PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST—SUBSIDY TO
ALBERTA.
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolutions providing for the
payment of an annual subsidy to the province of Alberta.—Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
1. Resolved, That the following amounts shall
be allowed as an annual subsidy to the province
of Alberta, and shall be paid by the government
of Canada, by half-yearly instalments in advance, to the said 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 said province shall
be taken in every fifth year reckoning from the
general census of one thousand nine hundred
and one, and an approximate estimate of the
population shall be made at. equal intervals of
time between each quinquennial and 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 accordingly. and so on until the
popu
5435 COMMONS
lation has reached eight hundred thousand
souls.
Mr. SPROULE. I think we ought to
have an explanation from the right hon.
First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
Sir WILFRID LAURIER; Resolution
(a) provides, for the support of the government and the legislature, $50,000. That
is
based upon the figures of the British North
America Act. It is the same as Manitoba.
Then, in regard to the proposed subsidy of
80 cents per head of the population, I may
say that by the British North America
Act it is enacted that Ontario should be
paid 80 cents per head of the population
of 1861, which was then in round numbers
1,400,000 souls, or 1,396,000 souls. It is
distributed equally. Quebec received 80
cents per head of the population upon the
census of 1861, which showed a population
of a little over 1,110,000. Then, all the
other provinces, that is to say, Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick, Manitoba, and so on,
were paid 80 cents per head until they
reached the maximum of 400,000 souls. It
was obviously impossible to accept this
maximum for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, because already the two
together have a population which exceeds
the minimum limit of 400,000 souls, so we
have suggested that the gradation should
go on until they have reached in each province a population of 800,000. You have to
fix some arbitrary figure, but it seems to me
that the figure that has been arrived at is
as near justice as can be expected.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It seems to be a
very arbitrary arrangement after all. Do
hon. gentlemen know on what it is really
based? If I remember aright in Nova
Scotia at the time of confederation when
the people were very much opposed to entering confederation. the cry was that we
were being sold for 80 cents a head.
Mr. R. L BORDEN. Yes, for the price
of a sheep skin. How is this 80 cents a
head arrived at? Why is it that the allowance now is so much smaller in this
instance ?
Mr. FIELDING. Eighty cents a head
was simply an arbitrary rate reached in
order to allow what was thought to be a
reasonable sum on the population to assist
in the maintenance of the local government.
There has never been any particular question about that because it was 80 cents all
around; the real difficulty that has from
time to time arisen with the provincial governments is with respect to the limitation
on population.
5435
5436
Mr. FIELDING. That is the real difficulty, and I confess I have never been able
to understand the precise reason why these
limitations were put on the provinces. It
would seem reasonable that if the provinces
were to receive a proportion of their income
from the federal treasury, their needs would
increase with their population, and that
whatever that population might be in the
future, they should be paid an allowance
per capita, although not necessarily the
same allowance, because one can conceive
that if the population increased very largely a proportionately smaller rate per
head might serve as well for the purposes
of government as a larger rate would in
a thinly populated country. The reason
for the limit of 400,000 souls in Nova Scotia
and 800,000 as we are now making it in
these provinces in order that it may correspond with the general principle of the
Act, has never been made very clear, and I
do not know if any of my hon. friends have
ever heard a reason given. It is the cause
at this moment of very considerable dissatisfaction in all the provinces and it has
been proposed from time to time that that
limitation should be removed, and that as
the provinces increased in population the
amount of their allowance should also increase. But; inasmuch as in the past there
has been a fixed limitation in the provinces
we are making this analogous to it, making
a liberal allowance for the growth of the
provinces.
Mr. SPROULE. There have been many
applications from Quebec and the other
provinces for a readjustment of their subsidies and we know that from the maritime
provinces in the last few years there have
been representations of this kind. In the
finrst instance, as I understand, they all received 80 cents a head and they were
to
receive that up to a limit of population;
that was regarded as a fixed and proper
sum which each should have, In view
of these repeated applications from the different provinces does the government think
that they are justified in fixing the new
provinces at the same sum now? If the
experience of the past has proven that that
is not enough. would this not be the proper
time for them to consider what is a proper
amount and fix it at that sum for the new
provinces at the present time, rather than
have to go over the whole question when
applications are received from the various
provinces for an increase of their subsidy ?
If you consider applications from Nova
Scotia. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, you
would have to consider the case of the
Northwest Territories as well, and this may
occur next year. It seems to me that our
experience ought to enable us to determine
very well whether this is the correct sum
or not, and if it is not a large enough sum
we should strike the present rate for the
5437 May 4, 1905
new provinces at what in our judgment is
a correct amount, and then let the others
level up to that.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. For my part
I would not concur with the view just now
enunciated by the hon. member for East
Grey (Mr. Sproule). Speaking for myself
personally, I think that the whole system
of giving subsidies to the provinces is one
subject to very serious objection, but we
have adopted it at the time of confederation
and wrong or right we have to abide by it
and live up to it, although it is wrong in
principle. As has been said by the hon.
Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) it is not
a system satisfactory to the provinces. I
agree with the Minister of Finance to this
extent that if you adopt this principle of
going by estimate-it is wrong, but you
have adopted it, you have put it
in your Bill, and the reason for
it was that the Dominion took away from
the provinces their sources of revenue,
customs and excise. If that be the case
there is strong reason to support the view
of the Minister of Finance that there should
be no limitation to population, that there
should be a system of adjustment which
would work automatically, whereby the
subsidy of 80 cents per head would increase
with increasing population. That is a view
of the case which is well worthy of consideration. The province of Quebec has
complained against the present system it is
true, but the province of Quebec is not
alone in that complaint; all the provinces
have complained, and without at all committing the government, speaking for myself,
I think it is one of the questions which
will have to be taken up by the federal
government in conjunction with the provinces at no distant date. but I do not
think at this present time, as we are legislating within the corners of the British
North America Act, that it would be advisable to depart in favour of these provinces
from the principle which has been
applied to the other provinces. There is
in the other provinces a limit of population
beyond which their subsidy does not increase and so long as this is the case for
the other provinces, I think there ought also
to be a similar limit imposed upon the new
provinces which we are about to create.
Mr. SPROULE. I am not objecting to
the limit of population because that seems
to be on the same principle throughout, but
I want to draw attention to what the hon.
member himself has admitted. What is the
cause of these repeated applications from
the provinces? They are made because we
took away from the provinces their sources
of revenue. Need I draw attention to the
fact that their sources of revenue were
customs and inland revenue, and what they
could make from their timber. lands and
mines? We did not take from the other
5437
4538
provinces their timber, their lands and their
mines, but we have taken these assets from
these new provinces, and whereas we took
away only a portion of the sources of revenue from the other provinces, we are
taking the whole of the sources of revenue
away from these new provinces. and yet,
notwithstanding that, we only allow them
the same proportionate rate as we allowed
to the provinces which retained part of
their sources of revenue. It is true that
we give them for the land—
MR. SPROULE-it is true we give them something in lieu of the lands, but we are assuming that
they have a certain number of acres of land and we are putting an arbitrary value
on that which would be about the lowest value you could put on land in the Northwest;
not the value of lands there at the present time. The estimate of the land is not
at all the amount of land that is within their territory nor is the arbitrary
value the value that the lands could be
sold at in that territory to-day, because if
the lands were left in the possession of the
new provinces and they could sell them at
the price which they might fairly realize
for them to-day they could secure a very
much larger sum for them. But after a
while, when a portion of the lands are sold,
the crowding of population becomes greater
and the lands increase in value to $10 or
$15 or $20 an acre, and yet there are millions of acres of land in their territory
unsold, but held by the Dominion government,
what about these people ? They are not
allowed the advantage of the revenue derived from those lands nor are they receiving
any part of their enhanced value. That
will be a source of annoyance to them in the
future, and will probably be a reason why
they will come back here and ask a readjustment of the subsidies. Therefore I
think we should fix the subsidies on some
principle that will be a finality. I remember
on two different occasions, when this question was being considered in this House,
and additional subsidies were being granted
to the provinces—I think it was in 1884,
when we granted additional subsidies, that
we were told that the arrangement then
made was to be a finality; as the previous
arrangement was understood to be ; and yet
the matter was brought up again afterwards,
and the Hon. Edward Blake said this was a
finality of a finality, and it was never to be
taken up in this House again. And yet we
are likely to take it up again, and the
right hon. the First Minister himself is admitting the justice of the claim. Is it
not
better to settle the matter on some basis
that will be a finality, and let the provinces
understand that they must adopt some other
means of raising a revenue and keep their
expenditure within that revenue, otherwise
they cannot expect to come back to the
5439
COMMONS
Dominion government from time to time and
ask to be recouped in the form of an increase in their subsidy which might represent—I
do not say it does—extravagance
rather than a wise and economic expenditure
or money. I think we should adopt some
principle with reference to the new provinces that would not be subject to the
same difficulties and drawbacks that have
occurred in regard to the other provinces. I
think experience has proved that the principle we have acted upon is not a good one,
and we should learn from that experience
and shape our policy accordingly.
Mr. FIELDING. The lands clause will
come up a little later, when that question
may very well be considered. I mentioned,
in the remarks which I addressed to the
House on the second reading of the Bill,
that I might desire to make some changes
in the financial clauses, not as affecting
their amounts, but as to their form ; and
when we come to the land clauses, I will
have a suggestion to offer which may perhaps in part meet my hon. friend's views in
reference to the lands. We are hardly in a
position to-day, however, with this measure
before us, to take up the general question
of a readjustment of provincial subsidies.
That is a very large question, and will require very careful consideration.
Mr. FIELDING. The provinces have no
question in their own mind that they want
it, but there is no proposal at present with
the government to deal with the matter,
although it is constantly agitated. My hon.
friend the Premier has expressed the opinion that the day is not far distant when
that question will have to be considered,
not merely on behalf of Quebec, but on
behalf of all the provinces ; and if a change
is made, it must be on some principle that
will apply to all. The essence of the proposal of the provinces was that the limitations
with regard to population should be
removed. In the resolutions which were
adopted by the provincial premiers some
years ago in Quebec, I think they included
a provision that they should receive eighty
cents per head up to a certain population,
but that where a population was thickly
settled and its needs would not be so great
as those of a population sparsely settled,
the subsidy for the additional population
should be sixty cents a head.
Mr. FIELDING. I think that was at the
conference in 1887, and it was adopted by
all the provinces. I think their demand is
now practically a revival of the demand of
that conference. The last conference was
about a year or eighteen months ago, when
the provincial premiers of the day, Colonel
Prior of British Columbia, Mr. Roblin of
Manitoba, Mr. Ross of Ontario, Mr.
5439
5440
Parent of Quebec, Mr. Murray of Nova
Scotia, Mr. Tweedie of New Brunswick and Mr. Peters of Prince Edward
Island, met here. Although the record
will speak for itself, my impression is
that they simply revived the resolutions
of the Quebec conference, the substance of
which I have stated. To take up that whole
matter and determine it finally is a large
question, and as the Prime Minister said,
some of these days we may have to do it,
but I do not think the House is ready to do
it to-day. In the meantime, it is admitted
that we must proceed with this Bill with
regard to the Northwest provinces, and we
might as well deal with them in the same
way as we have dealt with the other provinces ; and if, one of these days a change
is made, it must be made on some principle
that will apply equally to all.
Mr. HENDERSON. While I do not agree
generally with the hon. Finance Minister, I
quite agree with him that the principle of
granting subsidies to the provinces is all
wrong. There was no other reason why
eighty cents a head was paid to the different provinces than the fact that the revenues
of the different provinces, which they
derived from customs and excise had been
taken away from them; and, in order to
make good to them the revenues which they
had lost by coming into confederation, they
were paid eighty cents per head of their
population, fixed I may say in a rather arbitrary manner, because. so far as the subsidies
for Ontario and Quebec are concerned.
they still remain on the basis of the population of 1861, while the subsidies to the
other provinces are not so fixed. I am not
complaining of that. The Minister of Finance has said that a country sparsely settled
requires more per head than a country
thickly settled. Assuming that the province
of Quebec doubled its population, I do not '
know that it would cost very much more
to govern it than it'does at the present time,
because the population might not be increased by reason of more territory being
populated, but by reason of the population
becoming more dense in the ctities, towns
and villages. However, what I want to draw
attention to is this, that the principle is
bad. I do not blame the fathers of confederation for the system they adopted in 1867.
Possibly it was the only way out of the difficulty that they had to deal with. But
we
are on a different basis to-day. We are
dealing with a province which has neither
customs nor excise revenue. Why apply to
such a province the same principle that was
applied to the old provinces ? It seems to
me that an opportunity is oflered now of
getting rid of a bad principle, something we
do not approve of, but the only one which
so far as we can see could be acted upon in
1867.
I do not see anything in the argument that
the principle which we think is not the best
should be applied to the new provinces un
5441 May 4, 1905
der entirely different conditions, I think
there ought to be some other way of getting out of the difficulty and that a splendid
opportunity presents itself for adopting another principle and possibly one that by-
and-by might be applied to the older provinces when the whole matter is brought
under review by the government. We propose to take away the lands, or rather retain
the lands. I should prefer myself to
use the expression 'take away the lands,'
because we are taking the lands which belong to the provinces and giving them a
consideration in return. When we do this
can we not, on some broad principle, come
to an arrangement by which this plan of
handing over in a bulk sum eighty cents
a head to these people would be got rid of ?
I do not say for a moment that we should
be niggardly in starting out these provinces
in their new sphere. I think it would never
do to adopt any plan which would not give
these people sufficient revenue, but we must
admit the principle that where one government is collecting the revenue and another
government is spending it, there is not the
same inducement to the spending government to act with economy as if they were
collecting it and directly responsible to the
people from whom they took it. If we can
in some way hold those people responsible
to those who contribute the money, we
would be making a radical change which
might be taken advantage of at some future
day possibly with regard to the other provinces. At any rate I think we would be
starting out on a basis that would conduce
more to economy than the principle we are
adopting at present. I do not think that in
the province to which I belong, the province
of Ontario, it was ever conducive to economy in the administration of that province
to have simply one million or one and
a half million dollars taken out of the
pockets of the people generally, chiefly
through customs revenue, handed in a bulk
sum over to its local government. The local
government of Ontario are not responsible
to the people of that province for the taxa-.
tion by means of which that money was
raised, and consequently could not be called
to task, as they should be, for any extravagance in the expenditure of it. I would
hope that the right hon. gentleman, who no
doubt has given great consideration to this
question, could by some means or other
devise some other plan which would be in
advance of that which the fathers of confederation felt compelled to take, and more
especially as we are now told that the conditions in those new provinces are quite
different from those which prevailed in the '
older provinces in 1867. I must confess
however, that although I have thought over ,
the matter a good deal, I am not prepared
to make any suggestion. Neither should I
be called upon to make one because I am
not one of the governing party in the country. We are in a minority of eighty-one
5441
5442
and look to the other side to provide a policy. I would be glad however, to make a
suggestion, and I submit this suggestion to
the right hon. gentleman for what it is
worth. We are starting out these new provinces under new conditions, and I believe
we can devise some plan under these new
conditions, which would be more acceptable and perhaps more profitable in the end
to the people in that new country as it
would throw them upon their own resources
entirely. If they were permitted to know
now just what their revenues will be and
had to work out their own destiny with
what we give them now for all time, and
if they were not in a position to come back
time after time and ask for more, the new
local administrations about to be established
would naturally be more economical in the
administration of their affairs, and that of
course would inure largely to the benefit
of that great country.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. For my part
I agree very largely in everything said by
my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson. If we had a condition of things with
which we could deal ourselves on the line
he believes to be right and I believe to be
right, I would agree at once to his suggestion: but unfortunately we are confronted
with the same difficulty as confronted the
fathers of confederation in 1867. The principle he has laid down that those who have
the spending of the revenue should also
have the responsibility of collecting it. is
so obvious and true that it is a matter of
surprise to those who look through the debates of 1865 and the Act of confederation
as it is. that the fathers of confederation
should have consented to depart from a principle so true and obvious. Why then did
they depart from it? Simply because it
would have been impossible to get any one
of the provinces to enter confederation unless it was given a subsidy to meet its
own
expenses. The people of this country are
afraid of taxation, and especially of direct
taxation, and it was the spectre of direct
taxation which forced those who were responsible for framing the Act of confederation
to agree to the plan adopted. Some
forty years have elapsed, and since then I
do not think that the people of any of the
provinces would be disposed to part from
the principle there laid down, and agree to
release the federal treasury of the subsidy
they receive every year. The conditions are
exactly the same in the new provinces of
Alberta and Saskatchewan as they were in
the older provinces. It is true that these
new provinces have not to surrender their
excise and customs to-day ; but if they were
not in confederation, they would be free to
collect their own excise and customs. Therefore when they came into confederation
they
surrendered, as did the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the
right to collect excise and customs duties,
5443 COMMMONS
and are consequently, for all practical purposes, in the same condition as were these
in 1867. Whenever a province enters confederation, that very day it surrenders its
right to collect excise and customs and
places itself in the same condition as that
in which were the older provinces. Suppose you were to say to-day to the provinces
of Saskatchewan and Alberta: Will you
agree to come into confederation without
compensation or subsidy at all? They
would reply no. Of that there can be no
doubt, and the gentlemen who represent
these provinces to-day will agree in what
I say. What is to be done under such circumstances ? We are not introducing a
new principle but simply applying that
which was accepted in 1867.
Mr. SPROULE. And which has been
found a failure for the object in view.
Sir WILFRID LAURlER. I will not discuss that now. But suppose it were a failure, where
would you apply the remedy ?
Would it not be where the failure had
taken place? That failure has not taken
place in the new provinces, but in the provinces that exist to-day. If you are to
introduce the principle of reform, you ought
to introduce it, not where there has been
no failure, but in all the provinces generally. 1 agree with my hon. friend (Mr.
Sproule) that it may be that the question
of principle may have to be taken up at
some future day. For my part, I think
we shall have to revise the subsidy question. If I propose the present plan, it is
not because I am satisfied that it is the
best that could be. It is not the ideal. But
we have to conform to the measure the people will accept, no more. But the day
may come, probably at no distant time.
when the whole subject of the provincial
subsidies will have to be taken up in a more
radical way than any in which we can
deal with it to-day. But, as a matter of
fact, it is not possible to take it up
today. We have to legislate within
the four corners of the constitution,
not only within the good elements, but
within the blemishes also. Even though
there may be a blemish, we must accept it
and carry it out loyally. I have to repeat
what I had occasion to say on introducing
this Bill, that confederation was, above all
things, a compromise. It was almost a
superhuman effort to get the several provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Quebec and Ontario to agree to surender
their identity and merge it in a common
whole. And those who wanted that conclusion had to sacrifice a good deal to gain
it.
Mr. BERGERON. I may not quite understand it, but it seems to me that the entry
of the original provinces into confederation
and the entry of the Northwest Territories
into confederation are not the same thing
5443
5444
at all. Confederation was a union of sovereign provinces who made a compact.
They existed before confederation, and they
had their sources of revenue, and. before
they gave these up, they exacted something
from the common government, demanding
so much per head of their population. It
was fixed at 80 cents per head. I do not
know why it was fixed at that figure, but
it was the consideration agreed upon. But
the Northwest Territories are not, in the
proper sense, provinces coming into confederation. They are Territories, they are
lands we have bought. We, the Dominion
of Canada, the province who form confederation are the buyers, or the owners, if I
may use that word, of these provinces
which were for a long time Territories.
Those Territories are peopled by some who
were formerly inhabitants of the older provinces and also by many immigrants who
have come in from all over the world. We
are deciding to-day to erect them into provinces and to give them autonomy. But
we are not in the same position with regard to them as we were with regard to
the older provinces. So, it has struck me,
as it has struck my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) that we do not owe
these new provinces 80 cents per head on
their population for the same consideration
that we owed that money to the older provinces. I would not say that I am opposed
to giving it, because I can imagine
that some strong consideration must have
actuated the government in deciding upon
this proposal. But it seems to me that
the argument of the hon. member for Hilton is a very strong one. As to any change
in the allowances to the provinces generally,
we have heard of that for many years. I
should have thought that my hon. friend
the Minister of Finance would have been
able to give something of the reasons for
the demands made upon the Dominion government to increase the allowance, he having
taken part in the conference of some
years ago. I think the allowance proposed
was to be $1 per head.
Mr. FIELDING. My hon. friend (Mr.
Bergeron) may be right. It was a good
many years ago.
Mr. BERGERON. The reason why I
think it was $1 per head was that I recollect it being stated that $1 at the time
of
the conference was about the same as 80
cents at the time of confederation. There
must have been an answer from the Dominion government to the demand made by
the conference. What was the answer ? I
think that was in 1888 or 1887.
Mr. BERGERON. The right hon. leader
of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at
that time was sitting on this side of the
House. Since he has been in power I can
5445 May 4, 1905
understand, though. of course, I do not
know, that the same demands have been
made again upon the government, and this
government must have given about the
same answer as the previous government
gave.
Mr. BERGERON. That is more embarrassing. Apparently they could not find
an answer.
Mr. LEMIEUX. It was completely ignored by the government.
Mr. BERGERON. I do not wish to express an opinion now, as I understand the
question may come before the House. But
it seems to me that it is a question to he
handled with a great deal of care. The
fathers of confederation, when they fixed
the powers of the provinces on the present
basis had in mind that the provinces would
impose just what my right hon. friend Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) said a moment ago they
were so much afraid of—direct taxation.
That is why they were not given a great deal
of power. I understand that one man who
was looked upon as a great authority on the
Liberal side at that time, Mr. Holton, expressed the opinion that it was the duty
of
the provinces, and their safeguard, to impose
direct taxation. I imagine why the government came to the conclusion of granting
the provinces their demand. It would be
only for a few years. But it is the way in
which they carry on their finances, that is
the cause of the difficulty in which the old
provinces are to-day. Of course, that is not
the subject under consideration, and I do not
want to discuss it any further. But I wished
to say that, in my opinion, there is a good
deal in what my hon. friend from Halton
IMr. Henderson) said, that if we gave 80
cents per head of population to the older
provinces it was because we were taking
something from the provinces, but that we
are taking nothing in the same way from
the new provinces.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. There is force in
the remark of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member
for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) that these
are not sovereign political entities, and
therefore up to the present they have not
had the right to collect customs and excise revenues for themselves. But, looked
at from the practical standpoint, as to the
giving to them of revenue derived from
the Dominion, I agree with the Prime Minister, and would not make any distinction
between the position they occupy and the
position of the older provinces. If they
were created into provinces by the imperial
parliament outside of this confederation, we
should find them collecting excise and customs as the older provinces did. So,
whether we give 80 cents per head or not,
5445
5446
we must give them something equivalent to
what was given to the other provinces. Behind that altogether is the very important
point which was raised by the hon. member for Halton and referred to by the hon.
member for Beauharnois. the question of
the principle on which to determine the
allowance to the different provinces. And
the Prime Minister has made the very important statement, if I understood him correctly,
in suggesting that it may be the
duty of the government in the present year
to consider the position of the subsidies to
the provinces, which now constitute the confederation. I should have thought that,
if
that is the position of the government, it
would have been extremely desirable to deal
with the question at least concurrently with
the measure now before the House. There
will not be so good an opportunity in the
history of this confederation to deal with
this question as that which now presents itself.
In the creation of these new provinces
you have the best possible opportunity of
dealing once and for all with the question of what shall be the subsidy to be
allowed by the Dominion to the provinces.
I quite agree with the Prime Minister in
his criticism of what was done at the
time of confederation, though I am disposed to admit that I do not see exactly
what could have been substituted for that
arbitrary allowance. It seems to be entirely arbitrary. It is said that it was in
lieu of the customs and excise. Well,
then, surely it was illogical to fix an arbitrary amount and to fix the limit of
population. I submit that for two reasons.
The province of Nova Scotia is limited to
400,000, and the province of New Brunswick is limited to 400,000. The province
of Nova 'Scotia may reach a population of
800,000, and when it does, the amount which
it will contribute to the customs and excise will be very much greater than the
amount which it contributes when it has a
population of only 400,000. The same is
true with regard to the population of
Quebec and Ontario, and with regard to
the amounts payable to them. But there
is another reason why this allowance made
to the different provinces is absolutely illogical. Every one who has made the
slightest study of political economy knows
that the producing power of money varies
from time to time. Therefore, 80 cents
per head of the population of the provinces
in 1905, is an absolutely different thing to
what 80 cents per head was in 1867. In
this connection I may say that one of the
provinces of confederation is at the present
time making a claim which, perhaps, may
be entitled to some consideration, whether
we agree with it or not; the province of
British Columbia is making a claim at
the present time, as I understand, upon
this government for the reason that it
costs so much more to construct public
5447 COMMONS
works there than it does in the eastern
provinces, and also because the cost of living and the rate of wages are much higher
than they are in the east. We should not
be unmindful, in dealing with these two
new provinces, of two considerations, one
of which is that probably it will cost more
there to carry out public works—as it does
now in British Columbia—than it costs in
the eastern provinces; in addition to that,
we have to remember the sparse population and the necessity of spreading out
public works over a large area. These
are considerations which we ought to take
into account. But what I want to come
down to is, after all, the practical question, that is, the entire absence of any
principle which, apparently, has been found
to guide the government in fixing the subsidies for these provinces. Along what
lines have they proceeded, upon what principle have they acted in selecting the figures
of 800,000 of a population as the limit
upon which they fix the allowance ? There
may- possibly have been considerations
which would have induced them to fix
that at a larger amount, such as the higher
cost of public works and the sparse population spread over a great area. They have
departed from the limit of population fixed
for the maritime provinces, and they have
departed also from the limit of the population fixed for Ontario and Quebec, and
they have adopted a somewhat middle
course. But I cannot see upon what principle they fix that particular limit of 800,000
population for the new provinces. Is
it based on any principle whatever, or is
it simply arbitrary, as was the limit fixed
for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec
and Ontario, in the first instance? How
is it arrived at? Is it simply a guess at
the amount which should be considered proper, or is it fixed as a sort of half-way
house between the 400,000 for Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick and the 1,400,000 for
Quebec ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. That is a
fair question. When we came to discuss
this clause we would have been glad to
know what principle the population limit
had been fixed for Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick at 400,000, and for Manitoba at
400,000. The record shows us nothing at
all about that. But looking at the history
of the case, we found that this sum was
given, as has been stated already, to start
the provinces with, to give them some
compensation for what they were losing
in entering confederation. The first thought
evidently of those who framed the Quebec
resolutions was to take the basis of the
population as it was in the census of 1861.
They did that for Quebec and Ontario. But
at that time the population of the maritime
provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, was very small, if I remember right
about 100,000 each.
5447
5448
Mr. FIELDING. 330,000 for Nova Scotia
and 250,000 for New Brunswick.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Well, the
limit of population was fixed for them at
400,000, beyond which their subsidies could
not be increased. Therefore it did not
seem unreasonable that we should fix a
limit double that amount for these new
provinces, which have so much larger an
area, so much more territory, and which
already start with an estimated population
of 250,000 each. With regard to Manitoba,
the case is absolutely hopeless. Everything with regard to Manitoba seems to
have been done in a purely arbitrary manner, without any principle which we can
discover. Therefore the best thing we
could do was to say that we will give these
new provinces subsidies on an estimated
population double that which has been fixed as the limit for Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. Can the hon. gentleman suggest anything better than that ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. We do not claim
on this side to have given the matter the
same consideration which the government
have given it in framing this Bill. Only
by way of criticism can we endeavour to
arrive at some better conclusion, it any can
be found. But it would seem to me that
the reason which the right hon. gentle
man advanced is not so much one which
would lead us to fix their limit at 800,000
as it is one which would lead us to give them
a larger per capita allowance in the first
instance, when the population is sparse
and the territory very great. I do not
see that you will logically reach the result
claimed by the hon. gentleman, if you follow the statement of the case which he
has made. In the commonwealth of Australia there is an appropriation for customs and
excise by the federal legislature,
but if I recollect rightly, the provinces
receive, not an arbitrary sum, but a proportionate part.
It may be impossible-I am not suggesting
it would be possible—to carry that out here
because goods to a very large amount, entered in one province, are eventually consumed
and indirect taxation upon them is possibly
paid, to some extent, at least, in another
province. I do not know that you could get
a great deal of comfort out of that, perhaps,
but still the basis of proportion, would
naturally appeal to one as a somewhat more
logical basis than the arbitrary basis which
was adopted by the fathers of confederation
and which has been followed ever since. The
difficulty, of course, is to suggest what we
would substitute, but that only brings me
back once more to what I pointed out in the
few remarks that I made a moment ago, and
that is the extreme importance of dealing
with the whole question as far as all
the provinces are concerned, if it is really
proposed to deal with that question, at
5449 MAY 4, 1905
the time we are creating these new provinces. We would not want in the slightest
degree to be unjust to the new provinces. I
am not suggesting that. We want to be
generous to them in every possible way.
They are deserving now only of fair but of
generous treatment from this parliament. I
am merely suggesting this for the purpose
of convenience, because when, parliament
is creating these new provinces, it would be
much more convenient, it seems to me, to
treat the whole subject from the standpoint
of some better principle, if it can be found,
than it will be years afterwards, or
even one or two years afterwards,
when these provinces may be calling upon
this government to make good certain claims
which my hon. friend the ex-Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Sifton) foresaw in respect to
the question of lands, for example. I do
not know whether the government have
taken the question of the revision of subsidies sufficiently into consideration to
give
to the House any information as to what
their proposals are at this moment. I would
infer not, from what my right hon. friend
has said, but I can only express my regret
that the government have not been able to
overtake that question, if they do propose to
deal with it, in time to present it to the
House concurrently with the question we
are now considering. It may be that it is
impossible to do so. I know how much
poitical duties interfere with administrative
and executive duties on the part of any government, but still I think it is a matter
for
very great regret that the question is not
dealt with at this time if it is proposed to
deal with it in the near future.
Mr. BERGERON. I hope my right hon.
friend the Prime Minister has some other
reason than the one he gives, because it
seems that he wants to give the committee
to understand that he came to the conclusion
to double the limit of population of the
Northwest Territories because these new
provinces were starting with double the
population that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had at the time of confederation.
Mr. BERGERON. I understood my right
hon. friend to say that we are going to double
the limit of population in these Territories
because they are starting with a great deal
larger population than the maritime provinces which were limited to 400,000. He
was reminded immediately by my hon.
friend the Minister of Finance, that Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick had together
more population in 1867 than the new provinces have to-day. Therefore, my right hon.
friend must have another reason than the
one he gave for doubling the limit of population in the Northwest Territories.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Perhaps I did
not express my idea correctly. The popu
5449
5450
lation of these two provinces must eventually be much larger. They have each a population
of 250,000 now and they are only commencing to keep house. They have ten times
the territory that the maritime provinces
have, and therefore, as they must have a
much larger population, they require more
revenue.
Mr. BERGERON. That is later on, but
my right hon. friend will remember that
they have not so many people today as the
maritime provinces had in 1867.
Mr. FIELDING. It must be admitted that
there was no logical reason for adopting the
400,000 limit in the original Act of confederation and there is no very logical reason
for
adopting the 800,000 in this. It is an estimate of the probable growth, and we know
that in these Territories the growth is likely
to be much more rapid than in the maritime
provinces, but my own judgment is that
before this arrangement has been in operation a few years the whole question will
have to be considered in the light of what has
been said to-day, and then perhaps the system will have to be general in its application.
In the meantime, with all the weakness of the system, what can we do to-day
but conform to the principles laid down in
the British North America Act ?
Mr. SPROULE. I wanted to ask the hon.
Minister of Finance if he had collated any
data regarding the finances of the different
states, as to what they do in regard to their
financial arrangements and whether, in view
of our experience—because it was an experiment for us and our experience has not
been perfectly satisfactory—the government
have considered any other plan for supplying a revenue, and if there is any correspondence
between Mr. Haultain and the
government of the Northwest Territories and
this government in regard to the subject?
Mr. FIELDING. I think I am correct in
stating that in the United States they have
no system in regard to subsidies at all but
that each state has to regulate its own
finances. I admit that there is something to
be said in favour of the provinces doing so
here if we could start afresh. I want
to say a word in defence of the fathers
of confederation. and I am not very
much given to defending the fathers of
confederation in reference to the financial
arrangements that were adopted at the
time of confederation. If we had been
dealing with the provinces as we are now
dealing with the provinces of the west we
might have demanded from them such terms
as we pleased. We might have said : Get
your taxation in any way you please. But.
that was not the condition in 1867. Each of
these provinces was an independent body
when it was asked to come in, and the
fright at the idea of direct taxation which
5451 COMMONS
my right hon. friend the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has referred to undoubtedly
had a great effect on some public men. They
said : Each of these provinces levies excise
and customs duties, and if you take away
from us our excise and customs duties you
must give us some portion back. I do not
think that was an unreasonable thing.
Mr. FIELDING. If we admit that it was
a reasonable thing for the old provinces,
what position are we in today ? Shall we
say to the new provinces: We gave a
portion of the excise and customs back to
the old provinces but we will not give it to
you ? We collect customs and excise from
the old provinces and we give them some
back; we will collect the excise and customs
from the new provinces and we will in the
same way give some back. This is the uniform practice to-day. My hon. friend (Mr.
Sproule) wanted to know if any other plan
has been suggested. and I am frank enough
to say, that, notwithstanding that there is
something to be said in favour of some other
plan, I have no expectation that you can
arrange the finances on any other basis.
There is no province which is willing to give
up its subsidy. The system is a part of our
constitution. It is provided for by the
British North America Act wholly beyond
change by ourselves and we would be obliged to go to the imperial parliament to change
it. I believe that the provinces would be
rivalling each other to get their delegates
on the other side in opposition to the proposal if we asked for anything of the sort.
I fully anticipate that if any revision is
made it will have to be on the lines of the
present system. We may devise some system, which, while adopting the present
principle, will work the details out in some
other way.
Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman said
that originally, at the time of confederation,
we dealt with provinces that were sovereignties having the power to levy taxation.
Or.
in other words, there were two parties to the
contract. Then the one party might offer,
but the other party might not accept, and it
would be for the other party to make a
counter offer and, between them, try to
reach an agreement; that is to say, one
would accept what the other would be willing to give; but in this case there is only
one party to the contract. There is only one
party, because the federal parliament is the
owner of the Territories, and they are only
establishing an outlying portion of those
Territories which they may call provinces.
and they are giving these provinces certain
powers. They have scarcely consulted the
representatives of those Territories in regard to other features of these Bills, although
those gentlemen have been hanging
around this parliament for three months.
They did not even deign to take them into
5451
5452
consultation in regard to many other features, and why should they do so with regard
to the financial feature? I asked if
any correspondence has been received that
would indicate that they had foreseen some
trouble in regard to this feature, or that
they were satisfied with the government's
proposals. I understood the minister to
say that there was no conference.
Mr. SPROULE. Well, correspondence. I
take it that if there were conferences, there
would be some correspondence leading up to
them.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. There is correspondence. including the Haultain Bill.
which has been brought down.
Mr. SPROULE. if there is correspondence
with regard to it, they must have set out
the various features of what would be satisfactory to them; the financial question
is
one of the important ones, and therefore I
assume that if there is any correspondence
with regard to the introduction of the Bill.
there would be correspondence in reference
to that aspect of it. Therefore, I say that
that justifies what I have said, that there
is no similarity between what we are doing
today and confederation, because at confederation there were two contracting parties,
but today only one party has the power
and can withhold everything from the provinces that are being created. We have
been carrying on an experiment for thirty
years in this matter, and I say that the experience of time, has shown that the experiment
is not a good one. Am I not justified in supposing that a wise and intelligent
government, having to deal with the same
question with regard to the new provinces,
would endeavour to settle on some sound
principle that would not require to be changed from time to time ? It seems to me
that
would be the part of wisdom and what you
would expect from very astute business
men. Experience must teach us something,
and our experience with our system of division of revenues for thirty years should
enable us to judge whether it is a success
or a failure. The Minister of Finance admits it is a failure.
Mr. SPROULE. I understood him to admit it was a failure, because the provinces
are always coming back for a readjustment.
notwithstanding it was declared a finality
ten years ago. They have come back in the
past time after time, and are coming back
now, and are likely to come back in the
future, and does not this suggest that the
part of wisdom would be to adopt some new
and sound system which would avoid the
necessity of readjusting these subsidies from
time to time, as we have been obliged to do
in the past?
5453 May 4, 1905
Mr. FIELDING. I understood my hon.
friend to ask if there was any correspondence from the Northwest government in
regard to suggesting any other methods than
this, and it was to that question I replied
there was no correspondence. The government of the Northwest, in the Haultain Bill,
has suggested precisely the same method of
dealing with this matter as that which we
have adopted. I do not understand that the
principle of this matter has been a failure.
What is the principle? That the provinces
shall receive some portion of the revenues
which the people pay to the Dominion government. I do not think that principle has
been a failure, and there is not a province
in the Dominion today that would be willing to abandon it. The working out of the
details has not always been satisfactory
and the amount not always sufficient, but
the principle that the government at Ottawa shall pay a subsidy to the provinces is
a
principle that has not been a failure. No
province will admit that it is a failure,
though they will all be glad to have a larger
subsidy.
Mr. FIELDING. That principle will certainly be retained, the only change that
might take place being a re-adjustment of
details. As to the point that we are not
bound now in dealing with the Northwest
as we were bound in dealing with the provinces which had the power to enter into a
contract and to bargain, I admit my hon.
friend's argument, that if we followed the
principle to its logical conclusion we would
not give the Northwest anything. We would
say: You are not in a position to bargain,
and we will give you nothing. That would
be manifestly unfair, and I am sure my hon.
friend would not pretend to take that view.
Inasmuch as that principle has been adopted, and inasmuch :as we give back a portion
of our revenue to the provinces already constituted, it is only reasonable that we
should
give a portion to these new provinces in
like manner.
Mr. HENDERSON. I do not think the
minister is justified in inferring, from anything that has come from this side of
the
House, that we do not propose to give the
new provinces anything; that we do not
propose to be generous to these new provinces.
Mr. HENDERSON. No, but the remarks
of the hon. gentleman might convey the
impression that those of us who have taken
part in this debate were not inclined to
deal fairly with these new provinces.
5453
5454
Mr. HENDERSON. I am glad to hear
the hon. gentleman say so, but his words
will be read. Permit me to say that I would
favour no plan that would not deal reasonably, generously with the people of the west,
for the reason that if we did not do so we
would be immediately called upon to do
something more, and there would be a continuous agitation. I am inclined to believe
that we will require to be more than generous at the start if we are to have peace
and contentment in that western country,
because the people who live there are a
people who will stand up for their own
rights. Therefore, I wish it to be understood that I am not going to be parsimonious;
I do not propose anything of that
kind, but I simply reiterate what I said before, that I think some new plan might
now
be suggested by which we could adopt conditions which would throw the responsibility
on the people of these new provinces of conserving what they do get, would make it
more to their interest to protect and conserve their revenues, and to economize with
the moneys which come into their hands
for the purpose of carrying on the government. It might be said that would perhaps
be a sort of parental care, that we are a
little too anxious. I think in the administration of the older provinces we have had
some examples of lack of care to conserve
the assets and revenues of the people. You
may take, as an example, the province of
Quebec ; I am afraid that in past years the
people of Quebec received a severe lesson.
There certainly was a time when they overrode all principles in their expenditure,
when
they were reckless and seemed to throw
money right and left, until they accumulated a very large debt indeed, which is an
undesirable thing for a province having a
fixed revenue. A debt is a less serious matter to the Dominion, because we have a
variable revenue.
Mr. HENDERSON. If we require more
money we simply have to adopt the plan
of the Minister of Finance, reduce the
taxation and get more revenue. That is.
we adopt a tariff for revenue only instead of a protectionist tariff in the interest
of the people of this country. We simply
adopt a plan to take more money out of
the pockets of the people, and therefore a
debt is not so serious a matter to the Do
minion as to a province with a fixed revenue. What I said with reference to
Quebec applies pretty much to Ontario,
which has now a considerable nucleus of
a provincial debt, as has recently been disclosed. I am sorry I cannot assist with
a
suggestion as to what direct method should
be adopted. I believe it could be worked
out on the principle of allowing the provinces to retain their lands and work out
their own destiny, instead of our acting
the paternal part of taking care of their
5455 COMMONS
lands and using them for Dominion purposes and giving the provinces a money
consideration instead.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Retaining
their lands in Quebec and Ontario has not
made them more economical.
Mr. HENDERSON. I think this case is
somewhat different. The new provinces
have the example of Quebec staring them
in the face, and will possibly be warned
by that. But leaving that aside, I think
if they are asked to hew out their own destiny that properly belongs to them, the
result will be better not only for the provinces, but for the Dominion. We must
look forward to the time when these enormous subsidies are going to be a very heavy
charge on this country. What is to become
of the Dominion if we are going year after
year to increase the revenues of the provinces out of the Dominion exchequer? I
look forward to a time when possibly the
revenues of the Dominion, which have been
swollen of late years, will not increase so
rapidly, and when we may possibly be
ca lled upon to increase the debt of the country for the purpose of providing these
large
subsidies. I have made no calculation as
to what additional sum would require to be
paid by the Dominion on account of the
creation of these new provinces, but I am
under the impresgion that the amount
would be somewhat alarming. I would
be glad if some hon. gentleman who has
made the calculation would inform the
committee just what it is at the present
time; and it is not to the present alone
that we must look, but also to the near
future. The population of that country
will increase from year to year, and when
it reaches 800,000 in each province, the
subsidy at 80 cents a head will amount to
$640,000, or double that for the two provinces. a very considerable provision, apart
from the allowance which we have to make
to them because of the fact that they come
in without a debt and that we have to pay
them for the lands, with respect to which
I shall have something to say when we
reach the subclause. Having received the
assurance of the Finance Minister that he
did not wish to convey the idea that we
were acting in an unfair manner to these
provinces, I have nothing more to say at
the present time.
Mr. SPROULE. I was about to say,
when the hon. gentleman rose, that I did
not mean to imply that we were not in
favour of giving assistance to the Northwest Territories in the way of subsidies.
That was not my intention at all; but the
hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson)
has put that matter right. I was directing
my attention to another matter which I
think ought to be considered at the present
time, that is, whether our system has been
a success or a failure. The Minister of
5455
5456
Finance does not admit that it has been a
failure: he claims that it has been a success. But I remember distinctly that some
years ago the Hon. Edward Blake declared
it to be a failure. Sir Richard Cartwright
said the same thing. He said over and
over again that he was opposed to the
principle, because it only created an ambition to beg for more. He also pointed out
that it would inevitably lead a political
party in a province, when the same party
was in power in the Dominion, to appeal
to the electors for support on the ground
that they were going to get the provincial
subsidy increased or get the Dominion to
assume a debt which they had improvidently rolled up: and thus they would have
a powerful lever in their hands to induce
the electorate to return them to power. Is
it not a fact that a political party in the
maritime provinces have run the elections
more than once on that ground, declaring
that if they were returned, their friends
being in power in the federal parliament,
they would have a better chance of getting
the provincial subsidy increased than if the
Conservative party were in power? And
the result was that they were successful.
The same question was raised in the province of Quebec and the same party succeeded.
We have had it knocking at the
doors of the federal parliament for an increase in the subsidy, and we have had the
declaration of the First Minister to-day that
we must deal with that question in the near
future. Is not that an evidence that the
principle is an unsound one ? We should
adopt a principle which would be a finality
and under which we would not have this
menace constantly before us. It is for
these reasons that I draw attention to the
matter today; and when we are forming
these new provinces, it seems to me a fitting time to adopt a correct principle with
regard to them, and then try to deal with
the other provinces on a similar principle.
I asked if there was some correspondence,
because I assumed that if there had been
no correspondence before the financial details were announced, there would not be
much trouble at the present time. The
financial arrangement is quite liberal now,
in view of the small population. At the
present time, when each province is supposed to have a population of 250,000, it
will give at least $1,100.000 to each province. Then a province of 250,000 people
would be getting $1,124,000. That would be
regarded as rather lavish taking into
account the smallness of the population.
But when they reach the maximum of 800,000. their revenue will be $2,200,000. How
much did we give the Territories last year
for government ?
Mr. FIELDING. I cannot say off-hand.
but perhaps some hon. member from the
Territories can recollect it.
5457 May 4, 1905
Mr. TURRIFF. We do not get the maximum when we attain a population of 800,000, but when we attain
a population of
1,200,000 in each province. When we get
the maximum, or a little over $2,000,000,
if the people of the Territories will then be
paying as much revenue to the Dominion
per capita as they are now, the Dominion
government will be receiving from each of
these provinces a sum of about $10,000,000
or $12,000,000, so that I do not think the
debt of the Dominion will be increased by
the subsidy.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Would the Minister
of Finance be good enough to give an estimate of the amount that will be required
to
supply the necessary buildings to carry on
legislation ?
Mr. FIELDING. There is a clause later
on which deals with that, subsection 4,
which will be reached in a moment. The
whole sum paid to the government of the
Territories in 1903 was $802,466. There
are several charges in which the Territories
share but the grant to the government itself was that amount.
Mr. SPROULE. Did you not spend a
lot on public works in addition ?
Mr. FIELDING. The Territories have
shared in the various expenditure by the
Dominion. I am speaking of the sum paid
the territorial government and which was
under their control.
Mr. SPROULE. What is the cost of the
government there today ? I remember
pointing out last year what we spent. What
we gave them to spend reached a little over
a million, which would be at least $600,000
to each of the two. Now we make it $1,124,000. but this covers the administration
of justice and everything else which entails
a great deal of additional expenditure. Having regard to what it costs us to govern
that country to-day, this is not a very extravagant amount to give them. But ten years
hence, when there will be over a million
people there, they will be back for a readjustment of their provincial subsidies,
which seem to be lavish to-day ; and because
of this fact we ought to devise some better
principles than are embodied in this Bill.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. It would be interesting to have a statement along the lines
my hon. friend has mentioned. The government of Canada, by means of an allowance to
the government of the Territories
and appropriations for public works and
otherwise, is spending a certain amount.
How does that compare with the amount
which the Territories will receive under
this Bill ? It would be well to have a comparative statement in respect of their housekeeping
in that regard. Will they be much
5457
5458
better off, or in the same position or worse
off ?
Mr. FIELDING. The figures which I gave
were taken from the public accounts of
1903, and. they show that we paid something over $800,000 to the government of the
Territories in that year. Last year the sum
was larger. I think my hon. friend from
East Grey is right in saying it was something over a million; and if you add the
various charges which the Dominion bears
in the Northwest, it will be still more. It
is not easy to make up such an account as
my hon. friend the leader of the opposition
suggests because the Northwest shares in
all the expenditure of the various branches
of the Dominion service.
Mr. SPROULE. I was referring to those
items they will be obliged to provide for
the future and which we have provided heretofore.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. How much does the
government of Canada provide for the expenditure which must be paid in future by
the government of the Territories out of the
allowance we make ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. The figures I had at
the time, given me by the representatives
of the Territories, were as follows: The
total revenue for the eleven months of
their financial year ending the lst of January, from January to November, was $1,
104,842.07. Of that amount they had received from the Dominion $961,936.42. Therefore
the amount collected from local sources
was $142,905.65. I have since ascertained
that the total amount received during the '
whole year, both from Dominion and local
revenues, was $1,121,000 and their expenditure to the first January last was $1,053,000.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Will they, under
the new conditions, have to provide out of
their subsidies to meet expenditures which
are now provided for by the federal government in its general administration of Dominion
affairs, and how much ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. There are certain
expenditures now made by the territorial
government, the money being largely supplied to them for that expenditure by the
Dominion. Then there are certain other
expenditures now made by the Dominion
government on account of services that will
be under the control of the provincial governments. Take, for instance, civil government.
It is estimated that the
total amount required to be paid in this
connection will be $101,540, which is
based on the actual expenditure by the territorial government. Then they give an estimate
of the amount required. for legislation.
These two amounts are expended directly
by the territorial government. To that must
be added the administration of Justice,
part of which is now provided for by the
5459 COMMONS
Dominion government, but expended by the
local government. And, in that connection
you have an additional $65,000, this being
paid by the Dominion government over and
above what is expended by the local government. There are other expenditures
now made by the Dominion government,
such for instance, as court house, sheriff's
ofiice, Regina jail, and Prince Albert jail
and all which will be required to be paid
by the provincial government in the future.
Then there is the item of public works.
There is now paid for public works by the
territorial government out of money supplied by the Dominion government, somewhere
about $680,000. In addition to that,
I need hardly say, there is a large amount
expended by the Dominion government, but
that expenditure by the Dominion is for
works that will remain under the control
of the Dominion government. Then we have
the details of what will be required for
education and for agriculture and statistics.
In the latter, in addition to what is expended by the territorial government, there
is $7,000 paid out by the Dominion government. Under the head of government in
the Northwest Territories we have expenditures for lieutenant governor's office, registrars'
offices and schools unorganized districts, and so on—these are met by the Dominion
government, but hereafter will be a
charge upon the provinces. I think I cannot
do better than give a summary of the expenditure made by the local and by the Dominion
government for purposes which hereafter will come under the control of the provinces.
MR. FITZPATRICK. The figures are as
follows for expenditures now made by the territorial government:
| Civil government.. .. .. .. |
$101, 540 |
| Legislation.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
21,375 |
| Administration of justice .. .. |
29,000 |
| Public works.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
680,000 |
| Education.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
345,125 |
| Agriculture and statistics .. .. |
47,600 |
| Hospitals, charities and public
health.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
20,000 |
| Miscellaneous.. .. .. .. .. .. |
68,175 |
| Total.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
1,312,815 |
To this you must add the expenditures
being made by the Dominion government in
connection with the same services:
| Administration of justice .. .. |
$ 200,290 |
| Public works.. .. .. .. .. .. |
215,000 |
| Agriculture and statistics.. .. |
57,000 |
| Government of the Northwest
Territories through the Lieutenant Governor |
124,380 |
| Total.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
596,670 |
Adding these sums together you get a total of $1,909,485. This, according to the
estimate prepared by the territorial author
5459
5460
ities, would approximate the total amount.
In this they have included something like
$200,000 for purposes that we thought were
not necessary and that were deducted.
There was $3,000 in connection with the
administration of justice; $8,000 in connection with the Edmonton jail, which will
have to remain under the control of the
Dominion government, because Edmonton
jail is really a penitentiary; $100,000 estimated for police service which cannot
be
included; $38,000 in connection with roads
and $100,000 for the construction of a proposed fence along the international boundary
line of the territories. There is also
another item which I cannot explain just
now. The deduction of this amount of
about $200,000 would leave about $1,700,000
which was the basis upon which we practi
cally settled.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. No. I have the
public accounts which show the actual expenditure by the territorial government and
also the expenditure by the Dominion government last year. But I have not the
figures here.
Mr. FIELDING. I will bear in mind what
has been suggested and bring the memorandum so far as it can be done. The Minister
of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) says it has been
prepared and that he has it.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. As I understand it,
the revenue of each province payable by the
government will be $1,030,375, made up as
follows :
| Civil government and legislation.. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
$50,000 |
| Allowance at 80 cents per head
per capita on 250,000 population.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
200,000 |
| Debt allowance.. .. .. .. .. .. |
405,375 |
| Allowance for lands.. .. .. .. |
375,000 |
Mr. FITZPATRICK. It is based upon
the population of 500,000 for both provinces.
The allowance for the two provinces would
be :
| Civil government.. .. .. .. .. |
$100,000 |
| Per capita allowance at 80 cents
per head on 500,000 population.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
400,000 |
| Debt allowance.. .. .. .. .. .. |
800,000 |
| Compensation for lands.. .. .. |
750,000 |
That would be a total of $2,050,000 or
for each province, $1,025,000.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Did the representatives give to the government an estimate of
the amount of money they were likely to
receive from licenses, subsidies and succession dues ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. $143,000 from all
sources was the estimate of territorial
revenue, based upon the figures of the
amount received last year, that is for the
two provinces.
5461 May 4, 1905
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. As I make it, the
probable revenue for the new provinces
would be $1,124,125 for the first year.
Mr. FIELDING. $1,123,125, substantially
the same as the hon. gentleman's figures.
Mr. HENDERSON. When the population
reaches 800,000, 1 make the revenue for each
province $1,652, 000.
Mr. FIELDING. But at that time the.
revenue which will come to the Dominion
will be a very large sum, and we can well
afford to pay. them an increased subsidy.
Mr. HENDERSON. If the member for
Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) is correct, it will reach
$10,000,000. But I think that is a mere
guess because the population would have to
increase very rapidly indeed to bring the
revenue to $10,000,000. It would have to
increase more than twice as rapidly as it
does now; because if we take the revenue
per capita of the whole Dominion, which is
$8.87, and apply it to a population of 5,000,000, for each of those two provinces,
it
would not produce quite $5,000,000, which is
a long way from $10,000,000, which the hon.
gentleman said would be the revenue, possibly, when they reached the 800,000. An
increase of 300,000 over 500,000 would not
make up the other $5,000,000. So I think we
must not bank too much on this enormous
increase of revenue to meet the very large
expenditure. We will have to make a more
careful calculation than was made by the
member for Assiniboia.
Mr. INGRAM. As I understand it, the
proposition of the Territories was $1,396,000.
So there is that difference between the government's proposition and that which the
Northwest Territories submitted in their
draft Bill.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. They asked altogether for $1,909,485, to include all the services that they are
now responsible for, and
the services that are provided for by the
Dominion government directly. That was
their request, $1,909,485. Now when we
examine the details of the figures, we find
that in that sum they include a sum of
$3,000 in connection with the administration
of justice, which they wanted added on,
though it is already provided for. They included the sum of $8.000 for the Edmonton
jail. That sum of $8,000 for the Edmonton
jail will not be a charge on them at all. It
will remain with us, because the Edmonton
jail is to be treated as a penitentiary for the
Territories. Therefore the financial obligations connected with that penitentiary
will be upon us. and that sum is deducted
from the amount they claim, as the jail will
not pass over. Then in connection with the
police service, they charged $100,000, which
they wanted us to give them in order that
they may provide for their police service.
We did not think, in view of the fact that
the Northwest Mounted Police is to be main
5461
5462
tained by the Dominion government, that we
ought to maintain the police, and at the same
time give them $100,000 for the same service;
because there is a provision in the Northwest
Mounted Police Act that if they require the
services of the police they can apply for
them, and each municipality of the province
can pay for such service as they require
from the police. Therefore that sum is also
to be deducted. Then they charged, in connection with public works, a sum of $13,000,
which we did not think ought to be admitted.
They claimed in connection with colonization
roads, the sum of $25,000, which we did not
think ought to be admitted, because it is the
intention of the government, so far as these
colonization roads are necessary, to continue
to make the expenditure ourselves, in view
of the fact that a part of the Territories will
still remain under our control.
Mr. HENDERSON. Do you continue the
construction of these colonization roads in
the new provinces as a Dominion work ?
Mr. FITZPATRICK. In so far as it may
be necessary to make colonization roads,
it is our intention to make them, both in the
new provinces and outside—if we deem it
necessary to make any. Then in addition,
they asked for $100,000 for the construction
of a fence along the international boundary.
We did not think that was necessary, and if
it was necessary to construct it, we should
do it ourselves. So we deducted that
amount. Then there is another amount of
$50,000 to be deducted. which they charged
as the result, they claimed, of an examination of the Auditor General's Report of
1902-3. They seemed to think they were entitled to $50,000 more, which we also deducted.
So that from this sum of $1,909,485
these deductions have to be made, and if
these are taken into account, it will be
found that the amount we have given to
them to be derived from the different sources
of revenue mentioned in the resolution, will
practically meet all their requirements, of
course, always bearing in mind that they
have from their local sources a revenue of
$143,000.
2. Resolved, That inasmuch as the said
province is not in debt, it shall be entitled to
be paid and receive from the government of
Canada, by half-yearly payments in advance,
interest at the rate of five per cent per annum
on the sum of eight million one hundred and
seven thousand five hundred dollars.
Mr. HENDERSON. To my mind that is
one of the most interesting resolutions in the
schedule. I desire to ask the Finance Minister whether, if parliament should grant
this
allowance to each of the new provinces, that
is an allowance of five per cent on the sum
here mentioned, he would still hold to the
view that he holds in the case of Ontario,
that the province could at any time call on
this Dominion to pay over that $8,000,000 ?
Now if it is not the intention of the govern
5463 COMMONS
ment that there should be a sum actually
owing to these provinces, a sum of money
which they can call upon the Dominion for
at any time, I think we should be extremely
guarded in the wording of the resolution. I
am not sure that the resolution as worded
now will really carry out the intention of
parliament. I do not know who the
draughtsman was, whether it was the hon.
Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) or the
hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I
would rather have supposed that it was the
Minister of Finance.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. You must remember that my hon. friend the Minister of
Finance was not consulted about this Bill
according to the theory of hon. gentlemen
opposite.
Mr. HENDERSON. My hon. friend the
Minister of Justice has forgotten that this
clause was not published or given to the
House until after the Bill had been introduced, or until after my hon. friend the
Minister of Finance had returned from his
European trip.
Mr. HENDERSON. Well, now we know
who the draughtsman is, and I am glad we
do, knowing some of the opinions which
the hon. Minister of Finance held in regard
to an arrangement of a very similar character as between the province of Ontario
and the Dominion of Canada, and knowing
that the hon. Minister of Finance, in regard to the large sum of $2,848,000 which
the province of Ontario alleged for many
years was an asset of that province, supported that contention, and that he held that
at any time the province of Ontario had
the right to call upon the Dominion to pay
over that large sum of money. Knowing
that fact, I may well suspect that there
may be something in even the drafting of
this clause that will allow these new provinces to call upon the Dominion for this
sum of $8,000,000. Whether that is the intention of the hon. Minister of Finance or
not I hardly think it is the intention, or will
be the intention, of this committee. I
rather think the intention will be to grant
this $400,000 from year to year as a subsidy.
In the year 1884, the Dominion of Canada granted an additional subsidy to the
province of Ontario of $142,414, based upon
a capital sum of $8,848,000, which it was
alleged was owing to the province of Ontario by the Dominion of Canada, alleged
not as a matter of fact, but simply as a
matter of calculation. The sum arose in
5463
5464
this way : From 1867 to 1873, the province
of Ontario was charged the interest on five-
ninths of the excess of debt which the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada had
over the $62,500,000, when they went into
confederation. In 1873, a readjustment of
subsidies was made and the Dominion government agreed to assume the entire excess
of debt of $10,500,000 owing by the
old provinces of Canada and to relieve the
old provinces from the payment of interest.
In other words they practically made the
provinces of Ontario and Quebec a gift of
$10,500,000, because these provinces were
for ever relieved from the payment of interest on that money. This seemed to be
a very generous act on the part of the
Dominion government, and it is just one of
those things that I apprehend will occur in
the administration of the affairs of these
provinces when a demand is made for better terms. However, we will say nothing
more about that now. The provinces of
Ontario and Quebec were satisfied in 1873
to get rid of $10,500,000 of debt and throw
it on the shoulders of the whole of the people of Canada. Nothing more was said until
1884. when the demand was again made
for better terms by the provinces and the
government then led by Sir John Macdonald felt constrained to come to the relief of
the provinces again. The words
quoted by my hon. friend from East Grey
(Mr. Sproule), I think, made use of by Mr.
Blake, were very apt indeed. These applications came time after time, and we had
the continual repetition of the same old
story; better terms, better terms and better terms. In 1884, it became necessary to
conciliate the different provinces, because,
I think, that was really the purpose for
which the new subsidy was given, and it
became necessary to find a basis on which
the new subsidy could be granted. The
fact was that the British North America
Act provided no means for an increase of
subsidy and it was necessary to devise
some means. The province of Ontario
said: You assumed our excess of debt in
1873 and relieved us of the half yearly payment of interest. We had paid for the
first seven years after confederation.
Now, if you had the right to assume that
excess of debt and relieve us of that interest in 1873, it was right that it should
have been done in 1867, and you ought to
refund to us the interest we paid during
those seven years. A calculation was
made, because it was conceded by the government of the day that they would have
to do something, and I think, the gentleman who made the calculation at that time
was the present Auditor General, he having
made it before he became Auditor General. The calculation was made that 13 1/2
half-yearly payments of interest at five per
cent up to 1884 would amount to $2.848,000. In 1884, a Bill was passed by this
5465 MAY 4, 1905
parliament granting new subsidies, or practically new subsidies, on the basis of five
per cent on $2,848,000 to the province of
Ontario, and the other provinces all got
what we commonly call a quid pro quo.
No man in this House at that time assumed
that that $2,848,000 was a debt to be paid
over to the province of Ontario in a bulk
sum at any time, but the province of Ontario, in 1894, when their surplus practically
disappeared, and being desirous of
placing a good financial showing before the
electors of the province, adopted the principle of capitalizing this sum of $142,414
and said: The Dominion of Canada owes
us $2,848,000 in cash. Year after year the
matter was discussed in the province of
Ontario, some holding one thing and some
the other. I always thought that that $2,848,000 was not a debt owing by this Dominion
to the province of Ontario. I was
led to believe that from the fact that the
Act that created that subsidy in 1884 declared that the $142,414 should be paid in
half-yearly payments to the province of
Ontario as an additional subsidy. It was
so declared in the Act and as it was subsidy and not interest there was no authority
for capitalizing it. With other questions
in dispute between the old provinces and
the Dominion of Canada this same matter
was referred to arbitrators. and they declared that the settlement of 1884 should
be held intact and that this subsidy should
continue to be paid half-yearly to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. But, this
is the point that I wish to draw attention
to. At a later period the province of Ontario, still setting up the contention that
this was capital owing to them, applied to
the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding)
for an interpretation of the statute and I
think we have it on record that the hon.
Minister of Finance has given his
opinion that the province of Ontario
is entitled to call for that sum of $2,848,000.
subject to certain conditions, but those
conditions were conditions that could very
readily be got over. If I recollect aright,
the simple conditions were that they
could be used in the construction of
public works ; so that the conditions
were of such a minor character that they
would not constitute a defence for the
Dominion of Canada in resisting payment of
that money. Now what I fear here is that
probably these new provinces may make a
demand in the same way, and that some
day, when the Minister of Finance finds
himself a little short of funds, when his
surplus may not be quite so large, he will
find each of these provinces coming down
and asking him for the sum of $8,000,000
in solid cash. I desire to call attention to
this matter because I think we should be
most explicit in the language and I have
never intended to find fault and I am not
finding fault with the allowance. I am not
5465
5466
finding any fault with the province of Alberta, or the province of Saskatchewan get
ing a yearly allowance, on account of having no debt, of $400,000. I am finding no
fault with that, but when we are enacting
thls law I think we should be very particular to see that the law is framed so that
these provinces will not come down at a
later period and make a demand on the
Dominion of Canada for something that we
never intended to give them, as has been
done in the case of the province of Ontario.
I have no doubt that the draughtsman will
be able to put that language in such definite
and explicit form that there will be no danger of uncertainty, but I always thought
that the language of the Act of 1884 was
extremely definite and very explicit indeed.
It declared that the sum to be granted to
the province of Ontario at this time, the
$142,414 was to he paid as a subsidy and
not as interest. Here we find that the resolution declares that there is a sum of
interest to be paid half-yearly to this province. I fancy we will find as shrewd men
in the Northwest Territories as we find in
Ottawa and those men will come down to
us and say: You are paying us half-yearly
interest at the rate of five per cent
on $8,000,000; and if there is interest there must be principal, there cannot be interest
without principal, and therefore without accepting your little sum of
$200,000 a year we believe we are able to
manage our own affairs and we want you
to pay over the $8,000,000 at once. Now
let there be no uncertainty about this. I
would ask the Finance Minister before I sit
down what the real meaning of the clause
is. Is it to be left open, is it to be left in
uncertainty, or is the government of the
same mind as the Minister of Finance was
of some two or three years ago, and is he
of that opinion still, that under the wording
of this resolution, the province of Alberta,
or the province of Saskatchewan could at
any time call upon the Dominion for the
capital sum of $8,000,000 instead of getting
the allowance of $200,000 per .half year in
perpetuity ? I make no objection to the
grant of money or to the allowance only I
say, do not let us fall into the mistake of
1884, if a mistake was made in 1884, and
leave it in uncertainty. There is certainly
more room for the contention in this case
that the province would have a right to
call for the capital sum than in the case
of 1884, because the Act of 1884 said that
$142,414 should be paid as subsidy; here
it is paid as interest and as I said before
if there is interest, the people there will
say there is principal behind it. I submit
this to the Minister of Finance and I hope
he will make the matter clear, and if the
language of the draughtsman is not sufficiently clear to protect us in the opinion
which we desire to express, then I think the
clause might be so amended as to place it
beyond doubt and not leave us with a con
5467 COMMONS
troversy on our hands, similar to what
has existed in Ontario for many years.
Mr. FIELDING. I do not think there is
much difference substantially between the
hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson)
and myself with regard to the nature of
these payments. His contention as I understand it is that they should be subsidies
or annuities, that the sums are marked as
interest simply with that intention.
Mr. HENDERSON. I presume that the
hon. gentleman's intention is that these
sums will be paid as annuities in perpetuity,
but I think the language of the resolution
is not sufficiently definite to protect parliament in that contention.
Mr. FIELDING. That is the contention
I know that my hon. friend has always
made in relation to the case in Ontario, and
it has always been arguable. There is however a difference between the Ontario case
and this case. In the case of Ontario the
Act under which these increased sums are
granted treated them as capital. I am
speaking from memory but I think that is
correct. The government of the day carried
those sums to the credit of the province of
Ontario, and they remained as a debt due
by the Dominion to the province of Ontario and were so placed in the public accounts.
This parliament passed an Act a
good many years ago which declared—I am
speaking from memory but I think I am correct—that where there is a sum available
in
the debt account of any province that sum
may, on the application of the government
of the province, be withdrawn for the purposes of public works. Under that Act
various provinces of the Dominion did withdraw from their debt accounts sums of
money, thereby reducing their capital sum
and thereby reducing their annual revenue.
When the question was raised in regard to
the province of Ontario, my view was that,
under the Act, Ontario could under certain
conditions, which I shall state later, apply
to the Dominion for that money, and that
under those conditions the province might
receive that money as a payment out of its
own invested capital. Of course, I went on
to say that it was not a practical question
inasmuch as it was not conceivable that
the province of Ontario would withdraw
money earning 5 per cent when it could go
out on the public market and borrow at 4
per cent or less. Therefore it always seemed to me to be rather more of. an academic
subject which we were discussing, a
matter not likely ever to take practical
shape. But under an Act passed away back
in, I think, 1874, provision was made that
a provincial government might under certain conditions withdraw from its capital
accounts at Ottawa sums of money for public works. I think that in the beginning of
the matter when that Act was passed it was
entirely a matter for executive action between the governments of the provinces and
5467
5468
the Dominion. That is to say if the executive of the province made application for
the
money and if the executive of the Dominion
should see fit to grant it, the money might
thereupon be paid out for the purposes designated, always limiting it to public works.
Later on, about the year 1885, the Act was
amended to provide that a province could
only make applications for money out of
such funds when so authorized by the provincial legislature ; and, speaking from
memory, I think that is the state of the law
today. In order to draw money out of that
capital fund, there must first be the
authority of the provincial legislature
supporting the demand of the provincial government, and then it becomes
a matter of discretion with the Governor General in Council whether or not he
will advance the money for the purposes
stated. That was the substance of the answer which I gave to the government of the
province of Ontario. As I said a moment ago
I treated it rather as an academic question,
for I did not quite see how it could practically rise. The money was earning 5 per
cent in the treasury of the Dominion, and as
I said it was hardly to be supposed that the
government of any province would withdraw that money when they could go out
on the public market and borrow money at
4 per cent or less. So much on the general
subject of the law. In the case of Ontario
that sum was carried into the public accounts as a debt due by the Dominion to
the province of Ontario. I admit that under
the language used in this resolution it is
not declared to be capital, and perhaps there
is some room to doubt whether under this
we could capitalize it. I am rather disposed to take the view that it ought to be
regarded as an annuity and not as a capital sum. I understand that is the view
suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson), that he thinks it ought to be an annuity
and not a capital sum. There is
a good deal to be said in favour of
that view and before the matter is finally
disposed of—I shall not regard it as final
now,—I am inclined to think much might
be said in favour of inserting words
which would make that clear. I quite
realize that these amounts which do not
represent an actual debt, represent allowances made to one province or another in
accordance with the various conditions of
the public debt; that these are all methods
of bookkeeping. They were not actual
debts ; but, by virtue of the terms on which
these grants were made, in some if not all
instances. they were carried into the public
debt account of theDominion. In that account they stand as debts due to the Dominion
by the province, and I am inclined to
think that the legal gentlemen opposite will
say that if the province saw fit to make application to the Dominion executive. we
could pay money out of that fund for the
construction of public works. That was
5469 MAY 4, 1905
our view with regard to the case of Ontario. Whether we should use other words
to make it clear that this is an annuity and
not a capitalized sum is worthy of consideration, and before the Bill is finally disposed
of I will return to the matter again.
Mr. HENDERSON. I do not wish to
prolong the discussion, but there may not
be another opportunity for some days to
take this matter up. I never could agree
with the Minister of Finance that that was
a capital sum. It is a simple matter of
bookkeeping. I know that in the Act of
1884 it is stated as capital, but the Act
says that the interest at five per cent will
be paid to the province as an annual subsidy. The sum of $4,848,000 was never
owing by the Dominion to the province. It
was practically a scheme to provide a basis
on which a new subsidy could be calculated.
It was no more a capital sum than the
assessment of a town or village; it was
simply used for the purpose of determining
what the subsidy should be, just as we use
an assessment and an assessment roll in order to fix the rate of taxation. I believe
that was the opinion of the judges of the
Supreme Court when they had that matter
under consideration. My recollection is
that they decided that when the subsidy
had been ascertained as $142,414, the capital
sum dropped out of sight and was no more
to be regarded as capital. But, as the
Finance Minister has told us that he is
prepared to modify, if necessary, the language in this resolution to make plain what
the intention of parliament is, I am quite
satisfied. All we want is to have it definitely understood. so that it will not be
said in future years that we made a mistake in our legislation or left it an open
question as to whether the province should
call on us for $400,000 a year in perpetuity,
or come down on us at once for $8,000.000.
Perhaps if' they got the $8.000,000, they
might use it extravagantly. I do not say
that they would, but I think it is better to
give them an annuity in perpetuity. It
will be better for them, because it will be
equivalent to an investment at 5 per cent.
But as the Finance Minister has promised
to make the matter clear, I am satisfied.
Mr. INGRAM. Up to the time of the introduction of this Bill I understand that
the government of the Northwest Territories
acknowledged that they were in debt to the
Dominion. I notice in a speech delivered
by the premier of the Northwest Territories
in 1900, that he admitted $3,000,000 odd,
made up of several items. This resolution
reads, 'inasmuch as the said province is
not in debt.' This would appear rather
conflicting with the fact. I would like some
explanation with respect to that.
Mr. FIELDING. In our detailed statement
in the Public Accounts of expenditures on
various public works and services through
5469
5470
out the Dominion there is a column headed
' Northwest Territories,' in which these expenditures for a long series of years are
totalled up; but the amount does not represent a debt due by the Northwest government,
and we do not claim it as such.
Mr. HENDERSON. How does the hon.
gentleman propose to get rid of that in the
public accounts?
Mr. FIELDING. It is not a debt and
does not appear as a debt. It is only a
statement of public services on which we
have spent so much money. These are
the items of expenditure in detail, but they
do not represent debts, and they are not
so claimed in the public accounts.
Mr. INGRAM. My object simply was to
find out why it was charged to the Territories.
Mr. FIELDING. It is an item for expenditure in the Territories but not a debt
due by the Northwest government.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. There may be one or
two little matters that have not been explained in this connection. I am willing this
should pass on the understanding that we
may ask the explanations on the next item.
Mr. FIELDING. I would like to propose
an amendment to the next clause. It does
not change the substance of these resolutions but only their form. Resolution 3
deals with the allowances for land. In the
form as it is drafted, we have not only
given the amounts we propose to allow but.
the arguments on which the allowance is
founded. That seems unnecessary and I
propose to amend the clause as follows:
19. Inasmuch as the said province will not
have the lands as a source of revenue, there
shall be paid by Canada to the provinces annually a sum based upon the population
of the
province as from time to time ascertained by
the quinquennial census thereof, as follows:
The population of the said province being
assumed to be at present 250,000, the sum payable until such population reaches 400,000
shall
be $375,000 ;
Thereafter until such population reaches 800,000, the sum payable shall be $562,500
;
Thereafter until such population reaches 1,200,000, the sum payable shall be $750,000
;
And thereafter the sum payable shall be $1,112,500.
2. As an additional allowance in lieu of public lands there shall be paid by Canada
to the
province annually for five years from the time
this Act comes into force, to provide for the
construction of necessary public buildings the
sum of $93,750. '
Mr. U. WILSON. In the original you say
twenty-five million acres.
Mr. FIELDING. We leave out both the
quantity and the value of the lands and give
the population, and the result is the same to
the province.
5471 COMMONS
Mr. U. WILSON. Do you think that will
do away with future claims ?
Mr. FIELDING. It simplifes the matter.
It is better drafting.
Progress reported.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Shall we continue
with this measure before the budget is taken
up ?
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned
at 6.05 pm.
This individual participated in:
