PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.). Before the
Orders of the Day are called, I wish to inquire of the government
whether or not there are to be any changes made in the Bills that have
been introduced by the Prime Minister for the establishment of
new provinces in the Northwest Territories ? I venture to mention this
because I see in newspapers that are supposed to be in the confidence of
the government, rumours-nay more than rumours, direct
statements-that there are to be certain changes made in provisions of
these Bills. In connection with this matter, it seems to me that
the practice followed by the Prime Minister with regard to these Bills,
and also the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill of two years ago, is not a practice
supported by any competent authority. I refer to the practice of
introducing a Bill with which the House is not at all familiar, and
proceeding to debate it in a manner which is usual only upon the
second reading. I am aware, of course, that it is not only perfectly
proper, but that it is usual to make a succinct statement explanatory of the provisions
of a Bill upon its first reading, but I
do not find any authority for proceeding to debate a Bull upon
its first reading, before the measures is laid before the
House in printed form and before the House has had an opportunity of becoming familiar
with its provisions. I am well aware that it was
the intention of the government to have favoured me
personally with a copy of the Bill some little time in advance of its
introduction ; but, unfortunately, for reasons which were no doubt
beyond the control of the government, that intention was not carried out,
and I received the Bill only about the time the Prime Minister
rose to introduce it. But even if I had received the Bull say twenty-four
hours in advance, as might perhaps have been very
2044 proper under the circumstances, that would not have afforded an
opportunity to other members of the House who are equally interested with myself in
discussion the measure, if it was to be
discussed at that stage, to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with
the scope and meaning of the provisions of the Bill before
proceeding to discuss it. I mention this because it seems
to me that if this practice is to be followed by the government in the
future in regard to important measures pf this kind, it would be well to
have each Bill printed two or three days in advance of its
introduction, so that, if there is to be a discussion on the first
reading, the House can proceed intelligently with that discussion,
and can have an opportunity beforehand of giving the Bill that
consideration which, of course, is absolutely necessary to a measure of
this kind.
Now, I have asked as to changes in the Bill. If they have not come to any conclusion
with regard to changes in the Bill ; if they have not come to any conclusions up
to the present time, I would very respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that,
if any changes of importance are to be made in the provisions of this Bill before
the second reading is reached, it would be highly in the interest of the country
as
a whole, that the Prime Minister should acquaint the House with the nature of those
changes a reasonable time before the second reading is brought on. I have no doubt
that the right hon. gentleman will assent to this as a reasonable request, and that
it will be complied with.
Let me add just one world of personal explanation with regard to myself. I do not
usually trouble the House with very much personal explanation about statements with
regard to myself in the public press ; but there have been a number of suggestions
or statements made as to my recent absence from the House which I think must proceed
upon an entire misunderstanding. I quote only one of these, which is not couched perhaps
in a very offensive form, but which conveys a suggestion which is absolutely untrue
:
That the constant factors in our politics are not wholly unknown to some of our Conservative
friends the tactful absence of Mr. Borden from Ottawa at this juncture abundantly
illustrates.
And so in other journals, some of the suggestions being couched in a somewhat more
impertinent form than that which I have just read. I had no intention of absenting
myself from the city of Ottawa up to four o'clock of the afternoon of last Wednesday
week, when I received a telegram announcing the sudden death of a very near and dear
relative under very distressing circumstances. On the following
2045 MARCH 6, 1905
morning I left for my home in Halifax for
that reason and that reason alone, expecting
to return to Ottawa by noon of the following Tuesday. As I have already mentioned
in this House, I did not reach Halifax on
Friday evening owing to the snow blockade,
but I reached there on Monday evening,
more than seventy-two hours late. I left
Halifax on Wednesday morning and arrived
at Ottawa on Thursday evening. I think it
is due to myself to make this explanation,
because I do not think that in my public
life I have usually been found wanting in
my attendance on parliament ; nor do I
think that anything has been displayed in
my public career which would lead any
journalist of even the most suspicious type
to suppose that 1 would have gone to Halifax on this particular occasion if it had
not
been absolutely necessary, in my judgment,
that I should do so. I apologize to you, Mr.
Speaker, and to the House for having been
compelled in self defence to inflict this statement of private and personal affairs
upon
the House. and I know that under the circumstances the House will pardon me for
doing so.
There is one other matter which I forgot
to mention. On the introduction of this Bill
I brought to the attention of the government
the fact that a number of returns which had
been moved for had not yet been brought
down. I also pointed out that there was
certain information which I thought would
be necessary for the intelligent discussion
of the questions that are to be considered in
the House, and that it should be brought
down in a shape to be readily available to
every member of the House.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Mr. Speaker, I think I voice the
feeling of the House when I say to my hon. friend that no apology was
needed from him as to his absence from the House. Unfortunately, we
are all victims of the press, and if we were to take very seriously
everything that is said of us, our repose would be considerably
affected. But I think we can make allowance for the newspaper men
in their desire to give the latest news. Everybody knows the painful
circumstances under which my hon. friend had to leave this House, and no
one, I can assure him, speaking for this side, had any suspicion that
his absence was due to any other cause than domestic affliction. With regard to
the main question which my hon. friend has put to me,
I do not agree with him as to the constitutional practice. I admit
that in Canada the discussion generally takes place on the second
reading of a Bill. This is so in England also ; but my hon. friend is
aware that in England every important measure, I do not say
invariably, but as a rule, is explained by the minister in charge of the
Bill upon its presentation for the first reading. Thereupon
the matter is left for some time for the deliberation of the House and the
2046 country. This practice I have followed on this occasion, and I believe
yet that it is the best method. The government have explained their policy, and
have left it to the judgment of the House and
the country. If the Bill were to be presented without any explanation,
the country would be without the real reasons which prompted the government in introducing
it. If the first reading
were to be followed immediately by a discussion, I think the House,
especially the opposition, would be taken at a disadvantage,
and the government might be charged with sharp practice ; but if the Bill is
left for a reasonable time after being introduced, the
opposition have an opportunity to prepare and explain their views upon it. I
still think this is the best policy that can be followed.
My hon. friend has asked me if it was
the intention of the government to introduce
changes into this Bill. I have only to reply
that it is open to the party who introduces
a Bill to change it at all times. I have seen
few Bills introduced into this House or any
deliberative assembly which have gone
through the third reading without being
considerably amended, and the more important the Bill the more likely is it to be
amended. Even Bills of a very minor importance are very often amended so as to
be hardly recognizable when they leave the
committee. Whether or not any changes
shall be made will be known as the Bill
goes through its various stages ; and if
any should be made, they shall be made in
the ordinary course. With regard to the
information asked for by my hon. friend, I
shall endeavour to comply with his request.
Mr. FOSTER. It seems to me that in ad dition to the
information already asked, it would be advisable that a definite summary be furnished
of the different changes, dating from
confederation, in the financial terms which have taken place to the benefit of the
provinces. There has been legislation in
various years, adding to the provincial subsidies. If a concise
memo. could be made of all these changes with reference to each of the
provinces, showing the additions that each one has received to its
subsidy and matters of that kind, that would help us very
much when we come to discuss the financial clauses of this measure.
Mr. FIELDING. I agree with my hon. friend that a memo.
of that character would be useful, and shall endeavour to have it
produced before the second reading of the Bill is proceeded with.
Hon. PETER WHITE. It would be desirable that
in the case of a long speech such as that which was delivered by the right
hon. the leader of the government when introducing this
Bill, a copy of the Bill should be also at the time, before the House. It
would be well hereafter that members of the
2047
COMMONS
House, should be given the opportunity of becoming
conversant with the contents of the measures introduced, when the speech
explained that measure on its introduction is delivered. Let me quote
from Sir John Bourinot :
It is usual on the introduction of a Bill—on
the motion for leave—to explain clearly and
succinctly its main provisions ; but it is not
the practice to debate it at length at that stage,
such discussion being more properly and conveniently deferred to the second reading
when
the Bill is printed and the House in a position
to discuss its principle. Sometimes, however,
a short discussion may arise on some features
of the Bill on the motion for its introduction,
as there is no rule to prevent a debate.
That is quite true, but, when on an important Bill, such as that creating new provinces
in the Northwest Territories, the main
speech of its introducer is made on the motion for leave to introduce, I think the
Bill
itself should then be in the hands of hon.
members, so that they might be seized of
its contents before it is introduced.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. So far as my information goes, and
I think it is accurate, this is not the English practice.
Mr. WHITE. I do not know what the English practice is.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. In this country we have
been accustomed to explain Bills on their second reading, but in England all important
measures are fully exposed and
explained on their first reading by the minister in charge.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not think there is much
difference between the right hon. gentleman and myself regarding the practice, but
the question is whether the practice is
carried out, and the only difference between us is as to the practice which
was pursued in this case.
PRIVATE BILLS.
NORTHWEST TELEPHONE COMPANY.
House in committee on Bill (No. 28) to
incorporate the Northwest Telephone Company.—Mr. Turriff.
Mr. BOLE. The point I desire to raise is whether it is
advisable we should endorse the principle of incorporating more telephones. A Bill
somewhat similar to this was introduced in the
Manitoba Legislature a few weeks ago and was opposed by the council of
the city of Winnipeg, which I have the honour to represent in this House.
They opposed it chiefly on the ground that as the policy of taking
over the business of telephone companies by the government was in the
air, it would not be advisable to incorporate any more companies,
and the Bill was sent back to the committee in order that
2048 they might carefully inquire into the whole question of having
telephone business conducted by the government. When the Bill
before us was introduced into this House, I regret very much that I
was not present and therefore unable to put on record my objection ; and I deem
it now my duty to reflect the opinion
expressed by the city of Winnipeg, an opinion with which I am in
full sympathy and accord. I have in my hands a resolution passed by
the city council of Winnipeg on February 20, last, which is as follows
:
That as this council have a reasonable hope
that the telephone system may in the near
future be under government control, they would
look with disfavour on the granting of any new
telephone charters as complicating the situation,
and hereby instruct our solicitors to oppose
any such legislation now contemplated at Ottawa.
With the spirit of that resolution I am
fully in harmony. A telephone business,
being essentially a monopoly and an important public utility, it is dangerous to have
it in the hands of a private corporation. A
great many cities throughout the United
States, and I think in Canada also, have
made thorough inquiries into this subject.
The city of San Francisco had an application
before it for a charter for a local exchange,
but representations were made to the council
that the telephone business was essentially
a monopoly, and therefore no new telephone
company should be chartered and the application was not granted. Instead, the city
of
San Francisco appointed a commission to
inquire into the whole subject, and the commission reported. This is the last clause
of its report, as published in the bulletin of
the League of American Municipalities in
November, 1904 :
Inasmuch as a telephone was essentially a
monopoly, that" it would simply increase the
burden on the citizens when they increased the
number of telephone companies. There is no
other public utility with which we come in contact where there are so many objections
to competition.
That is the mandate of a commission
which has made extensive inquiries, which
visited all the important cities on the Pacific
coast and examined into the conditions.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Will the hon. gentleman
tell us exactly what commission that was, I did not quite hear him.
Mr. BOLE. A commission was appointed by the city of San
Francisco to inquire into the whole question of the telephone business. An application
was made by certain promoters to the
city of San Francisco for permission to construct and operate a rival
telephone business in San Francisco. Representations were made to
the city council that to multiply telephone lines would be a nuisance,
and the city council therefore [...]
This individual participated in:
