the administration of
the criminal law in the territories. That, I
think, will suffice for any reference which it
is necessary to make to the eighth recital.
Now this question has excited a good deal
of interest in the North-west Territories during the past six or seven years ; and,
although the documents which have been
brought down at the present session of parliament are in a somewhat confused condition,
I shall endeavour as well as I can
to run very briefly over the correspondence
and the proceedings respecting this question, and to point out to the House in what
way the matter has been brought up in the
legislature of the territories, and in what
manner it has been brought to the attention
of this government since the year 1897,
when, so far as I know, the question first
became a living issue in the territories. I
13859
COMMONS 13860
may say, however, in the beginning, that
my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr.
Charlton), as far back as the year 1895,
gave a very strong expression of opinion in
this behalf. Referring to the grant of $277,000 then voted to the North-west Territories,
that hon. gentleman said :
We could save the whole of that expense by
allowing the North-west Territories people to
manage their own concerns. Give them self-
government, do not lead them around as infants
with a string, but let them manage their own
business like free British subjects.
I do not agree with the hon. member for
North Norfolk that there would be any saving at all to the country as a whole by
granting provincial autonomy ; but in the
last part of the hon. gentleman's remarks
I thoroughly concur, and I think he has
there very aptly expressed the idea in a
few words.
Now, there was a memorial from the
territorial legislature to this government on
the 9th of December, 1897, which is to be
found in sessional paper 116, at page 32.
That memorial reads as follows :
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House
the North-west Territories as they are at present composed should be maintained intact
for
administrative purposes until the time has arrived for their entrance into confederation
as
a province.
That was when a question first seems to
have been raised in the North-west Territories in regard to this matter. It was
more directly raised, however, in a memorial
passed in 1900, which is to be found in sessional paper 116, at pages 2 and 4. I will
not read the whole of the memorial, which
deals with other matters ; but one paragraph, found at page 3, referring to the
previous address, says :
That in the said address it was represented
to Her Majesty, as a reason for the extension
of the Dominion of Canada westward, that the
welfare of the population of these territories
would be materially enhanced by the formation therein of political institutions bearing
analogy, as far as circumstances will admit,
to those which existed in the several provinces
then forming the Dominion.
Another paragraph proceeds as follows :
That under the several authorities so given
the parliament of Canada has created political
institutions in these territories bearing a close
analogy to those which exist in the several
provinces of the Dominion.
The two concluding paragraphs of the
address are as follows :
That we do therefore most humbly pray that
Your Excellency will be graciously pleased to
cause the fullest inquiry to be made into the
position of the territories, financial and otherwise, and to cause such action to
be taken as
will provide for their present and immediate
welfare and good government, as well as the
due fulfilment of the duties and obligations of
government and legislation, assumed, with respect to these territories, by the parliament
of
Canada ;
And furthermore that, by the British North
America Act, 1871, it was (amongst other
things) enacted that the parliament of Canada
may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time
being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not
included in any province thereof, and may, at
the time of such establishment, make provision
for the constitution and administration of
. . . . such province, we do therefore most
humbly pray that Your Excellency will be also
graciously pleased to order inquiries to he
made and accounts taken with a view to the
settlement of the terms and conditions upon
which the territories or any part thereof shall
be established as a province, and that, before
any such province is established, opportunity
should be given to the people of the territories,
through their accredited representatives, of
considering and discussing such terms and conditions.
All which we humbly pray Your Excellency
to take into Your Excellency's most gracious
and favourable consideration.
That memorial was forwarded, and subsequent correspondence took place. The first
letter to which I will refer is a letter from
the Prime Minister of the Territories, Mr.
Haultain, to the Minister of the Interior,
dated the 30th of January, 1901. It is to be
found in sessional paper 116a, at page 1.
I will not read the whole of this letter, but
certain paragraphs of it are as follows :
While financial embarrassments rather than
constitutional aspirations have led the Northwest government and legislature to discuss
the
provincial status, I think that sufficient practical reasons can be given for the
early establishment of provincial institutions in the west.
We have a rapidly growing population, much
larger, as the census will show, than that of
British Columbia ten years ago, and than
that of Prince Edward Island to-day ; a population trained to the exercise of powers
of self-
government falling a little short only of those
enjoyed by the provinces. For nearly thirteen
years the North-west legislative assembly has
been occupied with founding local institutions
and a body of laws suitable to the condition and
circumstances of the country.
Further on, the memorial, referring to
the anomalous constitution of the territories,
uses these words :
The territories have arrived at a point, where
by reason of their population and material development, the larger powers and larger
income
of a province have become necessary. I have
already in former communications pointed out
to you how our limited powers are still more
limited by the reservation of subjects such as
the Land Titles law, the administration of the
criminal law and the control of the public domain. It is undoubtedly in the interest
of any
province or provinces herafter to be established, that the important questions surrounding
the subject of the public domain should be settled at once, and before any more of
the public lands of the territories are alienated from
the Crown.
On the 21st of March, 1901, Mr. Sifton
replied to Mr. Haultain, and his letter is to
be found in sessional paper 116a, at page
13861 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13862
4. In that letter, which I will not quote in
full, Mr. Sifton used the following language :
It is the view of the government that it will
not be wise at the present time to pass legislation forming the North-west Territories
into
a province or provinces. Some of the reasons
leading to this view may be found in the fact
that the population or the territories is yet
sparse ; that the rapid increase in population
now taking place will in a short time alter
the conditions to be dealt with very materially
and that there is a considerable divergence of
opinion respecting the question whether there
should be one province only, or more than one
province. Holding this view, therefore, it will
not be necessary for me to discuss the details
of the draft Bill which you presented as embodying your views.
I may say, in connection with this matter,
which I think has been alluded to also by
my hon. friend the Prime Minister during
the present session, that the difference of
opinion as to whether there should be one
province or two provinces does not seem a
sufficient reason for withholding provincial
status from the North-west Territories. Are
the people of those territories to be for ever
deprived of the status enjoyed by the people
of the provinces of Canada, menely because
there may not be absolute unanimity as to
whether there shall be one province or two
provinces or three provinces? It is not likely
at any time in the future that you will have
absolute unanimity in the North-west Territories with regard to a matter of that
kind. It is only a detail after you have once
settled the principle that the time has arrived when the people of the North-west
Territories should be entrusted with the
same rights of self-government as those enjoyed by the people of the various provinces.
Mr. Haultain replied to that letter on the
30th of March, 1901. His reply is to be
found in sessional paper 116a, at page 2.
I shall quote only portions of his reply. In
the first place he quotes from Mr. Sifton's
letter of March 21st, from which I have just
read extracts. Perhaps as some of the
letters from which he quoted have not been
brought to the attention of the House, and
as it would take too much time to read
them all, I had better read his quotations
from the previous correspondence with Mr.
Sifton. Mr. Haultain's words are as follows:
So far from your conclusions not coming as a
surprise as you suggest, I must say quite frankly
that the decision of the government has) come
not only as a. surprise, but as a deep disappointment as well. In your letter of March
21, 1901,
you say :
He then quotes Mr. Sifton's language as
follows :
I may say that I realize very fully the difficulties of the position in which the
government
and legislative assembly of the North-west Territories is placed, and I admit that
there is very
much in the suggestions which are made in your
letter and in the memorial regarding the necessity of a change in the constitutional
and financial position of the territories.
That language of Mr. Sifton is very significant because, so far back as March, 1901,
he said there Was very much in the suggestion that it was necessary there should be
a change in the constitutional and financial
conditions of the territories. We have now
reached a period two years and a half later
in the history of the territories than the
day on which this letter was written, but
we seem to be no nearer to any solution or
the question by the present government than
we were at that time. Continuing, Mr. Haultain quotes from Mr. Sifton's letter as
follows :
Without at the present moment committing
myself to any positive statement I am prepared
to say that the time has arrived when the question of organizing the territories on
the provincial basis ought to be the subject of full consideration. It would appear
to me that the better way of bringing the matter to a more definite position would
be to arrange for a conference upon the subject between the representatives of your
government and a committee of
council representing the federal government.
Now, if the time had arrived two and a
half years ago, when the population of the
territories was not one-half what it is today, when that question ought to be the
subject of full consideration, how is it that,
after the expiration of those two and a half
years, when greatly increased importance has
been added to the territories owing to the
impetus which that country has received by
the influx of a very great number of people,
we are still told that the time for action has
not yet arrived and we are still met with
exactly the same objections which were
advanced to Mr. Haultain by Mr. Sifton in
the correspondence to which I am now
referring.
Mr. Haultain in this same letter refers to
a further letter from Mr. Sifton of April 5th,
1901, from which he quotes as follows:
The latter portion of the session of parliament here finds all the members of the
government extremely busy, and it would be hopeless
to expect from them that mature and careful
consideration of the various and important subjects which will require to be debated
and
settled in connection with the establishment of
the territories as a province or upon the provincial basis. I think I shall therefore
be compelled to ask you to defer the discussion until
after parliament has prorogued.
Mr. Haultain then proceeds to deal with
the objections raised by Mr. Sifton, and I
quote one or two paragraphs from his letter. One of these paragraphs is as follows
:
Another reason advanced is : ' That the rapid
increase in population now taking place will in a
short time alter the conditions to be dealt with
very materially. This rapid increase in population is one of the principal reasons
why we are
asking to be formed into a province, in order
that we may be able to deal with the new conditions that it brings about. The longer
it goes
on without the change the more aggravated the
present difficulties will become.
I think there is not one of us in the House
who will not realize that there is great
13863
COMMONS 13864
truth and force in that statement of Mr.
Haultain's. Are we to expect that the population of the North-west Territories is
to
stand still at any time within the next fifteen or twenty years ? We "have there a
country which is capable of supporting
many millions of population; we have
there the best undeveloped country in the
world, and I see no reason to anticipate that
population will flow into the North-west of
Canada less rapidly during the next fifteen
or twenty years than it is flowing into that
country at present. Therefore as Mr. Haultain forcibly points out in the letter to
which
I have referred, the difficulties in that regard will not be obviated by mere delay;
there will always be difficulties of that kind
and the only way in which we can do justice to the people of the North-west Territories
in this matter is by dealing with
these difficulties at the present time and
by giving them, after proper consultation,
after meeting their wishes as far as it is
proper and reasonable and possible, that
provincial status which the people of the
eastern provinces now enjoy.
Mr. Haultain's letter continues as follows:
With regard to a divergence of opinion as to
one or more provinces I might say that that is
a difficulty that will always exist and any postponment of action will not remove.
I say again that those words of Mr. Haultain's are reasonable and forcible and there
is no man in this House who does not, I
think, realize the justice of his answer to
Mr. Sifton.
Mr. Haultain's letter continues:
I must also say, on behalf of the North-west
government, that after having been asked to
meet a sub-committee of the Privy Council, and
to state our case not only verbally but in writing, it is extremely unsatisfactory
that the government has come to the conclusion: 'That it
will not be necessary to discuss the details of
the draft Bill which embodied our views.' This
is a conclusion to the negotiations which have
been held which we could hardly have expected
considering the importance of the subject discussed and the formal manner in which
the
discussion has taken place.
I shall not refer especially to the draft
Bill which was proposed by Mr. Haultain
as a scheme for the government of the
North-west Territories; I shall refer, however, to one or two passages in the memorandum
which accompanied that Bill. In
the memorandum accompanying the draft
Bill, which is to be found in sessional
paper 116, on page 19, Mr. Haultain, dealing with the question as to whether or not
the people of the North-west Territories are
entitled to their own lands, uses the following language:
As Great Britain has divested herself, for the
benefit of her colonies, of all' her proprietary
rights in the public domain within those colonies,
so, it is thought, Canada should do with respect
to any claim that may be preferred on behalf of
the Dominion to the beneficiary interest in the
public domain within that part of the North-
west Territories to be included in any province
to be established.
It may be that the government of Canada will
admit the principle contended for above on behalf of the people of the North-West
Territories
who may be included within the limits of any
province to be created, but will argue that it
will not be in accord with established public
policy for the Dominion to divest itself of the
ability, largely advertised abroad, to grant lands
to actual settlers upon almost nominal conditions. Such appears to have been the view
adopted in 1884 by the government of the day
with respect to certain similar representations
then made by the province of Manitoba. The
validity of the claim was admitted by the agreement to recompense the province for
the loss
of its public property. It is not deemed necessary, here, at this stage, to discuss
any such
proposition further than to point out the
one fact that, should the Dominion withhold
from the province, for the benefit of Canada
at large, the right to administer the public domain. within its boundaries and to
enjoy the
revenues therefrom. the addition of each new
settler, or—what experience has shown to practically almost amount to the same thing—the
opening up of each new settlement, will impose
a burden and financial strain upon the revenues
of the province altogether out of proportion to
any revenue derivable on account of such settler
or settlement, and one that can only be met
by an early appeal to extensive direct taxation.
Then he proceeds to deal with the expenditure per head in the different provinces
and to compare that expenditure with the
expenditure in the North-west Territories.
He continues as follows :
Without extravagance and in order to provide
for urgent public necessities, the per capita
rate of expenditure in the territories, had the
money been available, would have been between $6 and $7. This large rate of public
expenditure in the territories, as compared with
the rates of the eastern provinces, is entirely
attributable to the extraordinary increase in
expenditure due to the energy displayed by the
immigration branch of the Interior Department. While such energy is commendable from
the view point of Dominion interests, yet its
results place a great strain upon the finances
of the country, and it is, with all respect, urged that the exploitation of the public
domain
within the province to be established, in the
interests of the Dominion solely and entirely,
will place upon the province a burden too onerous to bear, and one which should properly
fall
where the benefits go.
On the 22nd of January, 1902, there was
an acknowledgment by the private secretary
of the right hon. Prime Minister of several
copies of this draft Bill for the use of his
colleagues. On the 22nd of March, 1902,
there was a letter from Mr. Sifton to Mr.
Haultain, which is found in sessioual paper
No. 116a, at page 4. I have already referred
to that in substance, so I need not deal with
it further. The next document is a telegram
from Mr. Sifton to Mr. Haultain appointing
a meeting between representatives of the two
governments, which is found in sessions]
paper No. 116a, page 7. And on the 11th of
February, in a letter which is found in the
same document, page 7, Mr. Haultain again
urges the question of provincial autonomy
13865 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13866
upon the attention of the Minister of the
Interior. He says, after referring to the
correspondence and the various reasons why
conferences have not been held : ' I should
like to ask the consideration by the subcommittee of Council of our provincial proposition.'
On the 19th of March, 1903, in a
letter, which is found in this same sessional
paper, page 13, Mr. Haultain, who had
come to Ottawa with his colleagues for the
purpose of a conference, had had a conference, and was waiting an answer, wrote the
Minister of the Interior as follows:
Rideau Club, Ottawa, March 19, 1903.
The Honourable Clifford Sifton,
Minister of the Interior, Ottawa.
As I have remained here for some days since
I last saw you, you may have written to
me to Regina with reference to the result of
the recent interview of Mr. Bulyea and myself
with the sub-committee of Council regarding
North-west affairs. In case no decision has yet
been arrived at or communicated to me, may I
ask you to let me have (addressed to Regina)
a final reply on behalf of the government to
our request for the creation of a province and
for larger financial assistance in the meantime.
F. W. G. HAULTAIN.
In answer to that, Mr. Sifton, on the 27th
of March telegraphed to Mr. Haultain at
Regina, as follows :
Ottawa, March 21, 1903.
Hon. F. W. G. Haultain,
Regina, Assa.
I sent a note over to the Rideau Club but
found you were gone. The question of your
financial arrangements was up for discussion
to-day, and Mr. Fielding will communicate with
you. The arrangement suggested will, I think,
prove reasonably satisfactory.
CLIFFORD SIFTON.
You will observe in Mr. Haultain's letter
a demand for an answer as to the important question of provincial autonomy which
had been discussed by representatives of his
government with the representatives of this
government. In fact this question had, so
to speak, been made a matter of state by
the appointment of a subcommittee of the
Privy Council for the purpose of considering
the status of the North-west Territories; and,
in reply to the demand of Mr. Haultain of the
19th of March for a final answer—and he
puts the question of provincial autonomy first
—he receives a telegram addressed to him at
Regina making some reference to important
financial arrangements, but containing not
a single word of reply to the demand of
the North-west Territories, presented through
their government, that a provincial status
should be accorded to the people of that
great western country. That, to say the
least of it, Mr. Speaker, seems a somewhat
casual and indifferent way of dealing with
a great question of this kind, which, although, apparently considered a small and
trifling matter by this government, is of
some importance to nearly 350,000 people
who at present inhabit our great west. Now,
the next letter is one from Mr. Haultain to
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which is not printed at
all in the correspondence brought down,
but a copy of which I have procured from
a document printed by the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories. I am
sorry that this return brought down to this
House is so very incomplete that hon. members who desire to consider this question
must refer to documents brought down to
the legislature of the North-west Territories
in order to find a complete record. Mr. Haultain, not satisfied with this somewhat
casual
and supercilious response from the Minister
of the Interior, wrote to Sir Wilfrid Laurier
on the 15th of April, 1903, after his return to
Regina. The letter is too long to quote in
full, but I will read one or two paragraphs :
I am inclosing a copy of a letter addressed to
Mr. Sifton for the information of the government to which I referred in my interview
with
the sub-committee, and which, no doubt, you
have already seen. It deals exclusively with
the question of provincial institutions in the
territories, and I will again, on behalf of my
colleagues, earnestly ask your consideration of'
our request.
Then, after dealing with the question of
finance, he concludes his letter with the
following words :
To sum up, I beg to ask for an early reply to
our requests, first for the granting of provincial institutions to the territories
: secondly,
for a vote supplementary to the North-west
grant for the current year, and, thirdly, for
a largely increased vote for the year 1903-4.
I have not observed in the correspondence
any reply by my right hon. friend to that
letter of Mr. Haultain's, unless we find it
in a letter dated the 8th of June. The
next communication in connection with the
North-west government is to be found in
sessional paper No. 116a, at page 13. It is
in the form of a telegram from the Minister of Finance to Mr. Haultain, the Premier
of the North-west Territories, and is as
follows :
Ottawa, April 16, 1903.
To the Hon. Mr. F. W. G. Haultain, Regina.
Government will place in supplementary estimates for coming year two hundred and fifty
thousand dollars to cover the over-expenditure
of the territories, and also recommend to parliament an advance on capital account
up to
$500,000 from time to time for approved public
works. The two bridges which have been
specially arranged for to be charged to the
capital advance. It will be better that all
bridges in the territories be left to the territorial government. Please treat this
as confidential for a day or two until I can arrange
to have it dealt with by Order in Council.
W. S. FIELDING.
You will observe here again that there is
not a single word of response to the demand
of Mr. Haultain made to the Prime Minister
and to the Minister of the Interior over and
over again, that the demand of the Northwest Territories for a provincial status
should be considered by the government and
13867
COMMONS 13868
an answer given forthwith. I might say,
in passing, that I have not been able to find
in the correspondence brought down the letter from Mr. Haultain to the Minister of
the
Interior, which is referred to in Mr. Haultain's letter to the Prime Minister of the
15th of April, 1903. It may be that on account
of the confused condition in which this correspondence has been brought down I have
overlooked it. The next letter to which I
invite the attention of the House is that of
Mr. Haultain to the Minister of Finance, of
the 20th of April, 1903, which is found in
sessional paper 116a, page 14. I will have
to trouble the House with a couple of paragraphs of this letter, which is a very long
one. After quoting certain correspondence
which had taken place, Mr. Haultain proceeds as follows :
It is with much satisfaction that I note that the
government has so far appreciated the position
of affairs in the territories as to approve, in the
most practical manner possible, of our methods
of administration by providing for the expenditures we found it necessary to incur
in the public interest during the year 1902. It would appear, however, to have escaped
your observation
that the placing of the appropriation to cover our
expenditures of last year in the supplementary
estimates for the coming Dominion fiscal year
will have the effect of keeping the money from
the territorial revenue until after the first day of
July next. All the representations we have made
—both written and oral--have been to the effect
that the supplementary appropriation is desired
to the current fiscal year's appropriations, so
that the money may be rendered available at
the earliest possible moment. To do otherwise
can only embarrass us still further, and I would
submit that with a prospective surplus of thirteen million dollars, to a very large
extent due
to the present flourishing condition of these territories, the Dominion will not be
put to any
very serious inconvenience by granting us the
money it has been agreed to give us during the
month of May instead of July. I trust that upon
further consideration of the subject you will see
your way clear to recommending the government to grant our request that the $250,000
referred to in your telegram be provided for
through the supplementary estimates for 1902-3.
Your telegram makes no mention whatever of
any proposal to increase our grant for the coming fiscal year. I take it that the
suggested advance on capital account has no connection whatever with that subject.
In discussing the various
phases of the question of territorial finances, it
has been found necessary at times to point out
that our limited and inadequate revenues were
more restricted, and rendered only more inadequate, by the necessity for making expenditures
out of current income which in themselves
were more properly chargeable to a capital account. That is to say, we have occasionally
found
it necessary to incur heavy expenditures for the
construction of bridges the cost of which has
been a heavy drain upon our revenues, and which
should have been spread over a series of years
instead of being provided for out of the revenue
of one year, to the exclusion of other and equally
important works. But we have never asked for
the establishment of a capital account, and we
do not wish for the establishment of such an
account until a more satisfactory subsidy or
annual grant is provided. We would even prefer, if possible. to postpone all discussion
of the
question until the details of the financial position of the territories under the
provincial status are settled. Whilst the Dominion retains to
itself the control and beneficiary interest in our
revenue producing property it seems but fair
to us that the Dominion should provide all
needed funds for the proper carrying on of our
business. Further, we cannot assent to any
proposition that our expenditures shall be subject to approval at Ottawa. The legislative
assembly of the territories has for a number of
years been providing for the administration of
public affairs in the territories. What has been
done in that regard has met with the approval
of the people of the territories, and this government cannot consent, at this date
to any such
proposal as that made in your telegram. In one
sense, I quite agree with you that ' it will be
better that all bridges in territories be left to
the territorial government,' but that proposition must be coupled with another, namely, that
adequate financial provision therefor be made
by parliament. The Dominion government in the
first place built the two bridges at Macleod and
Lethbridge without reference to the government
of the territories. It was possible that at the
time they were built it was not practicable to
do so, but the fact remains that, in pursuance
of its general public works policy, the Dominion government built the two bridges
in question
and has undertaken to replace them. Under
existing conditions, which the Dominion government does not appear to wish to remedy,
we
are content to leave that matter as it stands at
present.
Then he deals with similar matters at
great length, and he concludes his letter
with the following paragraph :
I trust that the further consideration of this
whole subject, promised in your telegram of this
date, will result in some more definite recognition of our necessities than has hitherto
been
evidenced. The one, and the best solution of all
these difficulties has, on several occasions of
late, been suggested to the Dominion government, and it seems to me that I might well
close this communication by an expression of
the opinion that just so long as the provincial
status is withheld from the territories will it
be necessary for the government of the territories to direct attention with increasing
force
and emphasis to the present unsatisfactory manner of making financial provision for
the public
requirements of the country.
Now, that was followed up by a resolution of the legislative assembly of the
North-west Territories. But before dealing
with that, I might say that on the 20th of
April, 1903, the Prime Minister replied to
Mr. Haultain's letter of the 15th of April,
in the following terms :
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your
favour of the 15th instant, as Mr. Fielding has
communicated with you already by wire on the
subject therein mentioned, I do not suppose that
it requires any further reply.
So the House will observe that not only
did the Minister of Finance ignore absolutely the demands of Mr. Haultain for an
answer to the request of the territories for
provincial institutions, but my right hon.
friend, by referring to the Finance Minister's answer, expressed himself in exactly
the same way. On the 24th of April. 1903,
13896 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13870
by resolution found in sessional paper 116a,
pages 20 and 21, the legislative assembly of
the North-west Territories again passed a
resolution in almost exactly similar terms to
their resolution of 1900. They declare in
paragraphs 8 to 10 :
8. And whereas under the several authorities
so given the parliament of Canada has created
political institutions in these territories bearing
a close analogy to those which exist in the
several provinces of the Dominion ;
9. And whereas by the confederation compact
the province which formed the Dominion on the
fifteenth day of July, 1870, were furnished with
the means of carrying on local self-government
upon certain well defined bases ;
10. And whereas the territories, being an integral part of the Dominion, and having
had
imposed upon them the duties and obligations
incidental to the political institutions which have
been given to them and said duties and obligations the parliament of Canada has declared
its
willingness to assume, are entitled to such federal assistance for their maintenance
as will
bear due proportion and analogy to that given
to other portions of the Dominion for similar
purposes.
Then a further paragraph deals with the
question of finances, and paragraphs 14 and
15, concluding this memorial, are in the
same terms as those I have already read to
the House as part of the resolution of 1900.
On the 2nd of June Mr. Haultain addressed
a further letter to the right hon. Prime
Minister which will be found in sessional
paper 116a page 16. After referring to the
correspondence which had passed between
them he proceeds as follows :
In further reference to your letter of April
20, I beg to point out that Mr. Fielding's telegram does not deal with the most important
part of my letter of April 16, namely our request for provincial institutions, and
I would
most respectfully urge that our representations
on this important question merit some further
reply than can be gathered by implication from
the fact that Mr. Fielding does not refer to
them.
Mr. Haultain had been pressing for some
definite answer in regard to this matter
from the month of March of that year. During that period he had written a great many
times to the Minister of the Interior, he
had written to the hon. Minister of Finance,
he had written to the right hon. Prime
Minister himself, and the only answer he
ever got from any of these hon. gentlemen
was a reference to some other gentleman, or
a telegram of a somewhat casual character
in which he was told that certain financial
arrangements with the North-west Territories would be provided for by a grant
during the present year. It does seem to
me that the Premier of the North-west Territories, a gentleman representing a constituency
of something over 350,000 people, might
have been answered by any one of these
three gentlemen to whom I have referred in
a somewhat more formal manner than that
which characterized the correspondence
that I have read. On the 8th June Sir Wilfrid Laurier wrote to Mr. Haultain. The
letter has not been printed at all as far as I
can ascertain, but I have secured a typewritten copy of it. I repeat again my deep
regret that the returns to which I have
referred have come down in so incomplete
a condition as to impose an enormous amount
of labour on any man who desires to trace
the sequence of this correspondence. I
had better read the whole of the letter as
it is important :
Privy Council, Canada,
Ottawa, June 8, 1903.
Hon. F. W. G. Haultain,
Regina,
Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 2nd inst. The
Minister of Finance has, by this time, communicated with you respecting the financial
grant to be given to the North-West legislature.
With regard to your further request that
legislation be introduced this session conferring on the territories full provincial
organization. I have had the honour to discuss
the matter with the members of the House
of Commons from the territories. I have asked
them to consider whether it would be advisable
to have such legislation introduced this year.
We are, as you know, introducing a redistribution measure at the present session,
and we are
giving to the territories a much larger representation in the House of Commons than
they
would be entitled to, were they to become a
province. In fact the Bill which we have
introduced allows to the territories a representation in the House of Commons of ten
members. Were they to be admitted at once
as a province they would be entitled to only
six members. It would be a question of extreme difficulty and complications to give
to
the territories at the same time all the advantages of full provincial organization
without the corresponding disadvantages.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) WILFRID LAURIER.
Well, my right hon. friend has at last
given a reply to the Prime Minister of the
territories and it does not seem to me to
be a reply which ought to carry very great
weight. He does not take up any of the
reasons for delay which have been urged
during the past two sessions by the hon.
Minister of the Interior. The right hon.
Prime Minister in this letter confines himself almost entirely to the fact that under
the Redistribution Bill which was introduced during the present session the territories
are to receive a representation of ten members, whereas, if we went strictly on population,
they would be entitled to only six
members. Is that really an answer to the demand of these people that they should be
accorded a provincial status ? It is not an
answer, certainly, even if the contention
could be supported for a moment. It could
not be supported for a moment, because,
the right hon. gentleman only yesterday admitted that it would be fair to regard the
territories as having a population of over
300,000 and as the unit of population for Can
ada is something less than 25,000, if the
13871
COMMONS 13872
territories were created into a province today they would be entitled to twelve members
instead of ten members. Therefore, I
do not think there is very much force in the
suggestion that my right hon. friend has
made. I want to point out to my right hon.
friend and to the House, that, if you create
the North-west Territories into a province
or provinces, you are not bound by the
census of 1901. The very fact of your giving
them ten members is evidence that you are
not bound by the census of 1901. If you are
bound by the census of 1901 the Territories
would receive only six members, but you
have a perfect right under the legislation
that exists at the present time to give them
twelve members. I believe from the statement of the Prime Minister himself that the
North-west Territories have now a population which entitles them to twelve members
instead of ten members. Therefore, if you
organize them into a province they would
not be under a disadvantage such as my
right hon. friend has suggested. Ou the contrary, if you do justice to them and
create them into a province to-morrow, you
will be obliged from the facts that are
patent to the government and to the people, to give to the North-west Territories
twelve representatives in parliament instead
of ten. Premier Haultain replied to that
letter of the 15th of June, and as I have read
the whole of the letter to the Prime Minister,
I had better read the whole of Mr. Haultain's letter in reply :
Regina, June 15, 1903.
Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the eighth instant,
relating to the question of provincial institutions
in the territories, and to express regret on
the part of the North-west government that
that question has again been put on one side
for a reason which seems quite foreign to the
subject.
With all deference to the opinion expressed
by you, I cannot see that the representation
proposed to be given to the territories under
the Redistribution Bill could be in any way
affected by the passing of concurrent legislation granting the provincial status to
the territories.
The provisions of the British North America
Act relating to representation would not, I
submit, apply to a province which, at the
earliest, could only come into existence at the
same time as the Redistribution Bill became
law. Even if legislation creating a province were
introduced at the present session of parliament, the actual coming into existence
of the
province would necessarily be postponed for
some months to enable territorial affairs to be
wound up, and thus any question with regard
to representation and the effect of the British
North America Act would be removed. I
might also remind you that upon the admission
of British Columbia into the confederation and
upon the creation of the province of Manitoba
larger representation was given than these two
provinces were respectively entitled to under the
British North America Act.
You say that you have discussed the question of provincial organization with the members
of the House of Commons from the terri
tories and asked them to consider whether it
would be advisable to have such legislation introduced this year. Your letter does
not make
it clear what the opinion of these gentlemen
is, but I feel justified in asserting that that
opinion was not in accord with the wishes of
the people they represent unless it supported
the claims made by us which are unanimously
endorsed by the North-west Legislature, and
were practically unanimously endorsed by the
people of the North-west Territories, at the
general elections in May, 1902. The question of
larger representation in the federal parliament
is without doubt an important one, but the infinitely more urgent question of provincial
organization should not be subordinated to it.
The two questions are quite separate and independent, and cannot, I think I have shown,
affect one another. Under any circumstances,
however, the obtaining of provincial powers is
in our opinion of much greater importance to
the people of the territories than additional
representation in a parliament whose failure
to fulfil the duties and obligations it has assumed with regard to the North-west
is one of
our strongest reasons for demanding home rule.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sdg.) F.W.G. HAULTAIN.
I forgot to mention in connection with the
reply of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that he did also adduce as a reason
why
the provincial status should not be given to
the people of the North-west Territories
the fact that the members from territories,
who are all supporters of the government,
were opposed to doing anything with regard to that matter during the present
session. That may or may not be a good
reason, and I offer no opinion as to Mr.
Haultain's comments upon that, except to
say—
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). Will my hon.
friend let me finish the sentence ?
Mr. OLIVER. Might I ask the hon.
gentleman to read from the letter of the
Prime Minister in which he made that statement?
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). I will read it
later. I am dealing with it as Mr. Haultain interpreted it. I make no comment
on that, except to say that if Mr. Haultain
is to be believed—and he gives reasons why
he should be believed—the opinion of these
gentlemen, if it is their opinion, does not
seem to be in accord with the opinion of
the majority of the people of the North-west
Territories. I do not presume to have the
same knowledge of political matters in the
North-west which is possessed by my hon.
friends who represent the territories in this
House, but I know that in 1900 a resolution
demanding that this question should be
taken up at once, was passed by the territorial legislature. I have understood—if
I
am wrong in this I would like to be corrected—that Mr. Haultain went to the people
of the North-west Territories in 1902
13873 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13874
upon the platform that provincial autonomy
and a provincial status should be granted
forthwith, that going to the people upon
that platform, he practically swept the constituencies, and that very few of those
who
were opposed to this government on that question were returned to the assembly. I
have
understood that the legislature of the Northwest Territories to-day is practically
unanimous upon that point. I have been so informed by those who profess to know the
views of the members of the legislature.
However, I have not the same acquaintance with political matters there as have
the gentlemen who represent the territories
in this House, and if I am wrong on that
point I shall be glad indeed that these gentlemen shall set me right. My hon. friend
from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) desired me to
read again a paragraph from the letter of
the Prime Minister, and I will gladly do so.
With regard to your further request that
legislation be introduced this session conferring on the territories full provincial
organization, I have had the honour to discuss the
matter with the members of the House of
Commons from the territories. I have asked
them to consider whether it would be advisable to have such legislation introduced
this
year. We are as you know introducing a redistribution measure at the present session
and
we are giving to the territories a much larger
representation in the House of Commons than
they would be entitled to were they to become a province. In fact the Bill which we
have introduced, allows to the territories a
representation in the House of Commons of
10 members. Were they to be admitted at once
as a province they would be entitled only to six
members. It would be a question of extreme
difficulty and complications to give to the territories at the same time all the advantages
of
full provincial organization without the corresponding disadvantages.
My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) is quite right
in suggesting—if he intended to make that
suggestion—that there is no direct statement
in the letter of the Prime Minister that it
was the opinion of the hon. members from
the territories that such legislation should
not be introduced this year, but the inference that has been drawn by Mr. Haultain
is the only possible inference. It is this;
that the Prime Minister, having consulted
with these gentlemen, and having come to
the conclusion that it would not be advisable
to introduce legislation this year, they must
have been of the opinion which the Prime
Minister expresses in this letter.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). Otherwise, of
course, the Prime Minister would be consulting these hon. gentlemen as a matter of
form, and knowing that these are gentlemen of strong opinions, and quite capable
of pressing on the Prime Minister of Canada or any one else the opinions which they
strongly hold, we can hardly believe that
the Prime Minister would conclude not to
introduce a measure this year, unless their
opinion had practically coincided with his
own on that point. The only other letter to
which I will refer, is a letter from Mr. Bulyea, one of the ministers of the North-west
Territories government, to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, dated the 16th of June, 1903 ; it
is found
at page 18, sessional paper 116a, and is as
follows :
You will please excuse the liberty I take in
addressing you, if it is a liberty to lay before
you facts that I consider will be of material
influence on the welfare of the Liberal party
in the North-west Territories.
You are, of course, cognizant of all the representations that the territorial government
have made in reference to increase of the
financial assistance that is voted to us from
time to time, and the arguments that have been
advanced why a material increase is absolutely
necessary, if the alternative of provincial autonomy were not granted to us. I have
had
considerable correspondence with the federal
members representing the territories, who were
kind enough to apprize me of the general representations they had made to your government,
and I advised them that I consider that
if such were adopted it would reasonably satisfy the general public in the territories,
and
would put your candidates and your supporters
in the coming election in a position in which
they could fight with zeal and, I am pleased to
say, with every prospect of success.
The supplementary grant, and the addition to
the main vote, while not as much as we asked
for, will be of very material assistance to me
in the work of my department as Commissioner
of Public Works. The capital advance tendered
is also needed for the construction of the large
and permanent structures that must be completed to meet the requirements of the large
influx of settlers into the country.
I regret to say, however, that not only as a
member of the territorial government, but as a
citizen of the North-west Territories, I must
dissent most strongly from the proposition to
charge up against this vote the large expenditure of $84,000 which is purely and simply
for
the reconstruction of two federal public works,
viz:—the bridges over the Old Men's and Belly
rivers, erected by the late Conservative government.
Then he deals with certain details as to
these two bridges, and he concludes his letter
with the following paragraph :
I trust, therefore, that you will see the necessity of meeting the reasonable views
not only
of the North-west government but of your
friends who are members of the territorial assembly, and who uphold unanimously our
government in claiming that the territories are
entitled to have these federal structures replaced at the general expense of the Dominion
of Canada.
                    GEO. H. V. BULYEA.
A number of members of the legislative
assembly sign an approval of that letter in
the following words :—
The undersigned members of the legislative assembly strongly approve of the tenor
of the
above letter :—
13875
COMMONS 13876
George W. Brown. Â P. Talbot.
L. Geo. de Veter. B. Prince
J. W. Woolf. Â R. A. Wallace.
W. J. Finley. Â J. A. Simpson.
C. A. Fisher. A. S. Rosenroll.
A. D. McIntyre. Thos. Macnutt
Charles Fisher. Alex. C. Rutherford.
A. S. Smith.
I have detained the House with the correspondence at this length principally for
these reasons : In the first place, to show
that this has been a live question in
the North-west Territories since the year
1900 at least ; in the second place, to
show that it has been the subject of considerable correspondence between the territorial
government and this government, that
a sub-committee of the Privy Council has
been appointed to deal with it, and that representatives of the territorial government
have conferred with that committee; in the
third place, to show the reasons on account
of which this government has declined to
act upon the memorial twice forwarded to
His Excellency by the legislature of the
North-west Territories, urging upon this
government that provincial status should be
granted ; and in the fourth place, to prove
by the statement of the Prime Minister of
the North-west Territories and by the resolution passed by its legislature that the
people of the North-west Territories are
almost unanimous in their demand that the
provincial status should be granted to them.
I shall deal very briefly—because I
have taken up the time of the House
longer than I intended—I shall deal very
briefly with some of the objections which
have been raised against granting a
provincial status to the territories. In
the first place, there is the objection
which has been already adverted to in
the letters of Mr. Haultain, that the population of the territories is increasing
at a
more rapid rate than the population of the
older provinces. I say, as I have several
times before said in this House, and as Mr.
Haultain has said in his correspondence, that
if this is to debar the North-west Territories from obtaining a provincial status,
then
we must deprive them of provincial status
during the next ten or fifteen years. That
reason would deprive them of a provincial
status after they have a population of a
million people—after they have a population
three or four times, possibly five or six
times, that of some of the provinces of
Canada which have enjoyed representative
institutions for many years.
In the next place, the objection was made
—it was made by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior last year, and I think
also in some of the correspondence—that
with a continually increasing population it
will be difficult to arrange a permanent
financial basis. So far as that is concerned.
it is one of the difficulties which you must
meet in granting a provincial status to the
people of the North-west Territories. It is
impossible to believe that the population of
those territories will not increase at an
enormously rapid rate during the next ten,
or fifteen, or twenty years ; and if that fact
is to afford an insuperable difficulty in
arranging a permanent financial basis,
then we shall have the people of the Northwest Territories treated, to a certain extent,
as wards of this county for a great
many years to come. I do not believe the
difficulty is insuperable. After you have
arrived at a conclusion that the people of
that country are entitled to a provincial
status, why cannot this government, as
demanded by the government of the territories, at once appoint a committee for
conference with that government ? And
what reason is there for saying that it is
impossible to find a basis which, on the one
hand, will be just and fair so far as Canada is concerned, and, on the other hand,
will give the people of the North-west Territories such an increase in the financial
assistance to be obtained from the Dominion
as the needs of their rapidly increasing
population will from time to time demand
at our hands ? I do not conceal from myself that the question is attended with difficulties
; but I suppose that almost every
question of this kind is attended with some
difficulties. The confederation of this Dominion was not unattended with difficulties.
On the contrary, it was accompanied with
difficulties tenfold greater than any of those
which in the present case are considered
so formidable. Those difficulties were
overcome, and we have today a great
Dominion as a result of the courage and
the wisdom of the men who undertook
to grapple with those difficulties ; and
all we require, it seems to me, is a
certain amount of courage and capacity to
be devoted to this question, and some means
can be found by which justice can be done
to the territories in that regard, and at the
same time no injustice will be done to the
people of Canada as a whole.
The next point which has been made has
been referred to by my right hon. friend
during the present session. If I may be
permitted to refer to his language, in speaking a few days ago of the powers which
are possessed by the people of the Northwest Territories, and overlooking for the
moment many of the differences which exist between their status and the status of
the provinces, he used this language:
They are as free as any of us, but have not
the power to borrow money, and perhaps it is
as well to keep that power in abeyance in a
young country like that.
My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, during the past session, used somewhat
similar language ('Hansard,' page
3110) :
If they had the power to mortgage that territory for all time to come, which they
would
have if they were granted provincial powers, it
might be mortgaged for very unwise and very
unnecessary purposes. In saying this, I wish to
guard against the imputation of saying that the
13877 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13878
people of the North-west Territories are not
as capable of taking care of themselves and doing their own business as any others.
I do not share the apprehensions of my
right hon. friend and of the Minister of the
Interior with regard to these people. In
the first place, although I have not the
knowledge of them which is possessed by
my hon. friends from that country who sit
in this House, nevertheless I have some acquaintance with many of them from
having made a tour through that country
during the past year ; and I am prepared to
say that if there is any body of people in
Canada who would wisely administer a
public domain entrusted to them, it is the
people of the North-west Territories ; because I found in every meeting which I addressed
in that country that the people were
strongly imbued with the idea that the public domain should be conserved for public
purposes, and not handed over to corporations and promoters. I believe that feeling
is very deep and very widespread in the
North-west Territories ; and a feeling of
that kind is absolutely inconsistent with the
possibility that if the public domain were
entrusted to them, and they were granted
the power to incur debt, they would be likely to use either the one power or the other
in such a way as would not inure to the
public interest of that country or of Canada
as a whole. Who are those people who inhabit the North-west ? Why, up to the
present year, they have been largely the
same people who have been sending representatives from the older provinces of Canada—people
of exactly the same type, having
the same political training, accustomed to
the same representative institutions ; and
why is it that Mr. John Smith, living in the
eastern provinces of Canada, is to be entrusted with the right to borrow money for
public purposes, and the same gentleman,
when he removes to the North-west Territories, finds himself classed in a different
category ? I do not understand any such
argument as that : and I do not believe any
ordinary citizen of this country, going from
eastern Canada to the north-west of Canada,
will be so influenced by the fact that there
is a great public domain in that country
that he will be induced either to borrow
money or to alienate the public domain to
any unwise extent or for any unwise purpose.
Then, we have now another element coming into the North-west Territories—an element
from the great country to the south
of us. Are we to have any apprehension
with regard to the attitude of these people
on a question of that kind ? They are people who are accustomed to practically the
same representative institutions as those concluding I shall trouble the House With
enjoyed by the people of Canada, They are people who, I believe, for the most part,
take a deep interest in public affairs ; and I believe that any of those people will
take at once as deep an interest in the proper administration of the public affairs
of
this country as any citizen of Canada in
the east or the west. I was particularly
struck with the interest which some of these
people took in the country. I was struck
with the fact that before they emigrated to
this country they took the pains, some of
them at least, to ascertain what were the
laws with regard to the schools. They
wished to know whether their children
would have the advantage of public schools
or not ; and they evinced an interest in
the administration of the public affairs of
the country which, I think, indicates that
we might safely entrust to them, as well as
to our own people from the east, who, with
their descendants, are in that country, the
management of their own local affairs. Under these circumstances, it does not seem
to me that the reason that has been suggested is a good reason. And where are we to
draw the limit ? If 350,000 people in the
North—west Territories cannot be entrusted
to borrow money, are you to entrust that
power to half a million or to a million ?
What number will afford any reasonable
degree of safety ? I see no reason for withholding that power from 350,000 people
and
granting it to half a million or a million.
It is within the bounds of extreme probability that the North-west Territories of
Canada will have well nigh one-half a million people before provincial autonomy can
be accomplished if it is undertaken at
once. Therefore there is no good reason
why the government should stay its hand ;
there is no good reason, I believe why
during this present session the government should have stayed its hand. Is there
any objection to granting to the people of
the North-west Territories the power to
charter railway companies, telegraph companies, telephone companies and steamship
lines ? That power is possessed by the people of Manitoba who dwell alongside of
them ; in what respect are the people of
Manitoba better able to say whether or
not a railway company shall be chartered
than are the people of the North-west Territories who are separated from them only
by an imaginary line ? I see no force in any
suggestion that in respect of powers of that
kind the people of the North-west Territories
should not be placed on exactly the same
plane as the people of eastern Canada.
The people of the North-west Territories
contend, and it seems to me they fairly contend, that upon the conceding of a provincial
status they should be given control of their
lands and minerals. Objections have been
raised to this ; I shall refer to one of them.
The Premier of the North-west Territories
touched upon this subject in his speech to
which I have already referred and before
concluding I shall trouble the House with
a quotation from his remarks. I believe
the argument against granting to the people of the North-west Territories the right
to control their own lands is based on the
theory that Canada as a whole and not the
people of the North-west Territories are en
13879
COMMONS 13880
titled to a proprietary interest in those lands,
and that, therefore those lands should
be reserved for the people of Canada, including the eastern provinces, and should
not be committed to the people of the Northwest Territories to be administered by
them.
I have already considered the wisdom or
unwisdom of conceding this power to the
people of the North-west Territories so far
as the likelihood of their making an unwise
use of that power is concerned and I shall
not repeat my argument as to that ; but I
say that the arguments used to-day in Canada with regard to lands in the North-west
Territories are precisely the arguments used
by English statesmen of forty or fifty
years ago with regard to the public lands
of Canada as a whole, and of the
colonies generally. I had occasion to
look carefully into this question some two
or three years ago and I went into it
somewhat fully in an address which I delivered in the town of Lindsay in this province.
I pointed out on that occasion, what
I believe to be the fact, that if the policy
of certain British statesmen had been persevered in, and if the lands of Canada and
of the other colonies had been administered
from Downing Street instead of by the colonies, such friction and dissatisfaction
would
have been created that it is more than probable that Canada and some of the other
colonies would before this have severed their
connection with the mother country, I see
no reason why the views which prevailed
eventually and which reseulted in giving
to Canada the absolute control of her
own public lands are not just as forcible arguments to-day in the mouths of the
people of the North-west Territories I have
under my hand in the speech of Mr. Haul-
tain the arguments of British statesmen of
days gone by. Let me refer to one or two of
them and you will see that they are exactly
in line with the views of those who hold
that the public lands in the North-west
Territories should be retained by Canada.
Lord Durham in his report said :
The country which has founded and maintained
these colonies at a vast expenditure of blood and
treasure may justly expect its compensation in
turning their unappropriated resources to the
account of its own redundant population : they
are the rightful patrimony of the English people, the ample appanage, which God and
nature
have set aside in the new world, for those whose
lot has assigned them an insufficient portion in
the old. . . . . Under wise and free institutions these great advantages may yet be
secured
to Your Majesty's subjects, and a connection,
secured by the link of kindred origin and mutual
benefits, may continue to bind to the British
empire the ample territories of its North
American provinces, and the large and flourishing population by which they will assuredly
be
filled.
Then Lord Grey, later on, used the following language :
The waste lands of the vast colonial possessions of the British empire are held by
the
Crown, as trustee for the inhabitants of that
empire at large, and not for the inhabitants of
the particular province, divided by arbitrary
geographical limits, in which any such waste
land happens to be situate. Otherwise the consequence would follow that the other
inhabitants
of these vast provinces (if possessing these representative institutions which arise
as of right in
ordinary British colonies) are indefeasibly entitled to administer all the lands and
land revenue of the great unexplored tract called a
province and of which they may occupy an extremity, wholly without regard to the nation
which has founded the settlement, perhaps at
great expense, in order to serve as a home for
her own emigrants and a market for her own
industry.
Mr. Haultain also referred to a very
valuable work, which is in the library here,
the work of Mr. Egerton. He quoted from
Mr. Egerton as follows :
It was, however, when it became necessary
to translate these admirable theories into practice that the real difficulties began.
In the case
of Canada these difficulties proved insurmountable.
And later on Mr. Egerton says :
We have already seen that all English statesmen started with the firm intention to
control
the Crown lands in the hands of the mother
country, but the practical difficulties in the way
proved insurmountable.
Mr. Haultain, in his speech, referred to the
policy of the mother country in later years
and particularly to what was done when
a constitution was given to the colony of
West Australia in 1890. The policy of the
British government in later years, where
representative institutions have been conferred on a colony, is to give to the colony
absolute control of its own lands and not to
seek to administer those lands from London.
The same policy was pursued by those who
prepared the Canadian Confederation Act.
The provinces were given the control of their
own public lands in almost every respect.
The province of Nova Scotia has control of
its Crown lands and of its mines and minerals. The same rule prevails in Quebec,
Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island. In the province of Manitoba the
lands are still administered, I believe, by
the Dominion, but some compensation was
made to that province when it received a
constitution and I believe that since the
erection of the province—although my friend
from Manitoba will know this better than
I do—the swamp lands have been entrusted
to the administration of the province and I
am under the impression, although am not
sure, that any revenue derived from the
administration of these swamp lands belongs
to the province. I am correct in that, am
I not ?
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). Is there any
more reason why a man in the North-west
Territories who desires to apply for a grant
of land, should have to deal with the government at Ottawa than a citizen of the
13881 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13882/fw>
province of Nova Scotia should be required
to come to Ottawa when he desires to make
an application for a mining lease ? Is there
any reason why matters of this kind should
not be under the control of the local government ? Has any danger or any injury accrued
to the public interest in the province
of Ontario, in the province of Quebec, or
in the maritime provinces on account of the
powers of self-government which have been
granted to those provinces in this respect ?
The North-west Territories are not the only
part of Canada containing great areas of
surplus lands that may be filled with an
enormous population in the future.
I am told by a gentleman holding a high
position in the public affairs of the province
of Quebec that in that great province there
are 75,000,000 of acres of the best land in
the world, which will be settled and will
support an enormous population one day.
The province of Quebec administers these
lands. Immigration from foreign countries
promoted by this government may come
to settle on these lands. And yet, while the
lands are controlled absolutely by the province of Quebec under their own local powers
of self-government, the lands of the
North-west Territories are controlled by this
government through the Department of the
Interior. We have heard a great deal lately
of New Ontario, and no one can doubt that
there is a splendid country in Ontario that
will be filled up with a fine population one
of these days, or that immigration will be
brought from foreign countries to new Ontario. The lands of that country are administered
by the people of Ontario through
their local government, while, in contrast
with that, the people of the North-west Territories have their lands administered
at
Ottawa by this government, through the
Department of the Interior.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). I think I stated
that, except that I pointed out, as Mr. Haultain has pointed out, that the people
of
Manitoba received a certain compensation,
I believe for their lands at the time the
province was constituted. Further than
that, a portion of the lands at least have
been handed over to the control of the
province since it was organized. And, so
far as the province of Manitoba is concerned, I know of no good reason why any
lands that remain to be administered in that
province should not be administered by the
local government instead of by this government. If the principle is good for the
North-west Territories, I admit it is also
good for the province of Manitoba. In matters of this kind, I do not think we should
shrink from going the full length. If the
people of Ontario, of Quebec and of the maritime provinces can properly administer
their
lands through their own local government,
I say the people of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories are just as capable of
ad
ministering their lands through their own
local government, and they can better administer them than can this central government
at Ottawa. Now, Mr. Haultain refers
to some difficulties that might be suggested,
with regard to immigration. I suppose he
refers to homestead entries and matters of
that kind. These questions would have to
be dealt with between this government and
the government of the territories. I believe that reasonable provisions could be
made with the people of the North-west Territories which would ensure to the people
of the country as a whole that there would
be no restriction of immigration by reason
of any dealing by the North-west Territories, with their own lands. The people of
the North-west Territories are more
interested than any one else in Canada
in having these lands taken up and occupied, in having the country settled, and
in the prosperity that would follow a great
flood of immigration into that country. So
far as that question is concerned, it has been
suggested by Mr. Haultain, I believe, that
it would not be incapable of solution, and
that it could be settled satisfactorily not
only to the people as a whole, but to the
people of the North-west Territories.
I think I have dealt, though very briefly,
with the principal objections which have
been pointed out in the correspondence and
in the speeches of the right hon. the Prime
Minister and the Minister of the Interior in
dealing with this question. I say in conclusion that, the people of the North-west
Territories are practically unanimous on this
question, that their government is urgent on
this question, and as the matter has had the
consideration of this government for at least
two years and a half, there seems no good
reason why active steps should not be taken
for the purpose of giving to these people
the rights of local self-government to which
they are, I believe, justly entitled. I apprehend no injury, no danger, to the people
of this country from taking that course.
On the other hand, I believe the adoption
of that course will tend to remove and
obviate friction and dissatisfaction among
these people which, however, will prevail
and continue if we longer withhold from
them those complete rights which the people of the eastern provinces enjoy, and
which the people of the west, I believe,
could exercise just as prudently and as well
as the people of any province in Canada.
Therefore, I move :
That all the words after the Word ' That ' in
the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted therefor :—
'By humble addresses of the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories of
Canada
to His Excellency the Governor General, in the
year 1900 and again in the year 1903, the said
legislative assembly did humbly represent and
pray (inter alia) to His Excellency as follows :—
'14. Therefore, be it resolved, that an humble address to His Excellency the Governor
13883
COMMONS 13884
General be adopted by this House praying him
that he will be pleased to cause the fullest inquiry to be made into the position
of the territories, financial and otherwise, and to cause
such action to be taken as will provide for
their present and immediate welfare and good
government, as well as the due fulfilment of
the duties and obligations of government and
legislation assumed, with respect to these territories, by the parliament of Canada.
' 15. And be it further resolved, that, whereas
by the British North America Act, 1871, it was
(amongst other things) enacted that the parliament of Canada may from time to time
establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the
Dominion of
Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment,
make provision for the constitution and administration of . . . . such province, His
Excellency be also prayed to order inquiries to be
made and accounts taken with a view to the
settlement of the terms and conditions upon
which the territories or any part thereof shall
be established as a province, and that before
any such province is established opportunity
should be given to the people of the territories
through their accredited representatives of
considering and discussing such terms and conditions.'
That under the provision of the British
North America Act and amending Acts the people of the several provinces of Canada
enjoy
large powers of local self-government committed to and exercised by the executive
and
the legislature of each province.
That the time has arrived when the same
powers of local self-government should be
granted to the people of the North-west Territories of Canada and to this end the
said representations and prayer contained in the said
humble addresses should be taken into immediate consideration and acted upon forthwith.
I know that there are many matters of
detail which will have to be dealt with when
this question comes to be considered. These
matters of detail will have to be arranged
by conference between representatives of
this government and representatives of the
people of the North-west Territories. For
the present, the proposition which I desire
to place before the House and the country
is this—that the time has arrived when the
same power of local self-government should
be granted to the people of the North-west
Territories as that enjoyed by the people
of the older provinces of Canada, and that
fills government, in compliance with the
prayer of the legislature of the North-west
Territories twice repeated, should take immediately, without any further delay whatever,
such steps as may be necessary to
accomplish that purpose, which I believe,
to be not only a wise but a just one.
Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta). The
North-west Territories are certainly to be
congratulated on having received so much
recognition from the leader of the opposition
on this occasion, and from his followers.
The people of the west will no doubt with
great satisfaction hear of the interest he has
taken and of the arguments he has made in
their behalf. As one of the representatives
of the territories in parliament, I can assure
the House that it is with great pleasure and
satisfaction I heard him take the stand he
has taken to-night. I hope he is not alone,
and that the gentlemen who sit behind him
take as great a degree of interest as he
has taken on this occasion. It has struck
me however, and I think it will strike the
people of the territories as well, that possibly there would have been a more definite
and satisfactory result from the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite had the
leader of the opposition spoken sooner. This
is not a new question ; as he has intimated.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). Would my hon.
friend permit me to make a statement in
regard to that ? It was not until after we
began the debate on the Transcontinental
Railway Bill that the papers to which I
have been referring to-night were printed,
and since that debate has concluded I have
spent a good deal of time in endeavouring
to get this correspondence brought down,
and now we have it in a very confused
shape. But I can assure my hon. friend
that it was only for that reason I had delayed until now in speaking on this matter.
My hon. friend will do me the justice, I am
sure, to remember that I brought the matter
to the attention of the government in speaking in the debate on the address at the
commencement of the session.
Mr. OLIVER. Certainly I do not wish
to do the leader of the opposition any injustice uuder the circumstances, and I was
not alluding to that particular feature of the
case. I was about to say that the question
is even older than he suggested in his opening remarks. It is not a question which
arose in 1896, or in 1897, or in 1900. Having
been a member of the North-west Assembly
myself, I am perhaps more familiar with the
matter than he is, and I can assure him that
the question is of much more ancient date ;
that it has been claiming the attention of
the people of the territories for many years,
and that the position has remained substantially the same all these years. That is
to
say, there has been a demand, either for
terms which would go with provincial organization, or equally good terms without
provincial organization. For the people of
the North-west Territories the question has
been one of finance and not of authority ;
it has been a material question and not a
theoretical question. The question in 1896,
in 1897, and in 1900, was with them how to
best govern the territories, how to meet the
financial requirements of that government.
and how best to bring to the notice and
favourable attention of this government the
requirements of that country. The financial needs of the territories are the same
to-day as they have always been, except that
they are greater to-day than they have
ever been. Although my hon. friend has
said that he did not have in his possession
the particular correspondence that has been
13885 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13886
laid upon the Table, and upon which he
made such lengthy remarks this evening,
still, as a member of this House since 1896,
he must have known that there was a continual conflict of opinion between the government
of the territories and the government
here as to the amount of money that should
be placed at the disposal of that government by this government. If he had been
as enthusiastic ever since 1896 as he has
expressed himself to-night, the people of
the territories would have benefited thereby in the years which have intervened, and
would have benefited substantially even this
year. It is no secret that the opposition
have a great deal to do with shaping the
policy of the government, and that the government, in considering the demands of the
territories from time to time, have had to
consider the possibility of opposition from
the opposition. It has been the somewhat
thankless place of members of this House
from the territories supporting the government, to bring before the attention of the
House and of the country, year after year,
the financial requirements of the territories.
I do not recall that up to the present moment we have received any assistance from
the leader of the opposition or from his
supporters on the other side of the House.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). I think my hon.
friend is mistaken in that.
Mr. OLIVER. Well, I am willing to be
corrected, but I do not remember anything
of that kind at this moment. I may say
that this is a subject that has taken my
attention very strongly from year to year,
and while I would not wish at all to question the statement, still, as I said, it
does
not come to my memory that we ever did
receive any assistance. I would like to say
that had that interest been taken by the
members of the opposition in the early part
of the session that was taken later on and
to-night, the territories would no doubt have
gained a very considerable financial benefit and would have been still better able
to
meet the requirements that they are called
upon to meet. The point I wish to make is
that the people of the territories want money
and not talk. That is the question at issue,
and the closer we keep to it the better will
be the understanding, and the better the results that we will have. While I do not
wish
to go into anything very controversial at this
particular time, I will take the opportunity
of pointing out that a proposition which
involves the placing before the people of the
North-west Territories of the idea that they
have been very badly used both financially
and otherwise, that their premier, in fact,
has been insulted by this government, and yet
that does not offer in any degree or in any
way any substantial suggestion for immediate or future relief, is not a proposition
that
is likely to meet with very much favour
at their hands. Had it been intended to
actually benefit the people of the North-west
and had the address which we have listened
to to-night contained propositions definitely
tending to result in financial benefit to the
territories, we could appreciate the action
taken, but when action has not been taken
until the last days of a session which already has lasted over seven months—
Mr. OLIVER. We hope they are. When
action has not been taken until the last
days of a session which has already lasted
over seven months, and when brought forward no practical suggestion for meeting
the present difficulty is contained in it, there
is only one conclusion to be drawn, and
that is that the remarks of the hon. gentleman are chiefly made to be added to the
tons
of printed matter already lying franked in
stacks outside and inside of this building
for distribution throughout the territories.
Talk is cheap, but it is money that counts.
We are more than pleased to hear the
expression of confidence by the hon. leader
of the opposition in the intelligence and
honesty of the people of the North-west
Territories. I was not aware that they
needed any particular certificate in that
regard, but at any rate, we are pleased
to have it from such a good authority. We
believe that all his kind words are fully deserved, although the modesty of the people
of the North-west Territories and of their
representatives would prevent them claiming any special advantage in that regard.
The hon. gentleman has been very willing
to concede to us the control of the public
lands in the territories, and of the public
resources of the territories, and he has been
willing to concede us the right to incur debt
on our own behalf. As he said, I do not
know why the people of the North-west Territories are not just as able to control
their
own land satisfactorily and just as worthy
of being allowed to contract debt for public
purposes as the people of any other part
of the country. But, that is not the point.
The point is this : What subsidy is to be
given to the people of the North-west Territories as the basis of their provincial
organization, so that they will not need to sell
their public lands and so that they will not
need to go in debt ? The hon. gentleman was
very generous with us in permitting us to
do as we like with our own. What we
want to know is what share he is going to
give us in the general financial arrangements of the Dominion. That is a matter
which he proposed to leave to a commission
or to arbitration. That is not the way in
which the Premier of the North-west Territories left it. He made certain definite
financial propositions. He said : Give us
these as the essential part of provincial organization. But, the hon. leader of the
opposition does not say that he will give them
these. He says : We will leave it to a committee or to a commission. As a representa
13887
COMMONS 13888
tive of the North-west Territories, and believing that the proposition made by the
Premier would be a good proposition for the territories if acceded to, we want to
know what
the hon. leader of the opposition and his followers on the floor of parliament are
prepared to give towards meeting the demands
of the Premier of the North-west Territories. That is a definite proposition. It is
not something that is in the clouds. It is
not misty. Upon the acceptance of that
proposition depends the whole question.
Provincial autonomy is only a name, but
the amount of subsidy which the proposed
province will receive is an important fact,
and that is the point we want settled or
approximately settled before we go into a
provincial organization.
Mr. OLIVER. By the Dominion government, and we want to know when we get
offers of help from our hon. friends opposite what those offers of help mean. We
want to know the measure of their sympathy
in dollars and not in words.
Mr. POPE. You are ingenious but not
clever.
Mr. OLIVER. I may return the compliment. It is of no advantage to the people
of the territories that they should be permitted to sell the lands of the territories.
If
they sell the lands, settlement is thereby deterred; if they do not sell them, they
derive
no revenue from them. and in so far as that
is concerned, they might as well be administered by the Dominion government as by
themselves. It is, I may say, a rather cool
proposition that political credit should be
claimed for an offer to permit the North-west
Territories to control their own lands, when
such a large portion of those lands have already passed out of the control of either
government, and when the balance of these
lands are not being sold and no revenue is
being derived from them by the government
which has them in hand.
The proposition, as it has been laid
down, simply amounts to this: We
will give you provincial autonomy; we
will give you the lands that at present
are not being sold, and that the general good
of the country requires shall not be sold ;
we will allow you to go into debt to any
extent you like; but we will not say what
we will give you to run your government
on; we will keep away from that subject
altogether. It seems to me most unfair
that an attempt should be made to create a
feeling of dissatisfaction in the North-west
Territories, without any steps whatever
being taken to allay the dissatisfaction thus
created, without saying in any shape or
form, how far the desires of the people of
the North-west in regard to financial assistance are to be acceded to. Just what these
desires are it may be well to inform the
House, and perhaps some gentleman on the
other side will be able to tell us how far
they will go towards acceding to these desires. I may point out that in the printed
papers that have been placed before the
House the financial question is the essential
point in every one of the arguments of Premier Haultain and of his government. In
his memorial of April 4th, 1903, the complaint is :
That no sufficient response has been given
to the repeated demands for financial assistance necessary for the proper and effective
administration of the territories.
In the memorial which follows the complaint is that there are not sufficient additions
to the annual grant. In Mr. Haultain's letter to the Prime Minister he draws
particular attention—
To the necessities, financial and otherwise.
of the territories.
And all through the correspondence the
great question is the financial question, the
question of the amount of money that is to
be derived by the territories from the national treasury as a condition of entering
into the provincial status. It has been
said that the people of the Northwest Territories are unanimously in favour of this
provincial organization. I believe they are unanimously in favour of
it if they can get it on the terms proposed,
but I am just as certain that they are just
as unanimously against it unless they get it
on these terms, or on some similar terms. I
am perfectly satisfied that they are unanimously against it if they are only to get
it
on the same terms as it has been granted to
the other provinces of the Dominion, and I
will take the liberty of reading from the
definite proposition made by Mr. Haultain
in support of my statement. He submitted
a draft Bill for the establishment of the
territories as a province, and in that Bill
he suggested the measure of subsidies which
the territories should receive:
The following amounts shall be allowed and
paid by Canada. by half. yearly payments in advance as an annual subsidy to the province,
that is to say :—
(a.) For the support of the government and
legislature, fifty thousand dollars.
(b.) On an estimated population of two hundred and fifty thousand at eighty cents
per
head, two hundred thousand dollars, subject to
be increased, as hereinafter mentioned, that is
to say:—A census of the province shall be
taken in every fifth year reckoning from the
general decennial census of one thousand nine
hundred and one and an approximate estimate
of the population shall be made at equal intervals of time between such quinquennial
census
and such decennial census, and whenever the
population by any such census or estimate exceeds two hundred and fifty thousand.
which
shall be the minimum on which the said allowance shall be calculated, the amount of
the
said allowance shall be increased in accordance therewith until the population reaches
one million three hundred and ninety six thousand and ninety-one, after which there
shall be
no further increase.
13889 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13890
The words ' one million ' are not contained
on that page, but a telegram on a subsequent page states they should be inserted.
The next demand is in the following terms:
The province shall be entitled to be paid and
to receive from the government of Canada by
half yearly payments in advance, interest at
the rate of 5 per cent per annum, on the excess over the sum of of a sum to be
ascertained by multiplying the population of
the province by 32·46, and for the purpose of
this section the population of the province
shall until after the next decennial census be
deemed to be two hundred and fifty thousand :
provided that immediately after the census
of there shall be a readjustment under
this section on the basis of the population as
ascertained by such census.
Now, the proposition which the Premier
of the territories asks this parliament to
agree to, and to which inferentially the
leader of the opposition has asked parliament to agree—but which he has been very
careful not to definitely ask anybody to
agree to—is that there shall be a continual
readjustment of the per capita grant and
of the debt account on the basis of the continually increasing population. I am here
to say that no other arrangement can or
would be satisfactory. No arrangement
would be satisfactory that would not provide for an increase in the per capita grant
and in the debt allowance according to increase of population. It is a play upon
words, or it is a misuse of words to call
an arrangement entered into under those
conditions, acquiring the rights of the
other provinces of Canada. It is acquiring
rights which the other provinces do not
possess. I will be very glad if the other
provinces will agree to it, but I, as a representative of the North-west Territories,
do not propose to go into a sort of blind pool,
not knowing how we are going to come
out when a conclusion has been reached on this very momentous question. As
the members of the House know, in the
case of the other provinces the per capita
grant is paid on the actual or estimated
population at the date of confederation, and
that population is not continually increased.
Mr. SCOTT. The other provinces are going to ask for that to be changed.
Mr. OLIVER. Possibly so, but I am
speaking of the condition as it exists. I am
not finding fault with the proposition of
Premier Haultain, but what I am finding
fault with is that when the words 'provincial organization' or ' provincial autonomy'
are used, the inference should be given out
that we are asking for the same terms that
the provinces now have. We are not asking for these terms ; we would not accept
these terms ; we could not afford to accept these terms ; we must get different
terms, and the question is : Will the opposition, which is in such generous mood,
accept those terms. The leader of the
opposition had this document before him,
and he was careful not to say that he would
accept these terms. He was careful to convey the idea that this question was a mere
matter of detail, and that it could be arranged by a committee. I want to say that
it is not a matter of detail. I say that it is
an essential question, and that upon this
question hinges the willingness of the people
to enter into the status of a province, or to
remain outside of that status. I was somewhat
astonished to hear the hon. member (Mr.
Borden, Halifax) indicate that the question
as to whether there should be one province
or two was a mere question of detail. The
question of the number of provinces, and
the question of the subsidies which these
provinces shall receive are the essential
questions ; other questions are matters of
detail.
The question whether the territories, as
they are at present, have all the powers
which a province has, is a question of detail ; because, if they have not those powers,
they can be given to them in their
present condition as well as they could if
they were a province. The hon. leader of
the opposition questioned the previous statement of the Premier, that the only important
right belonging to a province which the
territories did not hold was the right to incur debt. That statement stands, and
stands correct in all essential particulars.
If the territories lack any other power
than that, it can be given to them without
provincial organization ; and provincial organization, with the power to incur debt,
rests, not upon a legislative enactment in
itself, but upon a fixed subsidy being granted. Until there is a fixed subsidy, the
province, if the territories were created or called a province to-morrow, could not
incur
debt. Though this parliament were to pass
a thousand Acts allowing it to incur debt,
its credit would not be good until it had a
fixed subsidy. Therefore, the question of
incurring debt depends entirely upon the
terms upon which the subsidy for the province to be created is granted. Given a
permanent, fixed subsidy, the province or
the territories, if you like to call them such,
could incur debt, because their credit would
be good.
I have said that the difference between
the powers of the territories as they exist
and the powers of a province are not important. They are not of chief importance.
The chief purpose of a local government is to attend to local interests, of which
the greater are the needs of education, the
taking care of municipal legislation and the
providing of the smaller public works. If
these needs are attended to, it matters not
whether it is under the name of a province
or a territory. The needs and requirements of the people are met ; and if
they are fully met the people are better
satisfied than they would be with an empty
offer to allow them to sell their public lands
13891
COMMONS 13892
and to incur debt on their own account,
which, as far as the proposition has been
laid before us, might have to be met by
local taxation.
I will just draw attention again to the
difference in the status of the provinces
and the status of the territories in the matter of subsidy, which, as I said before,
is
the main matter. The total subsidy per
head amounts, in Ontario, to 66 1/3 cents, in
Quebec to 66 cents, in Nova Scotia to 94 1/4
cents, in New Brunswick to $1.40, in British Columbia to $1.72, in Manitoba to $2.08
1/2,
in Prince Edward Island to $2.05 1/2, and in the
North-west Territories, on the grant of this
year, to $4.47 2/5. Now, unless our hon. friends
are prepared to give us some definite assurance that we are not going to be placed
in
an inferior position financially to that which
we occupy at the present time, I certainly
cannot say that we are in favour of provincial autonomy, especially when it is
held out to us that provincial autonomy
means giving us provincial organization on
the same footing as the provinces. We do not
want it on those terms ; we cannot afford
to take it on those terms.
There has been put up the argument that
the territories should have control of their
public lands and of their own resources in
all ways, in order that they might be able
to aid railways. I do not know just where
this idea emanated from at present ; but I
take the liberty of calling the attention of
the House to the fact that as a result of the
proceedings of this session, as far as it has
gone, the North-west is not doing badly in
the matter of aid to railways. It stands at
present to benefit by the credit of the country at large to the extent of some $9,000,000
in regard to the Canadian Northern Railway
and some $12,000,000 in regard to the Grand
Trunk Pacific. It might be, if the Northwest Territories had control of their own
lands, they would be required to pledge
those lands to give aid to railways. I am
in a position to say that it was for the definite purpose of being able to do so in
years gone by that the demand was made
for control of the lands at a time when there
was no railway extension in the territories,
when railway extension was very greatly
needed, and when the lands of the territories had been given and were being given
to aid in the construction of railways not
in the territories at all. At that time the
territories did demand and require the control of their own lands for the purpose
of
aiding railways ; but to-day, I submit, the
position is very considerably different. Today there are no lands in the territories
being sold to speculators ; to-day there are
no lands in the territories being granted to
railways, but railways are being provided
in the territories as they never were provided before—liberally and under satisfactory
conditions. That reason, then, for the
control of lands certainly does not exist.
In regard to the question whether there
should be one province or two, I may point
out that the Bill which the Premier has
submitted provides for only one province.
For my own part, considering the territories
in their present condition, with their present population, I have no hesitation in
declaring myself in favour of only one province. But the comparison which the hon.
leader of the opposition has made between
the territories and the other parts of the
Dominion does not hold. There is no other
equal area of the Dominion which offers the
same prospect of an early settlement of an
immense population as does the territories ;
and it is fair matter for consideration
whether such a large area, if fully populated, might not be better divided into two
or more provinces rather than be held as
only one. I submit that at this moment, when there is a prospect of the early
construction of two lines of railway across
the territories, through the most fertile part
and the prospect of an early and very large
increase of population in that particular
part of the country, which has until recent
years been almost uninhabited, it is hardly
opportune to decide on all questions relating to the manner of a final organization
of the territories. I beg to assure hon. gentlemen that the territories are not in
the
state of excitement in regard to provincial
organization which they seem to imagine.
They will find that with fair treatment in
the matter of subsidy, the people will be
satisfied, whatever the politicians may be,
or whatever may be those who would desire
to exploit the resources of the country if
placed in other than the present hands.
In regard to the treatment accorded the
Premier of the territories by the members of this government, I may say that
I have had a long acquaintance with Mr.
Haultain, and I am quite satisfied that he
is able to protect himself ; and from my more
brief acquaintance with the members of the
present government, I believe they are able
to take their own part, and that we can
leave that matter to be settled between
them. In regard to the people of the Northwest Territories, it is a different matter.
The questions at issue are questions concerning them and interesting to them, and
I am bound to say that the answer to the
people of the North-west Territories has
been fairly satisfactory. It is contained in
the main and supplementary estimates of
the present session, totalling something like
$1,040,000. This is the answer we wanted ; this is the answer for which we
asked ; this is the answer we received, and I beg to assure the House that,
so far as it goes, it is entirely satisfactory,
very much more so than would be any possible interchange of civilities that might
have
gone on between the representatives of the
two governments. I might say also, in
answer to the question as to the attitude of
the representatives of the North-west Territories, that we are here to support and
to
13893 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13894
advance the interests of the people of the
North-west Territories. Speaking for myself—as I am entitled to speak for myself
only—I support the government so long as
I consider it is supporting the interests of
the North-west Territories. In this particular instance I am bound to say that I
believe the North-west Territories has this
year received a response to its demand and
to its requirements which comes nearer being satisfactory than any which it has heretofore
received. So far, then, we are entitled to congratulate ourselves upon the
results achieved, and I believe the people of
the North-west Territories will give due
credit both to the government and to their
representatives.
Mr. SPROULE. If the people of the west
are satisfied with what has been done this
year, why does Premier Haultain say that
they have never asked for the establishment
of a capital account, and refuse to accept
the money on that basis ?
Mr. DAVIS. He called a special meeting
of the assembly to vote $250,000, and they
were in a hurry to vote it ; they did not
let the grass grow.
Mr. OLIVER. I am very glad my hon.
friend interrupted me on this point, because
I had nearly missed it. As I said before,
the power which goes with provincial organization is the power of borrowing money.
This is the power which the hon. leader of
the opposition is most anxious to give to the
people of the North-west Territories. It
and the power to sell the lands are apparently the only powers he is willing to give
the territories. In the memorandum which
Mr. Haultain submitted to the government
it will be found that one of the grounds of
complaint is that we are not permitted to
draw on the future. He points out that extensive works are needed, and he complains
that under their present status they
are not permitted to draw on the future—
to borrow money. That is his strong ground
in demanding provincial organization, and
now, when the government offers to advance
and does advance, a matter of $250,000, the
opposition want to know why it is done, and
say that nobody asked for it and that it
will not be spent. Surely, this money is
just as useful to the people of the territories when advanced from the Dominion
treasury as it would be if borrowed in the
outside market. Surely, it is as much use to
them and will build as many public works.
Besides that, if they had borrowed it in the
ordinary market, they would have had to
pay interest, but by the present arrangement they are not required to pay interest,
and indeed it is not at all certain, as the
Minister of Finance pointed out, that they
will ever have to account for the principal;
that is a matter which will be settled when
a final provincial organization is arrived at.
Mr. HACKETT. Might I ask the hon.
gentleman if he supported the resolution for
home rule for Ireland ?
Mr. OLIVER. I did not happen to be here
when that vote was taken ; 1 had not arrived in parliament, but if it is of any interest
to the hon. member or to the House, I
would say that if I had been here I would
not have supported it.
Mr. HACKETT. The majority of hon.
gentlemen on that side of the House did
support it, and I think it is strange that,
after supporting that resolution for home
rule for Ireland, they should now oppose
home rule for the west.
Mr. OLIVER. It does not concern me
what the other members of the House did
on that occasion or on any other occasion,
as possibly members on both sides very
well know. However, I do not see What that
has to do with the question, and I would
wish to point out to the hon. member, and
to the gentlemen on both sides, that it is
not we who are objecting to provincial
autonomy ; we are asking provincial
autonomy, but we want it on certain terms.
It is hon. gentlemen opposite who are talking provincial autonomy, but are not willing
to give it. They will not give the
terms that alone make provincial autonomy a practical and reasonable proposition.
Mr. SPROULE. Would it not be a proper thing to settle whether parliament is
prepared to give it or not, and then arrange
the details ?
Mr. OLIVER. We understand that exactly. That is a view hon. gentlemen opposite
take, but that is not the view we take.
Mr. SPROULE. You take the view that
it should not be given on any terms.
Mr. OLIVER. Not at all. I said in this
House last session, and this session, and I
take the liberty of repeating it, that if the
House will give the North-west Territories
the terms asked for in the draft Bill contained in these papers, I will certainly
support it most strongly. We will all support
it. These are the terms we want.
Mr. SPROULE. I did not wish to do the
hon. gentleman personally any injustice. In
making the statement I did. I referred to
the government he supports. They are not
prepared to give the autonomy on any terms.
Mr. OLIVER. I am not discussing what
the government have done. The terms of
this draft Bill are what we want. That
is what we want the government to do and
that is what we want the opposition to say
they will do—but they won't ; they are very
careful not to. The leader of the opposition spoke for two hours, but was careful
to go around this point, and that gives us to
understand that he does not mean to con
13895 COMMONS 13896
cede these terms. We do not expect we can
get the terms unless we get some support
from the other side of the House.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). You put through
the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill without any
support from this side.
Mr. OLIVER. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) must have forgotten that over half
his followers did not
vote against the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill.
Mr. OLIVER. There were a great many
who were not here. And the hon. gentleman
will remember that it was stated in the debate last Saturday—if I may have the privilege
of referring to it—that keeping away
from the polls was an evidence of opinion
as well as going to the polls. Therefore,
we are entitled to claim that those of the
hon. gentleman's following who remained
away——
Mr. LANCASTER. They were all paired
with gentlemen on the other side of the
House. Every member of the opposition
either voted or was paired.
Mr. OLIVER. I was discussing this question of debt, the condition which has allowed the territories
an advance of $250,000. 1
point out that this is strictly in accordance
with the request which has been made by
the government of the North-west Territories from time to time, and which was introduced
in the resolution before the House.
And, in regard to the expenditure of the
money, Mr. Haultain says that an advance
on capital account is nothing more or less
than a loan on which, eventually they would
have to pay 5 per cent per annum. Naturally
he would like to get out of paying five per
cent interest, and I think that having got
out of it—that is the government having
given a loan without interest—he naturally
accepts the money and prepares to spend
it—and it will do the territories that amount
of good. I refer to this because of the
way the matter was alluded to by hon.
gentlemen opposite in a recent debate.
They seemed to think there was an
intention to take advantage of the territories in some way by compelling—or
impelling—them to take a loan which they
either did not want or did not require. I
wish to point out that it was strictly in accordance with the wishes expressed by
the
North-west government, that it was placing
them in the same financial position exactly
as if they were a provincial government, except that they were able to borrow money
without paying interest, while if the territories had provincial autonomy, they would
have to pay interest on borrowed money.
I repeat that what the territories want
at the present time is adequate financial assistance with which to conduct their schools
construct their public works, and generally
care for the interests of government which
have been entrusted to their care. We are
glad of any assistance that we receive from
hon. members of the opposition in pressing
these interests upon the government. We
hope that the coolness with which the opposition have viewed these matters in the
past has given place now and for the future
to deep interest, and that, therefore, we
shall be able to depend upon the members
of the opposition to aid us in impressing
upon the government the needs of the Northwest Territories in their present or future
condition. But if our hon. friends expect
to make political capital with the people of
the North-west Territories, or with the people outside of the North-west Territories,
by
telling us they are in favour of provincial
autonomy, but without providing means for
carrying on that organization, I am afraid
they will make a mistake.
Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan). As
the hour is late, I do not intend to take up
much time in discussing this question. The
leader of the opposition, in the long speech
he delivered and the resolution be read,
asked this House to vote in favour of granting provincial autonomy to the territories.
It seems to me that in doing so he should
have put some facts before us on which we
could vote intelligently. As far as I could
understand his speech, he seemed simply to
be reading statements from the letters Mr.
Haultain had written to the government,
and part of the replies. As representing a
constituency in the North-west Territories I
have always been opposed to the proposition
of Premier Haultain. In this connection,
I may say that Premier Haultain in one of
his letters said that the members here do
not know the public opinion in the territories. I say I know as much about public
opinion in the territories as Premier Haultain
does, and I say a majority of people are opposed to this scheme, and for good and
substantial reasons, as I can show. The leader of
the opposition should have informed himself
as to the revenue the people of the North-west
Territories at this stage of the proceedings
would be entitled to draw from the federal
treasury, and show why it would be better
for us to have autonomy. The hon. gentleman quoted a great deal from this sessional
paper, No. 116, and in one case, I notice,
he read only half a paragraph, and left the
other half which did not suit his purpose.
Mr. Haultain has made certain demands upon this country. My hon. friend from Alberta
(Mr. Oliver) has said he laid before
the House a full statement of what he
wants. I have taken the liberty of boiling
down the demands, and I think I can give
in brief just what Mr. Haultain asks this
House to give him, if we are prepared to
give provincial autonomy. He wants first,
all the public lands. The leader of the
opposition said he was prepared to support
that part of the proposition. I am glad to
see that he has approached the matter in
13897 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13898
that spirit. We in the west would like to see the lands given to the government of
the North-west Territories provided that
government made a proper use of them, and
did not undertake to shut off settlement.
He wants to grant payment for all the lands
that were given as bonuses to railway companies in years gone by. But hon. gentlemen
opposite, when they were running the
governmental machine, gave away a great
many millions of acres of land in the Northwest Territories, and I am sorry to say
that
they were not at all times given for the purpose of subsidizing railways in the Northwest
Territories, but most of them were
given to subsidize railways in the province
of Manitoba.
Mr. McCREARY. I suppose Manitoba
would also be entitled to the same payment
for all her lands given away ?
Mr. DAVIS. I fancy so. Mr. Haultain
asked for the payment of lands given as bonuses to build railways. Now, the hon.
member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) who is leading the opposition, would probably inform
us
whether he is prepared to pay us at a reasonable rate for the 50,000,000 acres of
land
he and his friends gave away in the
North-west Territories to subsidize railways.
At a reasonable price per acre, say $3, it
would amount to something like $150,000,000.
Well, we will accept it, we would like to get
it, because it would put us on a good footing,
a little better footing than the province of
Ontario. Now, he goes on further, and if the
leader of the opposition had read that portion
at the bottom instead of reading only one
portion of the document, he would have
found that Mr. Haultain wants compensation
for all the lands that are given as homesteads
in the North-west Territories; in other words,
he wants the federal government to spend
a certain amount of money to put the people
into the territories, and then the North-west
government would like to be compensated
for those lands given to those people as
homesteads. Whether that is a reasonable demand to make, I will leave to the
judgment of the leader of the opposition who
seems to be quite friendly to Mr. Haultain,
and who wants to have this thing carried
out. Another thing which will interest my
hon. friend from Grey, I know—because he
is one of the old guard and sat in this House
when that monstrous piece of legislation
was put through which foisted a monopoly
on the people of the west in the way of exemptions from taxation on the Canadian
Pacific Railway roadbed, and all its stations
for ever and lands for twenty years—he
will be happy to know that Mr. Haultain
asks that legislation be now passed to have
that removed, so that the people of the
North-west Territories, in forming a province, will not labour under the disability
of having this road exempted from taxation. I do not know what it will cost the
people of Canada. I leave the leader of
the opposition to figure that out. But I
would like to see him get the Canadian
Pacific Railway to give up the privilege
which was given them by his friends twenty
years ago, the privilege of exemption from
taxation on lands for twenty years, as
we always supposed, but as it now turns
out to be, for forty years, exempting them
from taxation on their roadbed, rolling
stock and everything else for ever.
Mr. DAVIS. I suppose so. Now, the
leader of the opposition has figured out that
the population of the North-west Territories
at the present time is something like 375,000.
He goes Mr. Haultain one better.
Mr. DAVIS. I took down his figures. He
said there was 158,000 in round numbers.
according to the census, and that 170 odd
thousand appear to have gone into the territories since then.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, he has gone the Premier of the North-west Territories one better. I think
the hon. gentleman will agree
that the Premier of the North-west Territories is not unduly modest in his demands,
and if he thought he was entitled to it he would ask for it. He said
that the population was 250,000, and he
wants a grant of eighty cents per head to
start with. He wants to draw eighty cents
per head until the population reaches 1,396,091. Now, with reference to the debt account.
The present population on which that
debt account is to be based is 250,000. Now,
he is more modest in that respect than the
leader of the opposition.
Mr. DAVIS. You took it out of your own
return you have been reading from.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). What is the date
to which the hon. gentleman refers '?
Mr. DAVIS. I am talking about this return brought down here.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). I am asking the
date of that document.
Mr. DAVIS. It is in the Bill, it is 1901.
I must say that if the leader of the opposition were consulting the Premier of the
North-west Territories now he would be prepared to ask for $600,000, and I would not
blame him at all. I am just taking what is
in that Bill, the draft of the Bill that was
presented to this House, and that is what
he expects if you give him provincial autonomy. Now, we will take the figures of
the leader of the opposition, 330,000. He
wants the debt account based on 330,000,
13899
COMMONS 13900
and a revision every five years—which is a
perfectly legitimate thing, and I think he
is entitled to it. But I want to point out
now to the leader of the opposition—I think
it was three years ago that Mr. Haultain
started this agitation for provincial autonomy—I want to point out to the leader of
the opposition at this stage that every man,
woman and child that goes into the Northwest Territories is worth to us, on capital
account, $33, or close to it. Mr. Haultain
puts it at $32.40. Now, taking the statement made by the leader of the opposition
that 170,000 people have gone in there since
the census was taken—I think Mr. Haultain
started his agitation before the census was
taken—I think the leader of the opposition
will see that by not having provincial autonomy we have added to our capital account
something in the neighbourhood of between
five and six million dollars, taking his own
figures as to the population. Now he wants
the census taken every five years—I do not
know whether the leader of the opposition
and the gentlemen supporting him would
agree to that. I think it would be a good
thing, but I do not know what hon. gentlemen opposite would say to it.
Now the leader of the opposition is more
generous than the Premier of the Northwest Territories, who asked for ten members
in this House to start with. The leader
of the opposition, in addressing the House
to-night, said that they were entitled to
twelve. But when there was a proposition
before this House to grant ten members to
the North-west Territories, I did not see
that the leader of the opposition exercised
any haste in getting to his feet and advocating twelve members. He was a member
of the Redistribution Committee, and I never
heard that he asked for twelve members.
But to-night, at the end of the session, when
we are getting ready to return home, and
when the idea is abroad that possibly there
may be an election in the near future, and
possibly with the idea of gaining a little
kudos out in the west on account of this
thing, he tells us that the territories ought
to have twelve members. Well, why did
not the leader of the opposition take that
stand when there was a proposition before
this House to give them ten members ? I
am positive that if the leader of the opposition had got up and said that we ought
to
have twelve members, the government would
have granted us twelve. But after the Bill
has passed, after it has practically become
law, it is rather late for the leader of the
opposition to advocate giving us twelve
members.
Mr. BROCK. Are you speaking for the
government just now ?
Mr. DAVIS. I am speaking for myself.
Now, the Prime Minister of the North-west
Territories made the statement that we
should have only one province and that the
legislative assembly of the Territories
should have the power to locate the capital.
I think perhaps there might be some milk
in that cocoanut, there must be some reason
why the Premier of the North-west Territories is so anxious to have provincial autonomy.
I want to say to the leader of the
opposition that if he had gone out into my
part of the country last year—and his own
political friends up there felt sore that he did
not go and see them—he would have found
a fine country up there, a lot of fine people,
and have heard from those people that
they were not very anxious for political
autonomy at the present time. I would
like to call the attention of the leader of the
opposition to what one of the leading
papers in Saskatchewan says about it, to
let him see what the people up there think
about provincial autonomy. This is the
Alberta ' Advocate ' of October 5th—not very
long ago. It is a Liberal paper.
It is a God-send for the country in general
at the present time that provincial autonomy
has been withheld.
That goes to show that the people in that
part of the country are not thirsting very
much for provincial autonomy. I would
be very glad it the hon. leader of the opposition and the gentlemen supporting him
in this House were prepared to grant all
these terms, to pay for the lands that had
been given away to railways, to pay for the
homestead lands that have been taken and
to give all that Mr. Haultain is asking for.
But I do not think there is any use
of getting up and making the statement
that we should have provincial autonomy
without going into the question and letting
us know what the hon. gentleman is prepared to do. He has brought this proposition
before the House, and if he is in favour
of accepting Mr. Haultain's demand in its
entirety we would be happy to support it.
I am sure that every member of the House
who represents the territories would support it.
Mr. CLANCY. The hon. gentleman said
a moment ago that it was an excessive demand.
Mr. DAVIS. No, I did not say anything of
the kind. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy)
is just getting wakened up. I have taken
the trouble, Mr. Speaker, to make some comparisons and to see what, under the proposition
laid down by Mr. Haultain, we
would be fairly entitled to if the North-west
Territories were to become a province. We
do not know exactly what we should get.
I have a statement here, first, of what we
would get if we were organized into a province, and, second, of what we do get under
the present arrangement, which is as follows :
13901 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13902
Provincial Basis.
| For government . . . . . . . . . . |
$50,000 |
| Eighty cents a head on 250,000 people. . |
200,000 |
| Debt acount. 250, 000 people at $33 a head
$8.250, 000 at 5 per cent. . . . . . . . |
412,000 |
| In lieu of public lands.. .. .. .. .. .. |
300,000 |
| Total.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
$962,000 |
Territorial Basis.
| Grant from Dominion government this
year. . . . . . . . . |
$ 457,979 |
| To pay off debt .. .. .. . . . . |
250, 000 |
| Additional grant made. . . . |
250,000 |
| To pay for two bridges.. . .. . . . |
84,000 |
| Total. .. .. . . |
1,041,979 |
| Advance on capital account. . . . . |
250,000 |
So that, taking the statement that I have
made, we would be entitled, if we had provincial autonomy, to receive from the Dominion
government $969,000 a year, while we
are drawing at the present time over a million dollars, showing that we are fairly
well-off at the present time. There was a
time in the history of the North-west Territories, as my hon. friend from Alberta
has
pointed out when we were not so well-off,
and when we did not get as much as we
were entitled to for the purpose of building
roads and bridges. Yet the hon. leader of
the opposition talks about what Mr. Haultain did a couple of years ago, when serious
storms swept away the bridges. Mr. Haultain went around to the people and told them
that he had no money, but that if they had
provincial autonomy they could have the
bridges rebuilt. If the people of the Northwest are in a position to get $250,000,
and
$250,000 more without being called upon to
pay interest on capital account, they are in
a better position than if they had to pay interest on that money. Another advantage
of the present position of the North-west
Territories is that they have not to maintain the extravagant form of government
which is kept up in all the other provinces.
I would like to call the attention of the
House to some of the services that we would
have to maintain ourselves if the territories
were put upon a provincial basis that are
now performed by the Dominion government. There is, in the first place, the police
force. If the North-west Territories were
formed into a province, I suppose the hon.
leader opposite would admit that the province would have to pay for the maintenance
of the police force. The mounted police
is paid for at the present time out of the
federal treasury and it performs police duty
in the territories. The territories would
have to assume this expense. I do not know
what the force costs, but I am satisfied that
for the territories that Mr. Haultain proposes to bring in Assiniboia, Saskatchewan,
Alberta and a portion of Athabasca,
it would not cost less than $200,000 a year.
The registry offices are self-supporting, so
that it is not necessary to say anything about
them. But, in addition to the mounted police, they would have to pay for the ad
ministration of justice, and for the maintenance of asylums. Any money that is
paid out for these institutions now is paid
by the federal government. Then, there are
the public works that are constructed by
the Dominion government, such as the building of court houses, and the only way in
which the money could be obtained for these
works would be by borrowing it, and reducing our revenue every year by having
to pay interest on that amount of money.
We would have the increased cost of the
provincial system of government, because
we would have a lot of the paraphernalia
that we do not have at the present time.
Then, there would be more officials. If all
these services were paid for out of the revenue of the territories, you would find
that
the people there would have a grievance. In
my part of the country I do not see that
many persons are thirsting for this change.
I think the trouble lies more with the
politicians than with the people. If you
give us enough money so that we can build
our bridges and maintain our roads that is
all we want, and we will not trouble you
for the present. I am glad to know that
hon. gentlemen on the other side of the
House are prepared to vote whatever we
want from time to time, but I do not think
the people of the North-west will trouble
them very much about provincial autonomy,
so long as they do that. The hon.
gentleman also alluded to railway subsidies. The government is guaranteeing
bonds to an amount of something like
$20,000,000 for the construction of railways
in the North-west Territories, but if Mr.
Haultain had been allowed to carry out his
propaganda two or three years ago, we
would have been obliged to mortgage the
resources of the territories for this
work. Gentlemen from the province of
Manitoba will tell you that they have
no debt, but if hon. gentlemen opposite will look at the Year-book, they
will find that Manitoba has a debt of $16,664,647, charged up against it. The people
of the North-west Territories have no debt
at all, because the railways are subsidized
by the federal government, and if they get
enough money to carry on the business of
the country it is not very likely that they
will be thirsting to change their system of
government. I have a statement here of the
subsidy per head of the different provinces
in the Dominion and also of that of the
North-west Territories, which is as follows :
| Ontario. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
61 1/3 |
| Quebec.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
66 |
| Nova Scotia.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
94 1/4 |
| British Columbia.. . . . . . . . . . |
1 .72 |
| Manitoba. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
2 .05 |
| North-west Territories.. . . . . |
4 .47 |
Mr. DAVIS. We are not getting too
much, but I think we have been fairly
13903
COMMONS 13904
well treated. I want to point out one feature
of the case, and it is this : The hon. leader
of the opposition thinks that provincial autonomy is a new proposition in the territories.
There was a meeting held in my own town 13
years ago, and a committee was appointed
and money collected to agitate for provincial
autonomy, but that agitation soon died out.
It is, therefore, an old scheme. Four or
five years ago, when Mr. Haultain started
his agitation we had a population of 100,000 ; to-day we have a population of 330,000,
we are told, and if we are entitled to
have $33 per head placed to our credit on
capital account, we are $7,590,000 better
off to-day than we would have been
if Mr. Haultain had succeeded when he
first commenced. It is all very well to
say that we could get a re-arrangement, but
I notice that the other provinces have not
been successful in their attempt in that respect. When we do form a province, we
want it formed on such terms and conditions that we will not have to ask for better
terms from year to year. We see the province of Manitoba loaded up with a big debt.
We may call it a guarantee of bonds and
say that the people will not have to pay the
interest, but nevertheless it is a liability
against the province which they may be
called upon to pay. The North-west Territories is getting all that work done by
the federal government, and I think they
are better off as they are to-day. The
leader of the opposition told us that he
considered the question of the number of
provinces into which we are to be divided
as a secondary consideration. If he went
to my district he would find out what a mistake he makes in that. The southern belt
of the North-west Territories has had the
advantages of a transcontinental railway
for 22 years, but the northern belt has been
without railways until the last few years.
There were a couple of railways there, but
they might as well have been built to the
moon, for they were of no use whatever to
colonization. It is only now that the northern portion of the district is getting
immigration, and as a member of the district I
will say that the people there are not prepared to go in with the people of the southern
portion to form one province. We
think there should be two provinces, and if
my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) were
leading the government he would not coerce
us unless he wanted to have another rebellion on his hands like that which the Conservatives
fomented in 1885. All that has
to be taken into consideration. If the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) goes to Calgary, which is the centre of this agitation,
he will find that the people there want three
provinces, and some of them want four provinces. If he told the people of Calgary
that he wanted one province, the first question they would put to him was : Would
he have the capital in Calgary, and if he
proposed to leave it to the Legislative assem
bly to decide, as Mr. Haultain proposes,
they would tell him that they would prefer
waiting until something else turned up. The
leader of the opposition has perhaps approached this subject in a fair spirit, and
I
am glad to know that he is prepared to lend
his assistance at all times, and to sympathize with us. We would be much better
satisfied if he would tell us that he is prepared to sympathize with us to the extent
of demands made by Premier Haultain.
They are modest demands in a way, and the
people of the North-west would be glad to
know that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) endorses them. If the hon. gentleman only gets
up and states that it is a good thing to have
provincial autonomy he might as well say
that it would be a good thing if the sun
would shine to-morrow, or that it would
rain next summer, but the people of the territories want something more definite than
that. They have been educated by—I was
going to say my friend Mr. Haultain—they
have been educated by the friend of the
leader of the opposition up to considering
that they were entitled to the conditions
laid down in his proposition, and the leader
of the opposition will find it hard to satisfy
public opinion without going as far as Mr.
Haultain proposes. The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Borden) stated that in 1902 Mr. Haultain swept the country for provincial autonomy.
Everybody knows that Mr. Haultain adopted the tactics of the wily politician, and
that he took a snap verdict. I
fancy that if sufficient time were given to
have threshed out the question of political
autonomy and other questions, Mr. Haultain would not have a majority at all. But,
when the people were putting their crops
in, and could not get to the polls, he brought
on the elections and got a snap verdict, and
he claims it as a verdict in favour of provincial autonomy. I want to say that the
people took no stock at all in that question.
The leader of the opposition might as well
say that when Mr. Roblin was returned to
power the people of Manitoba pronounced in
favour of a high tariff, because Mr. Roblin
mentioned it on the platform. Mr. Haultain is in the same position. The people
did not take any stock in the question of
provincial autonomy, because they knew it
had to come from Ottawa and not from him,
and as a matter of fact Mr. Haultain got
several in my district. I supported him
myself, and I helped him to the best of my
ability to carry some seats, and 1 never considered the question of provincial autonomy
at all. I want to say as one of the representatives from that country, that the people
whom I represent are opposed to provincial
autonomy at present. I think we are well off
as we are. We have been treated very
generously, and with the help of the leader
of the opposition, we will be treated more
generously in the future in getting sufficient subsidies to run the affairs of the
country without going into debt, and without
13905 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13906
putting taxation on the people. There is
no part of Canada where a taxation is lighter at present than in the territories.
I have
had some intimation that Mr. Haultain intended to introduce the municipal system.
If he does, he will grant the municipalities
power to borrow money, because, although
he cannot borrow money himself he has
power to give the municipalities authority to
borrow. I understand he intends to submit a
Bill of that kind. I do not know how true
it is, or how it will be received by the people, but I believe that taking everything
into
consideration, we are doing very well as we
are and we had better adopt the old saying: Let well enough alone. I believe the
people of the North-west Territories are of
that opinion.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette). I have
listened to some curiosities in the way of
speech-making in this House during the past
seven years, but the member for Alberta
(Mr. Oliver) has surpassed even himself tonight in the matter of exhibiting curiosities
in the speech-making line. I sympathize
with him, because his position must be very
embarrassing in having to make a speech
for autonomy and against autonomy. He is
in favour of the details being settled immediately and he is against the details being
settled unless they are settled in advance,
not by the leader of the government, but
by the leader of the opposition, forsooth.
He is for an increased subsidy, but he is
against the motion of the leader of the opposition, which asks that this question
shall
be taken up at once, and the details referred to the representatives of the people
before autonomy is granted and before it is
accepted by them. The hon. gentleman,
therefore, finds himself in a most embarrassing position, and he feels at heart that
he is speaking against the sentiment of the
people he represents when he, in a fainthearted manner, I admit, opposes autonomy.
He told us that he would be in favour of
autonomy if autonomy were granted on the
terms asked by Premier Haultain in the
Bill as submitted, but that without that,
he would not be in favour of it. Surely
he has read some speeches made by Premier Haultain since that Bill was submitted
to parliament by the government, in which
he stated that while he asked only what he
considered was right and what the territories were entitled to, still he would not
refuse to discuss the question and to accept
terms less favourable for the sake of getting
territorial autonomy for his people. He
does not state in so many words, hard and
fast, that unless he can get territorial autonomy on those terms he is not willing
to accept it on any other terms. He says :
This is what we are entitled to, these terms
should be complied with; but, as he has
stated in public speeches delivered since
that time, he is willing to enter into a conference with this government and make
the
best terms possible.
The hon. gentleman has directed his remarks largely to the leader of the opposition.
I can understand his position as a
subservient supporter of the present government. He knows that the government are
opposed to the granting of autonomy, and
he did not wish to place them in an embarrassing position. He rather fears that his
own supporters may rally to the support of
the leader of the opposition, because he has
struck a responsive chord in the North-west
Territories ; and instead of directing his remarks to the government of which he is
so
strong a supporter, he has directed them
wholly to the leader of the opposition, as if
it were his part to offer a policy on this
question. He says that this is an old question, that it is not just of this year's
growth,
that it was discussed in years gone by when
he occupied a seat in the territorial assembly.
Yes, and he forgot to tell this House that
when he occupied that seat, he himself
favoured local autonomy ; but to-day he opposes it. The hon. gentleman rather blamed
the leader of the opposition because this
question was not brought up earlier. But
the leader of the opposition has brought this
question up, not only this session, in an early
part of the session, but last year, when he
urged immediate action on the part of the
government of the day. So I think the reference of the hon. member for Alberta to
the hon. leader of the opposition was ill-
timed and not at all deserved.
The hon. gentleman says it is money they
want, and not talk. It is sometimes necessary to have a good deal of talk to this
government to get a little money for a certain portion of the country ; but that is
not the case when they propose to vote
$125,000,000 for a railway between Winnipeg and Moncton, which is of little use for
relieving the congestion of the west ; and,
by the way, our North-west lands are designed by the Minister of the Interior to
pay for that railway.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). No other impression was possible from the statement
of the Minister of the Interior in this House,
that he was going to bring in a Bill to get
authority to dispose of 50,000,000 acres of
land which he stated had been liberated to
the Crown, and which by the construction
of this railway would be made very much
more valuable and would realize a better
price. The Toronto 'Globe' took up the
statement and said in so many words that
this was the intention of the government ;
and it was only lately, since public opinion
was aroused, that an inspired article appeared in the Regina 'Leader,' edited by the
hon. member for Western Assinibioa (Mr.
Scott), stating that there had been a misapprehension on that point, that such was
not the intention of the government, and
that they would not introduce legislation on
this question this session, though he would
13907
COMMONS 13908
not vouch for the future. The granting of
provincial autonomy has been the subject
of debate, not only this session, but last
session. The hon. Minister of Finance, in
some remarks he made, left the impression
on this House that in the very near future,
possibly within the next year, local self-
government will be afforded to the people
of that portion of Canada. Unfortunately,
however, the gentleman who is supposed to
mould the policy of the government, the
Prime Minister, threw cold water on this
assertion, and left the House in no doubt
whatever as to his proposition on the question. He stated distinctly, in almost so
many words, that so long as this government were in power, the people of the territories
need not expect local autonomy for
many years to come ; and the Minister of
the Interior took the same ground last year,
pointing out that it would not be right to
grant autonomy to the North-west Territories until 600,000 or 700,000 people were
in
that country. Therefore I cannot understand the hon. member for Western Assiniboia
when he states to-night that the Minister of the Interior has as much as promised
that within the next year we would
have autonomy, whereas the Minister of the
Interior, not only in public documents, but
in speeches delivered in this House last session, stated the direct opposite.
Mr. SCOTT. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that the Minister of Finance made
a statement practically to that effect in this
House this session.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). And what did
the Prime Minister say immediately afterwards, when I placed his views before the
House ? I stated that I was putting the
Prime Minister's sentiments correctly before
the House to the effect that for many years
to come the territories need not expect autonomy at the hands of this government,
and the Prime Minister said 'hear, hear.'
The PRIME MINISTER. If I said ' hear,
hear,' it was not affirmation. On the contrary, it was negation.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). But the right
hon. gentleman's speech bone out my contention.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). If I am allowed to refer to a past debate, I will do it with
pleasure, as I have ' Hansard ' under my
hand. He pointed out that it was not an
unmixed evil to prevent the people of the
North-west having power to mortgage their
patrimony, to borrow money on their property; and his whole argument was directed
against granting autonomy for many
years to come. I regret that on this most
important question, for the welfare of the
people of the west, there should be a diversity of opinion amongst the representatives
of the west who are supporters of this government. I think I am not misrepresenting
these hon. gentlemen when I state that
they are not a unit on this question, unless
the hon. member for Western Assiniboia
has changed his mind remarkably since last
session.
Mr. SCOTT. There is a new condition
this year.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). When I was
speaking on this question before, I said :
But the Prime Minister adduced arguments
that were strong, no doubt, from his point of
view, that the North-west Territories should
not be granted local self-government for many
years to come.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). The Prime Minister says ' hear, hear, ' so I am not misstating
the case from his viewpoint.
I think the right hon. gentleman will see
that I was perfectly correct in my statement. The hon. member for Eastern Assiniboia
(Mr. Douglas), who is not in his place
to-night took the ground that it would be
wiser to defer the granting of autonomy to
the territories for many years, as he believed that they were much better off in
their present condition. He stated that in
his own opinion the majority of the men in
his riding were opposed to local autonomy,
whereas his colleague, the hon. member for
Western Assiniboia, took the contrary view.
He stated distinctly that even with an increased subsidy—and I commend that remark
to the hon. member for Alberta—the
people of the territories would not be satisfied with anything short of local autonomy.
This was the view of the hon. member for
Western Assiniboia last session, although I
will admit that he was rather faint-hearted,
lest he might embarrass the government of
which he is a supporter. On the other hand,
the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver)
was rather more canny last session than
this, and did not commit himself so much
against autonomy ; but still he stated that
the great majority of the people were opposed to it, and he himself thought it would
be better not to have it until there was a
larger population in that country, and they
would draw a larger per capita allowance ;
whereas the hon. member for Saskatchewan
(Mr. Davis) has both in this House and out
of it taken such strong grounds that he has
been taken to task not only by the press of
western Canada, but by the independent
press of eastern Canada for his opposition
to provincial autonomy. So here we have
a House divided against itself on this most
important question, on which unanimity is
required, at least on the part of the supporters of the government. It is not surprising,
that the government should deny
the people local autonomy when we have
this diversity of opinion expressed in this
House by their own supporters. The hon.
member for Alberta, when speaking on this
13909 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13910
question on one occasion before, stated that
the overwhelming sentiment—I believe these
were his words—of the people of the Northwest was in his opinion opposed to the granting
of provincial autonomy. Now, I do not
believe he gauged public opinion on that
question when he made use of that expression.
Mr. OLIVER. The hon. gentleman has
repeatedly said that I was against provincial autonomy. I have always said that
I was in favour of provincial autonomy on
the terms asked for by Mr. Haultain.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). Of course, the
hon. gentleman may well say that ; I suppose there is not a single member present
who would not be. But does the hon.
gentleman mean to say that Mr. Haultain
would not accept provincial autonomy at
the hands of this government unless the exact terms which he submitted were granted?
Mr. OLIVER. I cannot say what Mr.
Haultain would do ; I simply take his terms
and say that they are acceptable to me.
When discussing this he simply stated that
he would be in favour of provincial autonomy only on the basis of more population.
Mr. SCOTT. Premier Haultain is on record as saying that he would rather do
without provincial autonomy for ever than
accept Manitoba's terms.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). That has nothing to do with the question at issue. We
are not demanding Manitoba terms or limiting the discussion to any terms ; we are
asking that the matter be immediately taken up
in accordance with the prayers and petitions of the legislative assembly and to have
these dealt with by this government. The
hon. member for Alberta said :
Speaking for myself and for those who think
with me, who I believe constitute the overwhelming majority of the people of the Northwest
Territories, I believe it is better to wait
until we can be sure of a more satisfactory arrangement, based on increased population,
than
we can possibly expect to get to-day.
Mr. OLIVER. Might I point out that what
I said there had reference, not to what Mr.
Haultain proposed, but to what I expected
we could get, quite a different matter.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). Mr. Haultain
himself did not ask exactly what the hon.
gentleman asks ; he asked a per capita
allowance on a stated population.
Mr. OLIVER. No ; he asked a per capita
allowance on an increasing population.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). The hon. gentleman has blown hot and cold on this
question over and over again. He gave me
the impression, in fact he explicitely stated,
that it would be better to wait until there
was a larger population, so that they could
draw a larger per capita allowance. From
the. interviews which I have had with pro
minent citizens in that part of Canada,
from newspaper comments not including,
however, the Edmonton ' Bulletin ', but from
newspaper comments independent of politics,
and from the representatives in the territorial assembly, I had formed an opinion
quite
contrary to that formed by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). That there
may not be a perfect unanimity of opinion
I grant you, but as the hon. member for
West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), in his terse
language last session, said, if the government wait for that they will wait for
Kingdom come, and certainly they will do
so upon this or on any other great public
question ; there will always be a certain
divergence of public opinion, but if the
expressions of the territorial representative
are any gauge of public opinion on that
question, it is overwhelmingly in favour of
provincial autonomy at the earliest possible
moment.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). It you vote for
the amendment of the leader of the opposition you will see upon what terms. That
is exactly what they are asking a conference to fix terms and I do not see how
the hon. gentleman can consistently with
his duty—although I do not want to lecture
him, as he knows his own duty—oppose the
amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, when it is asking something so very
reasonable and moderate. There may be a
difference of opinion in regard to the number
of provinces which should be created ; I
admit that, but that is a question that must
be faced sooner or later. It will have to
be faced five or ten years from now just in
the same way as it will to-day, and at the
most it is a question of detail which the
people of the territories themselves, if you
give them an opportunity, will be only too
glad to decide for you. In the speech frdm
the Throne in the local assembly, at the
last session of the territorial assembly, it
was distinctly declared that it was a national necessity to have more power, more
revenue and provincial institutions, and Mr.
Haultain, in his opening address on that
speech, stated that the territorial government had resorted to almost everything short
of force to gain their rights from the present government, and had failed. That is
strong language to emanate from the premier of the territories, but it only goes to
show the friction and the irritation that is
caused by the treatment accorded these people by the government of the day. Mr.
Haultain. in that speech, stated :
' Every thing possible has been done that could be done,' he said, ' to procure the
necessary money and powers. These representations
have been backed up by resolutions, memorials
and addresses by the legislative assembly.
Now, the question is, what more can be
done ? He spoke of the $13,000,000 surplus
and the 'lavish expenditure in eastern Canada,'
and said that ' if the comfort and prosperity of
13911
COMMONS 13912
the new settlers is not more important than
breakwaters, drill halls, &c., are we then not
forced to the conclusion that the present dependency of the territories on the Dominion
should be put to an end immediately ?' Immediate provincial institutions in the territories
must be the demand.
Mr. Haultain discussed certain means of
temporary relief, such as having resort to municipal administration and increased
local taxation. This latter must come with the growing
needs of the country, he said. But, above all,
they must have provincial institutions. ' The
provincial question is, after all, the one solution to our constitutional difficulties
and our
financial difficulties. It is the one solution because we shall have not only the
revenues to
meet them, but the powers to do the work
which it is necessary this legislature should
do to meet the necessities of this great and
growing country.
Manitoba, which lies alongside the territories on the eastern side, has been
in the enjoyment of provincial institutions to its own advantage and to
the great benefit of its inhabitants for
a great many years. This autonomy
was granted the province of Manitoba at a
time when the population was about 17,000.
British Columbia also enjoys that advantage
with a much less population than the territories have at the present day. The territories
of the present-day have a considerably larger population than Prince
Edward Island, and yet some 250,000 or
300,000 of the population are denied the
right afforded to Canadians in the other provinces of the Dominion.
The House is surely aware that this condition of affairs cannot exist much longer.
It is causing a great deal of trouble and a
great deal of unrest amongst the newcomers
who are entering that country, and sooner
or later he will find that unless this question is dealt with the government will
be
piling up for themselves a heap of trouble.
The longer they put off dealing with it the
greater the difficulties will be. People are
flocking into that country year after year,
settlement is becoming more compact, new
school districts must be organized and new
schools provided in order to meet the wants
of the rising generation. All of this will
cause great demands on the territorial exchequer, and the territorial government has
not means of recouping itself except a small
tax on land ; it has come here to this
parliament, asking for the amount that
may be doled out to it, large or small. It
galls the people there to feel that they are
dependent on this parliament, and makes
them feel that they are being kept in leading strings. Two years ago, and I believe,
again a year ago, that country was visited
by very severe floods which swept away,
according to the correspondence laid on the
Table, upwards of 140 bridges : and because
the government of the territories had to anticipate for a few months the revenues
which
they would receive, the hon. Minister of
the Interior, when bringing down a sup
plementary of $100,000 to meet this contingency, said in an apologetic manner that
the government of the territories had anticipated their revenue, and had rushed into
this expenditure six months in advance,
perhaps unwisely, as he put it.
What else cowld the territorial government do ? Here were new people coming
into that country, and here were the rivers
from which the bridges had been washed
away. The people must reach their markets, they must have the bridges. The government
had not the money to provide the
bridges, and sooner than cause dissatisfaction, and even distress, among the people,
they anticipated their revenue. And the
Minister of the Interior thought fit to refer
to this as 'perhaps being an unwise expenditure.' In my opinion, the people of
the North-west Territories are as capable
of managing their own affairs as those of
any other portion of Canada, notwithstanding the distrust that the present government
seems to have of them. And why
should they not be as capable as others ?
Whence come these people ? Many of them
come from south of the American boundary
line, as has been pointed out. These are
people accustomed to representative institutions, and they look for them in Canada,
and will not be satisfied without them.
Many were residents of eastern Canada,
who enjoyed local autonomy in the provinces from which they came ; and they
will look for the same autonomy on the
part of the community among whom they
have settled, and will not be satisfied without it. We all know that the best immigration
agent is the contented settler. And,
unless we make these people feel that they
are not dependent upon others, unless they
are free to elect representatives to manage
their affairs who will be directly responsible
to them, I think you will find considerable
irritation arising in the future. We have
heard in the past eulogies heaped upon the
succession of governments headed by Mr.
Haultain. And properly so. I believe that
the management of territorial affairs under
his direction has been wise and judicious;
otherwise he would not have received the
public endorsation on numerous occasions as
he has done. And when he and his associates show such capacity, what is there to
lead us to suppose that they would not show
as great capacity if the territories were
granted the powers of autonomy that they
have been claiming ? Why, what was the
course followed .in making up the present
cabinet ? The Prime Minister did not confine himself in his choice of colleagues to
men who had stood behind him in opposition for eighteen years. He went far outside
the ranks of members of this House.
He went to the provinces to secure the provincial premiers to make up his cabinet.
He took one premier from Nova Scotia, he
took one from New Brunswick, he went to
Ontario for another, and he went to Mani
13913 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13914
toba for their attorney general. Here were
four of these gentlemen taken from provincial governments. And what surprises
me is that, now that these provincial cabinet ministers are elevated to positions
of
ministers in the Dominion cabinet, in their
egotism they say : We are the heaven-born
legislators, and those who do not happen to
have been taken, but were left outside, are
not to be trusted with the management
even of their own local affairs. It all depends upon the terms, as the hon. member
for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) states, whether
local autonomy will be accepted or not.
This parliament can well afford to deal, not
only justly, but liberally with the people of
the North-west ; and, in doing so, as I say,
they will take the very best step to encourage immigration to go into that country.
We are to-day spending upwards of half a
million dollars a year for the purpose of
bringing in immigrants. I think it is the
duty of parliament rather to try to provide
for the protection of the settlers we have
and make them contented with their lot than
to favour an enormous expenditure in order
to import people, some of whom may not be
so desirable as we would wish.
In the return brought down, we have resolutions from the North-west in favour of
provincial autonomy. The hon. member for
Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) read from a certain paper, I think from his own town, a
few lines to show that the people were not
in favour of local autonomy. There is no
great expression of opinion there in favour
of autonomy, according to the hon. gentleman. But, in looking over the return that
has been brought down. I find that the hon.
gentleman himself, in a letter dated April
14th, 1903, sent to the Prime Minister a
resolution passed by the board of trade of
his own town. The resolution reads as follows :
Resolved by the Prince Albert Board of Trade,
that in the opinion of this board the time has
now fully arrived when action should be taken
towards the erection of this portion of the Dominion of Canada, known as the North-west
Territories, into provinces, each of these with
all provincial rights and privileges. The enormous number of settlers pouring into
the
Saskatchewan district, not only from other parts
of Canada, but virtually from all over the world,
necessitates largely augmented grants for the
improvement of roads, building of bridges and
for public works, schools, &c.. Our board feel
fully convinced that the only way by which we
can meet our yearly increasing indebtedness, is
by having the power in our own hands to deal
with the matter.
The board of trade, while cognizant of the
fact that this matter has previously been
brought to the attention of the government, feel
that this is a most opportune time to urge that
the matter should be taken up at once, as we
feel assured that the present and future prosperity of this large and important part
of the
Dominion of Canada largely depends upon our
request being acceded to.
Here is the board of trade. composed of
the business men of Prince Albert, of both
political parties, I presume, as in other
places ; and they, through their representatives, send a request for the grant to
the
North-west of provincial institutions. And
yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis), on the
strength of a few words that he reads in a
newspaper, and entirely ignoring the board
of trade, says that there is no public opinion
in favour of autonomy. There were other
resolutions presented from other places in
the territories, as, for instance, Calgary,
Lethbridge, Glenfel and others, resolutions,
not only from boards of trade, but from city
councils and town councils.
The hon. member (Mr. Davis) states that
this is a political move. He says that the
last election was not won on the question
of provincial autonomy at all. The result,
he says, was a snap verdict. Yet he takes
credit to himself for having helped to obtain that snap verdict, because he says his
influence was brought into requisition to
carry three or four constituencies for the
territorial government. There is a gentleman in that territorial government, Minister
of Public Works, I believe, Hon. Mr.
Bulyea, who is a Liberal. That hon. gentleman was in the city of Winnipeg last October,
and while there he was interviewed by
a representative of the press. And here are
the opinions that are attributed to him :
Winnipeg, October 5.—Hon. G. H. V. Bulyea,
Commissioner of Public Works in the territorial
government has been in Winnipeg, and While
here talked with your correspondent on the
question of territorial autonomy. Mr. Bulyea
seemed to think that the matter was a simple
one. The last territorial elections were fought
out on the question of attaining provincial
powers, and for one province in the area covered
by the present territory. The result was unmistakable, thirty out of the thirty-five
members of the assembly being returned on the
territorial autonomy platform.
Here is this member of the territorial government, this Liberal and supporter of the
government at Ottawa, who has, I believe,
urged this government, even on grounds of
political expediency, to grant provincial
autonomy to the territories. Surely the hon.
member for Saskatchewan cannot repudiate
Mr. Haultain's Liberal colleague. Without
wearying the House, I simply state my
opinion that it should be the desire, not only
of those from western Canada, but those
from eastern Canada as well, to have this
question disposed of once for all, and in a
manner satisfactory to the people of the
west. And that desire can be expressed
by voting for the amendment of the leader
of the opposition, which calls for immediate
action to add to the powers of the territorial legislature, and to have terms decided
upon which must be referred to the territories to see if they are satisfactory before
they are agreed upon.
Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).
It is to me, as it was to my hon. friend from
Alberta (Mr. Oliver) a matter of regret that
the leader of the opposition did not raise
13915
COMMONS 13916
this very important question at an earlier
stage in the session. He makes the excuse
that the printed return was not brought
down until the end of July, but if my recollection serves me, he informed the House
that the printed return had been received
by him from the legislative assembly at
Regina at a much earlier date in the session.
It is regrettable that this important discussion should have been delayed until this
late stage of the session, when, for about
three months, from the beginning of May to
the end of July, this House was simply
marking time. However, I am gratified to
hear the expressions from the leader of the
opposition and from my hon. friend from
Marquette (Mr. Roche) following so closely
the expressions which I gave voice here
two years ago at the first opportunity I had,
and again last year. I think, however,
that the people of the North-west Territories would have more confidence in our
hon. friends opposite if their anxiety and
keenness were not made so open to suspicion.
It is plain that the opposition is best pleased
when the welfare of the North-west appears
to be threatened. Why the hon. member for
Marquette a few moments ago endeavoured
to throw doubt upon a denial that was made
here less than a month ago by the Minister
of Finance with regard to the policy of
this government, when that hon. gentleman
was represented as holding out a threat that
the North-west lands were to be sold and
that this government was to continue the
insane and iniquitous policy pursued by
previous governments, and that they were
going to continue to dispose of the Northwest lands for federal purposes. The Minister
of Finance a couple of weeks ago
stated distinctly that no such policy was
contemplated.
Mr. CLANCY. The hon. gentleman is
quite wrong. The Finance Minister made
no such statement in this House, and I say
that in the presence of the Finance Minister
himself.
Mr. SCOTT. The Finance Minister can
speak for himself. I listened to what he
said, and I understood him to say that no
such policy was contemplated and no such
legislation was going to be brought down.
The hon. member for Marquette seems to
be anxious to believe that the opposite is the
case and anxious to believe that autonomy
is to be long withheld, for less than
fifteen minutes ago he quoted an expression
of the Prime Minister made a couple of
weeks ago, and tried to give it a distorted
meaning as if the Prime Minister had said
that provincial autonomy would not be
granted for many years to come. The
Prime Minister states to-night that he did
not mean that the people of the North-west
Territories were to be left for years without provincial autonomy, but the member
for Marquette is keen to believe the
opposite. So, I think hon. gentlemen
opposite are evincing that kind of anxiety
which will lead the people of the North-west
Territories to doubt whether they are really
interested in their welfare. Further, I have
to say that, in my opinion, it is very regrettable that this question of so much concern
to the territories, this question of our
local government, should be made a party issue. Until this year it was kept free from
this position. A few months ago in the
North-west Terrritories an attempt was
made, to drag this question of provincial autonomy down to the plane of
party politics. I regret that the leader
of the oppositon, the leader of the Conservative party in this country, has shown
to-night a willingness to aid in the attempt
to make this a party question, moving his
amendment on a motion to go into Supply
and so making the question one of want of
confidence in the government.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). It is merely a
motion asking the government to comply
with the demand of the legislature of the
North-west Territories, and is no more a
motion of want of confidence, unless the
government desire to make it so, than was
the motion of the hon. member for Hants
(Mr. Russell) two or three years ago in regard to preferential trade, and which was
moved in exactly the same way.
Mr. SCOTT. If we take the words of the
leader of the opposition and the words of
the hon. member for Marquette and couple
them with other words which have been
used within the last few months, I think
we are bound to believe that an attempt is
being made, with the assistance of the
leader of the Conservative party of Canada,
to make the granting of provincial autonomy
for the territories a party question. If my
hon. friends are willing to take that responsibility, then it becomes the duty of
the citizens of the North-west to view the
question from that standpoint, and 1 propose, even though the session is late and
the hour is late, to spend a few minutes in
looking at this question from the point of
view of its treatment by the two great parties in this country. As my hon. friend
from
Alberta truly said, this is chiefly a financial
question. If the North-west Assembly is
put in a position financially to carry out its
duties, then there is no complaint to be made
on behalf of the people of that country, and
very little complaint would be made by the
legislature of that country. Speech after
speech made by Mr. Haultain could be
quoted to that effect. Therefore, if we are
able to show that in this present year the
financial needs of the North-West Territories are being met we will go far to show
that the urgency for provincial autonomy
is removed for the time being. The hon.
member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) raised
a query respecting the attitude of the Northwest goverument with regard to the capital
advance of $250,000 voted by parliament. It
would be a matter of great surprise to me to
13917 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13918
learn that the North-west government had
refused to accept that capital advance, as
I understand they have called a special
session for the purpose of voting this money
which is being put at their disposal. Â
Mr. SPROULE. They say they do not
want it if it is regarded as an advance on
capital account.
Mr. SCOTT. I will read my hon. friend
a quotation from the Budget speech of the
Prime Minister of the Territories at the
last session of the legislature. I quote the
report from an independent paper, the Regina ' Standard ' ?
I would say with regard to capital advance
that if such were offered to us on what we
consider reasonable terms, it is a question whether we should not take advantage of
it.
If a capital advance could be obtained on
reasonable terms, we would then be justified
in meeting capital expenditures out of it, for
example in connection with these large steel
bridges we are building and the surveys, roads,
&c., which are properly chargeable to capital.
There were certain objections made by Mr.
Haultain to some of the conditions which the
government proposed to attach to the capital
advance in the first instance, but those conditions were removed and I have been
informed that Mr. Haultain is quite willing
to accept this capital advance and is very
pleased to make use of the money. If the
opposite were the fact I would be exceedingly surprised, because, on April 18, the
Prime
Minister, Mr. Haultain, wired me himself
as follows :
Capital advance satisfactory if unconditional
and if not charged with Belly and Old Man
bridges.
But we have never asked for the establishment of a capital account and I do not wish
for
the establishment of such an account until a
more satisfactory subsidy or annual grant is
provided.
He did not want it.
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend is merely
quoting a fact that was stated to the House
by the hon. Minister of Finance when the
capital advance was going through.
Mr. SPROULE. I am stating it in answer to the contention of the hon. gentleman that the provision
that has been made
is comparatively satisfactory to Mr. Haultain.
Mr. SCOTT. I am not making the contention myself. I am quoting from a telegram from Mr. Haultain
who says on the
18th of April :
Capital advance satisfactory if unconditional
and not charged with Belly and Old Man
bridges.
Mr. SPROULE. I have quoted what Mr.
Haultain said on the 20th of April.
Mr. SCOTT. Now, Sir, in the same message, Mr. Haultain stated that Mr. Fielding's
telegraphed proposal to pay $250,000 deficit
and to provide $457,979 for current year's
services was not satisfactory and that an additional $200,000 to the grant was absolutely
necessary. The vote which has been made
this year includes not only $200,000 which
was stated to be absolutely necessary but
$250,000 additional to the current revenue
vote. In an earlier message, Mr. Haultain had advised me—and this no doubt explains
the point raised by my hon. friend
(Mr. Sproule) that he was unwilling to consider the capital advanced until the current
revenue vote was made larger and on
the 18th April he wired me that the
last addition to the current vote that would
be acceptable would be $200,000. The
government of the North-west Territories
gets not $200,000, but $250,000 additional and the objectionable conditions attached
to the advance against which Mr.
Haultain complained are removed. If he
is still unsatisfied I would be bound to say,
as one who in a sense acted as Mr. Haultain's agent in pressing these proposals on
the hon. Finance Minister, that I misapprehended the instructions given by him. I
will
go a little further and state that the provision made this year for the North-west
government is fully and entirely what we Northwest members asked for from the Finance
Minister and his colleagues and our proposition—I state it upon my responsibility
as a
member of this ouse—was made in accordance with what we had been led to understand
by Mr. Haultain and his colleagues
would be reasonably satisfactory to them.
We cannot assent to any proposition that our
expenditure shall be subject to the approval
of Ottawa.
Yet it was granted specifically on that
condition.
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE. There is
no condition existing in regard to the expenditure of the North-west government on
capital account that does not apply to every
province in the Dominion.
Mr. SPROULE. Does the hon. Minister of
Finance deny that when the matter was
before the House and when we asked the
question specifically as to whether this was
subject to approval from Ottawa or whether
the North-west government council would be
allowed to expend the money as they saw
fit the answer was : Of course it must be
subject to the approval of the authorities
at Ottawa.
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE. There is
no distinction as between the capital account
of the North-west Territories and that of
any other province. Any sum which remains
in the capital account of any of the provinces is credited and if it is taken for
local purposes it is taken by the local au
13919
COMMONS 13920
thority. There is a nominal approval necessary by the Governor in Council but it is
a purely formal proceeding, at all events the
conditions are precisely the same as they
will be in regard to capital account of the
North-west Territories if the provinces are
established.
Mr. SPROULE. Then why did Mr. Haultain object on the 20th of April ?
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE. I do not
see why he did so, and I am quite sure that
when he understands it he will not object to
any feature of it.
Mr. SCOTT. It is perfectly clear. The
members of the North-west government
were under some misapprehension as to the
measure of control that the Dominion government were going to exercise over the
capital advance. But, when they read the
words that the hon. Minister of Finance
used here the other evening when the advance was being voted that practically the
money will be entirely under the control
of the local authorities they will have no
further objection as indeed they cannot
have. But, to proceed with what I was
saying here, I go even farther and I will
state that when we submitted our final proposal to the hon. Minister of Finance, a
proposal which he has met in every particular
this year, I communicated the effect of it to
the members of the North-west government
and I received a reply to the effect that the
proposed provision would be considered reasonably satisfactory, and would fairly well
meet their needs. I do not wish the hon.
gentlemen to misunderstand me to mean
that the North-west government indicated
that they regarded this proposition as giving
them everything that they were entitled to
but they led us to believe that they would
be reasonably able to carry on all the services for which they were responsible if
this
proposition were carried out.
Mr. SCOTT. For this year. In regard to
the capital advance it is merely to enable
the local government to borrow a quarter
of a million dollars. The whole provincial
autonomy demand is very largely the result
of the feeling of the people of the Northwest Territories that they should not be
deprived of the power of borrowing money.
In Mr. Haultain's last budget speech this
sentence occurs :
Throughout all the correspondence and argument concerning our financial and constitutional
relations with Ottawa there has been a
constant and strong reference to capital expenditure. We have said that not only have
we
been confined to a very slender income, but we
have been compelled to make large expenditures which very properly might be charged
to
capital account. Â
I will quote a few words from Mr. Haultain's letter to the hon. Minister of Finance
on the 20th April, 1903.
It has been found necessary at times to point
out that our limited and inadequate revenues
were more restricted and rendered more inadequate by the necessity of making expenditures
out of our current income which in them-.
selves were more properly chargeable to capital account. That is to say we have occasionally
found it necessary to incur heavy expenditures for construction of bridges, the cost
of
which have been a heavy drain upon our resources and which should have been spread
over a series of years instead of being provided for out of the revenues of one year,
to
the exclusion of other and equally important
works.
At this point I may read an extract from
a letter which was sent to me a little more
than a year ago by a gentleman closely
connected with the North-west government.
He said :
Let me illustrate by saying that at the present time there are on file in the Public
Works
Department, Regina, applications for works in
the way of improvements for this year (1902),
resulting from the rapid development which has
taken place in the country, to complete which
would involve an expenditure of $400,000. I
know from my own personal knowledge that a
very large proportion of the work asked for in
certain districts is urgently needed in connection with the development of such districts,
and from present indications the answer to all
such applications is gong to be ' No funds, and
impossible to undertake such work,' because
the Dominion government have neither increased the subsidy nor put the territories
in
a position to incur debt, so that they can meet
these demands resulting from the ' growing
time ' which we are now realizing in the territories.
The fact is that the lack of power to
borrow money, to pledge the public credit, to
undertake permanent works and spread the
payment over a long period of years so as
to permit the inhabitants ten or twenty
years hence to assist in meeting the cost of
works constructed now has been seriously
complained of for years. This lack is one
of the strong features of the gradual growth
of public sentiment in the country in favour
of provincial autonomy. As the hon. gentlemen from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and
from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) have shown, the
grant made to the territorial government this
year is a very much larger grant, taken proportionately or measured in any other way,
than the grant given in any former year.
Including the advance, it is actually more,
than the North-west government stated in
their estimates this year was necessary for
their various purposes. The hon. the leader
of the opposition will find in Mr. Haultain's
budget speech, that he asked for $1,130,000,
and he has received in all, on current revenue account, $957,979, which is apart altogether
from the $84,000 grant for bridge
construction, and apart altogether from the
capital advance. The amount granted therefore, is 85 per cent of the estimates Mr.
13921 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13922
Haultain submitted here last winter and I
may say that a grant amounting to 85 per
cent of the North-west government estimate,
is better treatment than the North-west Territories ever got in any former year. My
hon. friend (Mr. Borden', Halifax) read extensively from letters, and communications
and documents, and records, of one kind
or another, to prove that the Prime Minister
of the North-west Territories was very much
dissatisfied with the treatment meted out
to him by this government. I do not know
whether it would be proper to say that this
state of dissatisfaction is chronic with the
Prime Minister of the territories, but it is
a fact that in former years and under other
federal governments, his dissatisfaction
was no less pronounced. Let me read to
my hon. friend a letter which Mr. Haultain
read in the assembly last spring, to prove
that he has no more particular complaint to
make against this government, than he had
against former governments. This is a letter which Mr. Haultain wrote on November
8, 1895, to the government which was then
in power in this Dominion :
I have the honour to make an additional
statement on behalf of the executive committee
of the territories with regard to the amount required for the territories for the financial year
1896-7. The committee cannot refrain——
It will be noticed that at the time the
North-west government was called 'a committee.'
The committee cannot refrain from expressing a feeling of great dissatisfaction over
the
fact that there is no substantial increase in the
amount proposed to be voted for expenses of
government in the North-west Territories. The
estimates show clearly that the government do
not intend to pay any attention to our financial
recommendations. which have been made for four
years consecutively, both in our written statements and on our personal interviews.
While the government are willing to take all
credit for the growth and development of the
territories, they do not consider that that
growth and development mean a necessarily increased expenditure.
There was no very great development
there in 1895, but the Conservative government failed to cope with even what there
was.
Our local institutions and machinery have been
created by parliament, but parliament does not
supply the necessary money for working them.
A glance at the estimates of 1891-92, when our
vote was itemized and administered by the lieutenant governor alone, will show that
the government and parliament recognized the necessity of making provision for certain
detailed services. These services recur annually and become more costly (for example,
school-s), yet
the increase in our vote since that date does
not hear any proportion to the increased ex— penditure under these heads alone. In
a growing country new obligations arise and new objects of expenditure make themselves
felt. Yet this self-evident fact is quite ignored at Ottawa, and year after year the
services and amounts provided for in 1891 are made the basis of the new votes.
Mr. DAVIS. Did Mr. Haultain write that
when the Conservatives were in power ?
On the top of all this, demands for seed grain,
for relief from starvation and other extraordinary and unforeseen contingencies, are
referred
to the local by the federal authorities with an
unmeaning reference to the fact that matters
of this sort are dealt with by the provincial authorities in Manitoba.
Mr. GALLIHER. He didn't write that
about starvation when the Conservative'
government were in power.
No analogy exists between the territories and
Manitoba. either as regards powers or income.
When we ask for a larger grant in the nature
of a subsidy, or for more powers, or for some
legislation absolutely necessary to the performance of the duties imposed upon us,
we are
told: 'Oh, you are not a province, you cannot
have provincial powers or a 'subsidy.' But when
an extraordinary and unforeseen demand for expenditure in the territories is made
we are asked
to meet it out of an amount granted for entirely
different purposes, and are referred with tantalizing inconsequence to the fact that
'in Manitoba. the provincial government deals with these
matters.'
In the matter of legislation, too, there seems
to be a similar amount of indifference to our
wants and our requests. We have for four years
asked that the amount transferred to the assembly should be voted as a straight grant,
by
that means obviating the necessity of a double
audit and account, a double system of books, a
largely increased staff in our oflices, and an
amount of extra work altogether out of proportion to any benefits derivable from the
system.
This request was agreed to by the Minister of
Finance and the Minister of the Interior in
1892, and has been approved by the Minister of
the Interior every year since then. A simple
clause in the Act would bring about this most
desirable change, but the clause has not yet
been proposed.
None of these matters belong to the arena of
high politics or party questions.
As I have said, up to this present year the
whole people of the territories endeavoured
to keep this question out of party politics,
and I repeat that it is a regrettable fact, that
an effort has been made this year, assisted
by the leader of one of the political parties
in this country, to bring it down to a question of party politics.
They are matters which concern the domestic
economy of the territories, who are still the
wards of parliament, and of the legislative assembly, which is its creation.
The reasonableness of our request has avowedly been recognized by ministers from year
to
year but with no practical result. We now, for
the last time during the life of this parliament,
beg respectfully to call attention to our needs
and trust that the result may be a fairer indication of the amount of attention the
committee feel assured the territories may look for
from the government.
The Prime Minister of the territories obtained no satisfaction in regard to that
representation, until the change of government took place. I think it was in 1897,
the first session that the present Minister of
the Interior was here, that the representation
13923
COMMONS 13924
which Mr. Haultain made in the letter was
listened to, and given practical effect to. I
shall place upon the records of the House.
a table of figures that will go to prove that
if there is any cause to-day for the Northwest Territories being dissatisfied at the
financial treatment meted out to them by this
government ; there was a great deal more
cause in past years when another government was in power in this Dominion, and
there was real reason then for the emphatic language put in the state papers by
the Prime Minister of the territories. I
shall give to the House, the demands made
by the territories for the past ten years
for financial aid, and the proportion in which
these demands have been acceded to each
year:
PERCENTAGE of Grant to Estimates presented.
| - |
Amount asked. |
Amount granted. |
Percentage |
|
$ |
$ |
|
| 1892-93........... |
368,723 |
195,700 |
53 |
| 1893.......... |
368,723 |
199,200 |
54 |
| 1894............ |
403,640 |
225,534 |
55 |
| 1895....... |
375, 640 |
267,534 |
71 |
| 1896.......... |
387,800 |
242,879 |
62 |
| 1897....... |
400,000 |
282,879 |
70 |
| 1898...... |
438,000 |
282,879 |
64 |
| 1899......... |
535,000 |
282,879 |
53 |
(Yukon liquor licensess yielded $160,000 spread
over two years.)
| 1898 } 1899 } |
$973,000 |
{Grants $565,758} {Yukon $160,000} |
= $725,758 or 74% |
| 1900 ................ |
600,000 |
424,879 |
70 |
| 1901 ................ |
600,000 |
407,879 |
68 |
| 1902 ............. |
600,000 |
457,979 |
75 |
| 1903 ......... |
1,130,000 |
957,970 |
85 |
In the year 1899, the North-west government collected $160,000 on account of liquor
licenses in the Yukon, and it was allowed
to retain that money, which I believe it was
entitled to. They spread the amount thus
collected over two years, and the real sums
available by the North-west government in
1898 and 1899 amounted to $725,758, being
74 per cent upon the amount which they
asked in these two years, which was an
aggregate of $973,000.
I have made a comparison also for periods
of five years. We will call the first period
five Conservative years, because the Conservative government was in power during
those years, from 1892 to 1896, inclusive. The total estimates submitted here
by the North-west government during those
five years aggregated $1,904,526, and they
were granted $1,130,847, being 59 per cent
of their estimates. The Liberal government have been in power for seven years.
In those seven years the estimates of the
North-west government have amounted to
$4.303,000, and they have been granted directly in cash $3,097,353, to which must
be
added the $160,000 of Yukon liquor licenses,
making a total of $3,257,353, being 75 per
cent, as against 59 per cent during the last
five years the Conservative government were
in power. Take the first five years that
the Liberal government were in power, from
1897 to 1901, inclusive, the total requisitions
amounted to $2,573,000, and the total grants
amounted to $1,841,495, being 71 per cent.
Or, take the last five years of the present
government, from 1899 to 1903, inclusive,
the estimates presented amounted to $3,465,000, and upon these estimates they have
been given $2,691,595, being 77 per cent of
the amounts asked for in those five years,
as against 59 per cent in the last five years
of the previous government.
In view of these figures, I think we are
fairly well justified in stating that on the
whole we have very much less to complain
of this year than there was to he complained
of in any former year. While I say that,
I would not care to take the position that
the grants are being made too large, because
it is my belief that twice the amount of
money that is being voted could be profitably and advantageously expended in the
North-west Territories, and to Canada's
general advantage. I say that there is
no part of any country in the world which
offers to-day such a good field for investments, with such an assurance of speedy
and large returns. Still, I am bound to
say that I think the government are this
year fairly well meeting the financial demand. The comparisons which I have made
with former years can lead to no other conclusion.
My own attitude in former years on the
question of provincial autonomy has been
referred to, and I am free to state that if
no new condition had arisen, if the conditions were exactly the same at the present
time that they have been in former years,
I would be expressing the same view that
I expressed two years ago on the question.
But a new condition has arisen—the condition of the Canadian Pacific Railway tax
exemption, to which I intend to refer a little
later—which, in my opinion, furnishes a
very strong reason why it is better to hesitate, why it is better not to have action
taken at the present time. But, on the
general question, apart from that condition,
which I hope will be removed in a very
short time, I would simply take the occasion to repeat the opinion which I have expressed
in other years, that the people in
the territories have the same right to full
powers of local government as the people of
any province.
Besides the question to which I have referred, that of the Canadian Pacific Railway
land tax, there are one or two other
factors which might suggest the advisability
of a little delay. One of these is found in
13925 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13926
the joint request of the provincial premiers,
made last fall, for a revision of the scheme
of annual provincial subsidies. The details of
their request involve questions which must
and do form an important portion of the
autonomy question as relates to the Northwest Territories, and I fail to see how the
autonomy question can be satisfactorily
settled without parliament previously or simultaneously deciding as to the merits
of
the provincial statement of claim. The
other factor is what, to be perfectly frank,
I must term the lack of fair comprehension
of the autonomy matter by this parliament
and by the people of the provinces whose
representatives form so great a majority in
this parliament. Of the fact of this lack
of comprehension, I need go no further than
quote the statement of the hon. leader of
the opposition last year, when he said :
With regard to the details of Mr. Haultain's
Bill, with which I am not at all familiar, as I
have not had an opportunity of seeing it, I do not
think that these details have much to do with
the matter.
It is fair to say that when the leader of
one of the political parties is not well seized
of a question—a live political question—it
is too much to expect that the ordinary member or ordinary citizen is well informed
regarding it. In my opinion, the admission
was a confession of utter lack of comprehension of the matter. Mr. Haultain's draft
Bill practically contains the whole question.
The whole question is made up of details.
Although there is a sentimental side to it,
it is essentially a matter of business to the
people of the North-west. When speaking
of a province, we are not dealing with an
empty name. When a province is formed,
the people will assume serious and heavy
responsibilities. Whereas at the present
time this parliament is under the responsibility of meeting the cost of our local
government, with a provincial establishment
the people of the territories would themselves have to bear that responsibility ;
and,
as has been stated by the hon. member for
Alberta, the measure of their duties and
their ability to meet those responsibilities
will depend upon the terms granted by this
parliament when the province or provinces
will be established. If the people have not
adequate sources of revenue, they will be
unable to enjoy the advantages of good government in its full sense. Now, in stating
that I am really repeating what the Prime
Minister of the territories says almost every
time he speaks on the question. In the
speech of 1900, from which the hon. leader
of the opposition quoted, Mr. Haultain said :
I would like it to be understood very distinctly that when I have ever expressed an
opinion in favour of the establishment of provincial institutions it was always coupled
with
a very strong proviso that the proper financial
terms are attached. I would never consent for
one moment, if my consent were necessary, to
the establishment of a province or provinces
even under the terms and conditions granted to
the province of Manitoba. When I say that I
believe the time has come for the establishment
of provincial institutions it is always coupled
with the statement that with these institutions
there must be given means for carrying them on.
Thus as the hon. member for Alberta said,
the details, the terms, are the essence of
the whole question. On the trip which the
hon. leader of the opposition made through
the west last fall, a slight change of mind
was worked on him with regard to the importance of matters of detail in relation to
this question. On one very important detail then he expressed himself clearly in
the North-west Territories, just as he has
done here, and, on behalf of the Northwest Territories, I wish to take occasion to
thank the hon. leader of the opposition for the expression of opinion which
he gave in favour of the view which we
in that country unanimously take, that
when a province is formed it is only fair,
just and proper that the lands, timber and
mineral resources in that province should
be handed over to the people dwelling there
to be managed and owned by them. This
should be done in the North-west Territories
in the same way as in every other part of
the Dominion, except in the province of
Manitoba which was formed when the Conservative party was in power. But on
several of the other items of detail my hon.
friend carefully avoided giving any expression of opinion when he was in the west
last
fall, as he has done on this occasion. I was
in hopes when my hon. friend gave notice of
this motion that he had made up his mind
to give a definite opinion upon some of the
details which he had failed to give in the
west. At Qu'Appelle he was asked if he
supported our claim to compensation for the
lands which had been alienated for federal
purposes and I can assure my hon. friend
that the people in the audience went away
without really knowing what his answer
meant, whether the reply was that he would
support them in their demands for compensation or not. These were the words of his
reply :
In regard to the alienation of the lands, of
course the question why they have been alienated should be asked and I answer that
Manitoba
and the North-west should receive compensation
for such lands as had been alienated for exclusively Dominion purposes.
At Regina also he answered a similar
question by stating in regard to compensation for lands :
In regard to the compensation for lands which
had been alienated it would of course be necessary to consider the purpose for which
they
had been alienated.
Now, I venture to say that that was not
a very clear statement and that in reality
the people at Qu'Appelle and Regina went
away without knowing exactly where the
leader of the opposition stood on this exceedingly important item, this supremely
important item in the demand made by the
13927
COMMONS 13928
people of the west for provincial autonomy.
My hon. friend wants to know why these
lands were alienated. Surely it is a little
late for my hon. friend to be asking that
question. Some of the new settlers in the
west might ask this question without creating any surprise, but surely it is a late
date for the leader of the Conservative party, the party which alienated
the lands contrary to the interests and well-
being of the people of the west and of the
whole of Canada, to be asking in this year
of grace why these lands in the west were
alienated and given away to railway companies. We may differ as to the wisdom and
policy pursued by the Conservative party,
but the thing is done, there is no need to ask
any questions about the lands being alienated, and is not my hon. friend able to say
now whether he thinks they were alienated
for federal purposes or for some other purpose ? Surely the building of railways is
a
federal undertaking ; these railways were authorized to be built by parliament and
the
aid was voted by parliament, so that
surely they are federal undertakings. The
people in the west had the idea that my hon.
friend was simply evading the question by
a quibble. Let me explain to my hon. friend
how serious this question is and why it is
viewed so seriously by the people of the
west. The total areas of lands which were
voted away by the Conservative party
to railway companies was 56,082,072
acres. Now the roads constructed with
this in the North-west amounted to 1,606
miles and in Manitoba 1,217 miles. Northwest land was taken to construct roads in
Ontario and the mileage in Ontario is 650
miles and in British Columbia it is 253 miles.
By these various items railway companies
in the North-west Territories, Manitoba, Ontario and British Columbia have earned
29,986,826 acres of land mostly in the Northwest Territories. Part of this area of
land
is in Manitoba, but the North-west Territories furnish all the lands earned by the
roads
in the North-west Territories, British Columbia and Ontario and a portion of the
land for the roads constructed in Manitoba.
In Manitoba 2,699,230 acres are patented
and perhaps another million of acres will be
selected there, so that the Territories will
have furnished more than 26,000,000 of the
total 30,000,000 acres of land furnished by
the public to these companies. The territories therefore furnish about 86 per cent
of the land earned by railway companies,
yet only 43 per cent of the land aided railways were built in the territories, 1,606
miles out of a total of 3,741 miles which
were aided by land grants. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) at Regina said:
The policy to the west ought to be one of
generosity, and such is the policy of the Conservative party.
Generosity to the railway companies, generosity to Ontario, to British Columbia, to
Manitoba if you like ; our lands were taken
to build roads in all of these provinces, our
lands were taken to make these railway corporations rich, but surely it is a little
too
much to ask the people of the North-west
Territories to believe that the policy of the
Conservative party in this respect has been
one that can be properly classed as a generous policy towards the people of the Northwest
Territories. If the Conservative party
had remained in power another five years
and had continued that policy of generosity
there would be practically no public lands
in the North-west Territories at the present
time to have any dispute about. Even as it
is of our lands that may be said to be fairly
fit for settlement, but little remains outside
of the even-numbered sections, as was
proved by the case of the Qu'Appelle, Long
Lake and Saskatchewan Company. The
company were going to enter a suit in the
Exchequer Court against the government to
avoid being compelled to take the only land
that was available for the purposes of their
land grants which they said was not fit for
settlement. Mr. Haultain says, and I say,
and I think every man of the North-west
will say, that these lands voted to railway
companies were lands voted for federal purposes and that there is no possibility of
any
real dispute with regard to the purposes for
which the lands were voted.
When a railway is aided with a cash
vote by the federal government, every person in the Dominion contributes to that vote.
But when the land of the North-west is
taken for this purpose, only the people of
the North-west contribute to the aid so
given. I repeat, let the leader of the opposition, the leader of the Conservative
party
in the Dominion, state, so that the people
of this country and especially the people of
the North-west Territories can understand
what he means, that the 26,000,000 acres of
the North-west Territories land given to
railway companies, alienated for federal purposes, are to be taken into account and
that
the North-west Territories are to be compensated for these lands—a statement that
he failed to make when in the west, that he
does not make here and that is not contained
in his amendment to this motion for supply. He must recognize that his general
statement in favour of autonomy is not
worth very much to the people of the Northwest Territories unless he goes further,
as
he was pressed to do by my hon. friend
from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and makes it
known to the public just what he means
by autonomy, and what position we shall
occupy with regard to financial ability to
carry on our local government, if we get
the autonomy to which he thinks we are
entitled. The hon. gentleman cannot this
year claim ignorance of details, because he
has Mr. Haultain's draft Bill before him. I
will ask the hon. gentleman as the hon. mem-
her for Alberta asked him, whether he is willing to support Mr. Haultain and the member
for Alberta and myself in favour of the
13929 OCTOBER 13, 1903 13930
propositions of this draft Bill, propositions
that, I believe, are supported by all the
people of the North-west. For I do not
agree with all my colleagues from the Northwest on this point, but believe that Mr.
Haultain's proposals are approved with
practical unanimity by the people of the
North-west. Until the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Borden, Halifax) is willing to say that he
will stand by these propositions, until he
is prepared to say that if we are granted
autonomy it will be by the assistance of his
vote for these terms, he can hardly command the support of those of us from the
North-west Territories, and he can hardly
command the support of the voters of the
North-west who approve the details of Mr.
Haultain's draft Bill.
Now, I made reference a few minutes
ago to a condition which had arisen and
which made it wise, in my opinion to delay
for this year, granting autonomy to the
North-west. That new condition is the judgment given by the Supreme Court of Manitoba
in March last upon the test case concerning the Canadian Pacific Railway land
tax exemption. And, in my view this is a
very important consideration. Even in the
view of the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories at least a very short time
ago this was a very important consideration. In the explanatory part of his draft
Bill prepared less than two years ago he
says :
The effect of these exemptions is to prohibit
any province which may be established, or any
municipal corporation therein, from requiring
the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to assist
in the ' administration ' of the country or the
maintenance of 'peace, order and good government ' within its bounds with respect
to a part
of its property for ever and with respect
to another part for a limited period of time.
This exemption falls hardly upon the people
of the North-west Territories in a number of
ways. The nature of the land grant to the company, in that it is spread over the whole
country in small blocks of one mile square, alternating with those open for homesteads,
causes every
dollar spent by a settler in the improvement of
his homestead, where it lies within the districts
reserved for the selection of the land granted on
account of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to enhance the value
of the lands
held for the company in its neighbourhood. All
public expenditures made in such districts for
roads, bridges and other works of a similar description improve the value of the lands
still held
by the company under its main line grant, the
company contributing nothing on account of
such lands towards the cost of the works by reason of which they are benefited.
Further down in the same document he
speaks of these exemptions as making an
extraordinary burden on the people of the
North-west Territories. Until six months
ago, when this judgment of the Manitoba
Supreme Court was given, nobody had ever
thought to question the right of the Canadian Pacific Railway to exemption from
taxation in the territories, as respects its
right of way and railway property, from
the time the road was built and for ever,
nor the right of the company to exemption
from taxation as respects its lands for a
period of twenty years. The date of commencement of the twenty years period was
disputed, but not the right of exemption
for twenty years.
The trial of the test case has brought to
light an exceedingly important and entirely
new contention in behalf of the North-west
Territories, namely that so long as that area
remains in its present position the company is entitled by law and under its contract
with parliament to no exemption either
as to its roadbed or lands, and that in
reality it has never had a right to exemption from taxation in the territories, and
never will until that area is given the status
of a province.
And as concerns schools, the Supreme
Court of Manitoba upheld the contention,
and this year all the land and all other property of the Canadian Pacific Railway
in
the North-west Territories are held liable
for school taxation.
The court did not express an opinon as to
whether the company is equally liable to
municipal or direct government taxation—
the North-west Territories case before the
court was the case of a school district only—
but the judgment given on the school case
leaves little room for doubt that the court
would give the same judgment as regards
municipal and government taxation.
Now, upon a legal question of this kind
I speak with some hesitation, not being a
lawyer, and I have been careful to put on
paper just what I wish to say so that I may
make no error. But, I followed closely the
press reports of the argument at the trial in
Winnipeg. I have also seen the judgment.
And before judgment was given I met Mr.
Howell, counsel for the government and for
the North-west people, who kindly took the
trouble to explain to me the contentions he
advanced in behalf of the North-west Territories. I believe I have grasped the main
features, which are as I have described.
He contended that with respect of school
taxation, before the Canadian Pacific Railway contract and Act were passed in 1881,
granting exemption from taxation ' by the
Dominion or by any province thereafter to
be established, or by any municipal corporation therein,' an Act (North-west Territories
Act, 43 Victoria, chapter 25) was in force, and
under section 10 power to assess and collect
school rates was conferred. Therefore, the
Dominion government had already delegated taxing power to at least this extent, and,
the Canadian Pacific Railway contract not
providing for the abrogation of such power
on the part of the North-west Territories
the power and right to levy taxes was not
cancelled by the Canadian Pacific Railway
Act, which Act therefore must be considered, as far as exemption is concerned, as
subject to the right already conferred upon the
North-west Territories in this respect. The
13931
COMMONS 13932
court upheld the contention, and the judgment means that the company enjoys no exemption
from school taxation.
The feature that concerns this autonomy
question is this—that upon the creation
of a province parliament would become
liable, under the contract, to secure and
safeguard the company in the exemptions
granted in the contract. The language
of the contract means plainly that the Dominion government or parliament will not
tax for twenty years the lands and for ever
will not tax the other property of the company, nor permit such taxation to be levied
in any province whenever such is created ;
in other words, parliament contracted with
the company to restrict the taxing powers
of any new province.
When new territory was added to Manitoba this provision of the contract was observed,
and the company was safeguarded
against taxation as agreed. The added portion was brought under provincial status,
and specifically made subject to the exemption provision of the Canadian Pacific Railway
contract.
It is true that the North-west Territories
urge that when they made a province
it shall not be subject to the Canadian Pacific Railway exemptions.
This feature of the autonomy problem
tends to prove the wisdom of the words used
by the Minister of the Interior last year
respecting the advisability of taking time
to develop a full, general and popular understanding of the question. If the settlement
with the North-west Territories had
been made last year I very much fear, in
view of the lack of full comprehension by
parliament of the details of the whole matter, that the Canadian Pacific Railway
would have been left in enjoyment of its
contract rights, no matter how unfair as
against the people of the new province, and
that the new province would have been in
the same position as the added portion of
Manitoba, which, by the Manitoba Supreme
Court judgment, ls left under the exemption handicap for twenty years as to lands
and for ever as to roadbed. It is for this
reason that I think it is extremely fortunate
that autonomy was not granted us last year.
I have not the slightest hesitation in declaring that it is vastly better for us to
await autonomy two or three years, and
finally obtain it free from these exemptions
than to obtain it immediately with the
heavy handicap of the exemptions.
I have already occupied so much time,
and the hour is so late, at this late stage of
the session, that I do not feel justified in
going as fully into the question as otherwise I would feel it incumbent upon me to
do. Let me say, in conclusion, that in face
of the position of this Canadian Pacific
Railway tax matter, in view of the millions
of acres of land that are involved, of the
millions of value in railway property of the
company that are involved, it appears to me
that the people of the North-west would be
simply crazy at present to accept autonomy
unless driven to it as a last resort—and we
are not driven to the last resort this year
because our immediate financial needs are
fairly well met ; the lack of the borrowing
power remedied by the capital advance
method ; and little room for complaint is
left us as regards railways. Such being the
case, I certainly approve of delay until all
doubts as to the Canadian Pacific Railway
tax question is removed. I hope this doubt
will not exist very long, I hope the case will
soon be settled by a judgment of the Privy
Council. Possibly it may be too much to
hope that it may be settled before next
year, because the law courts move slowly.
But the position I take is that the government should obtain from the Privy Council
a final decision upon this Canadian Pacific
Railway tax exemption, and that as soon as
it is obtained the people of the North-west
should be granted provincial autonomy.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Borden, Halifax) :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn, Gourley,
Avery, Hackett,
Ball, Haggart,
Barker, Henderson,
Blain, Kaulbach,
Borden (Halifax), Lancaster,
Boyd, MacLaren (Perth),
Broder, McGowan,
Bruce, Morin,
Carscallen, Pope,
Casgrain, Roche (Marquette),
Clancy, Sproule,
Clare, Wilmot,
Clarke, Wilson—29.
Cochrane,
NAYS :
Messieurs
Bazinet, Mackie,
Beith, Macpherson,
Bernier, McCool,
Bourassa, McCreary,
Brown, McGugan,
Bruneau, McIsaac,
Bureau, Madore,
Campbell, Marcil (Bagot),
Champagne, Marcil (Bonaventure),
Christie, Matheson,
Davis, Mayrand,
Delisle, Mignault,
Demers (LĂ©vis), Morrison,
Desjardins, Oliver,
Dugas, Parmelee,
Erb, Paterson,
Fielding, Préfontaine,
Fisher, Proulx,
Fitzpatrick, Reid (Restigouche),
Fortier, Roche (Halifax),
Galliher, Ross (Ontario),
Gauvreau, Ross (Rimouski),
Geoffrion, Rousseau,
Gibson, Schell,
Grant, Scott,
Holmes, Sutherland (Oxford),
Kendall, Tobin,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Turcot,
Lavergne, Turgeon,
Leblanc, Wallace,
Lemieux, Wright.—63.
Loy,
13933 OCTOBER 14, 1903 13934
PAIRS :
Ministerial. Calvert, Logan, Hyman, Johnston (Lambton), McColl, Fraser, Guthrie, Cowan,
Costigan, Gould, Heyd, Mulock, Talbot, Ross (Victoria), Copp, Girard, Monk, Thompson
(Haldimand), Cartwright, Dyment, Emmerson, Charlton, Sutherland (Esex), Harty, Wade,
Riley, Maclaren (Huntingdon), Stephens, Belcourt, Stewart, Blair, Borden (Sir F.),
Johnston (Cape Breton), McCarthy, Power,
Opposition. Taylor, Lefurgey, Gilmour, Simmons, Ward, Bell, Porter, Pringle, Hale,
Thomson (Grey), Tolton, Brock, LaRiviere, Bennett, Calvin, LĂ©onard, Melgs, Ingram,
Tupper, McCormick, Fowler, Tisdale, Northrup, Reid (Grenville), Smith (Wentworth),
Earle, Rosamond Seagram, McIntosh, Halliday, Roddick, Birkett, Culbert, Maclean, Osler,
Amendment negatived : motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
This individual participated in:
