The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three
o'clock.
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
NORTHWEST—SUBSIDY TO
ALBERTA.
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolutions providing for the
payment of subsidy to the province of Alberta.
On clauses 3 and 4, of the resolution,
Resolved, That inasmuch as the public
lands in the said province are to remain the
property of Canada, there shall be paid by Canada to the said province annually by
way of
compensation therefor a sum based upon the
estimated value of such lands, namely, $37,500,000, the said lands being assumed to
be of an
area of 25,000,000 acres and to be of the value
of $1.50 per acre, and upon the population of the
said province, as from time to time ascertained
by the quinquennial census thereof, such sum
to be arrived at 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 is to be
one per cent on such estimated value, or $375,000 ;
Thereafter until such population reaches 800,000, the sum payable is to he one and
one-half
per cent on such estimated value, or $562,500 ;
Thereafiter, until such population reaches 1,200,000, the sum payable is to be two
per cent
of such estimated value, or $750,000 :
And thereafter such payment is to be three
per cent on such estimated value, or $1,125,000.
Resolved, That an additional compensation for such lands there shall be paid by Canada
to the said province annually for five years
to provide for the construction of necessary
public buildings, one-quarter of one per cent on
such estimated value, or $93,750.—Sir Wilfrid
Laurier.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance.) When the House was in committee
considering this matter on Friday last I
5480
presented an amendment by way of substitution for the third clause of the resolution
granting an allowance in lieu of the lands.
I desire to call attention to the fact that in
preparing that amendment it was neglected
to provide that the allowance should be paid
half-yearly to the province. I wish to insert the words to make it clear that that
allowance as well as other allowances to
the provinces will be paid half-yearly in
advance. The following is the amendment
of which I gave notice on Friday :
Inasmuch as the said province will not have
the lands as a source of revenue, there shall
be paid by Canada to the province 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 $760,000
;
And thereafter the sum payable shall be $1,112,500.
As an additional allowance in lieu of public lands there shall he 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.
I move that clauses 3 and 4 be struck out
and that the above be substituted therefor.
I also move that after the word 'Canada '
in the above amended resolution, the words
shall be inserted 'by half-yearly payments
in advance.'
Mr. BERGERON. What is the subsidy
that is paid yearly to Quebec and Ontario ?
Mr. FIELDING. The sum paid to Ontario last year as set forth in the Auditor
General's report is: allowance for government, $80,000; subsidy per head, $1,116,
872.80: interest on the amount standing to
credit of province, $142,414.48, making a
total payment to the province of Ontario
last year of $1.339.287.28. These payments
are usually grouped together under the head
of subsidies to provinces, though in reality
some of the payments are derived from
interest on capital account. The payment
to Quebec, including precisely the same
class of items, amounted to $1,086,713.48.
Mr. BERGERON. My object in asking
the question was to make a comparison between the amounts paid to the two largest
provinces, and the amount that will be paid
eventually to the new provinces.
MR. FIELDING. We have to bear in mind
that the land subsidy to the new provinces
is a very considerable item which does not
go to the other provinces because they possess the land. The clause we are now discussing
is the allowance in lieu of the land.
5481 MAY 8, 1905
Mr. FIELDING. The words 'per capita '
are not expressed in this part of the resolution, but of course as the population
increases the land allowance will change.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. It does not fix
any definite sum like 80 cents per head as
in the case of Ontario.
Mr. FIELDING. The resolution is not
dealing with the subsidy vote.
Mr. FIELDING. When we deal with the
subsidy of course the language is the same,
but this is an allowance in lieu of land.
There is no corresponding legislation in respect to Ontario and Quebec and in that
regard one can make no comparison.
Mr. HAGGART. The minister promised
to bring down a statement of the lands in
these new provinces which are at the disposal of the government other than those
lands which were intended for actual settlers, free gift lands and homestead lands,
and the value of them. A motion was submitted some time ago and pressed a number of
times by the hon. member for North
Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. member
for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) for information as to the location, area and value
of
these lands, and the amount of these lands
at the disposal of the government. We
were promised a statement in regard to
these matters. We have only the estimated
value in regard to an estimated area of
25,000,000 acres without any information at
all upon the subject, and even in taking the
value of these lands, in making an allowance to the province for them, surely the
cost of the management of that land ought
to be deducted from the amount in making
an allowance for each province.
Mr. FIELDING. In reference to the request for information to which my hon.
friend referred. I was under the impression
that we had brought down all the papers
sought for. If there is a request for a return of the kind mentioned that has not
been brought down I do not remember it.
My hon. friend may be correct, but I have
no recollection of such a request.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Is it not suitable
that such a statement should be made, that
we should take stock at the present time of
the public lands at the disposal of the government for the carrying out of this arrangement
with the provinces ? Surely the
Minister of the Interior could give us a
5482
statement or he could easily obtain one,
setting forth how many millions of acres
are at the disposal of the government for
this purpose, say in the province of Alberta. We ought to know this. and also
should have a statement showing what
public lands are still not alienated in any
way in the other adjoining provinces, which
will be available for the payment of the
money proposed in these resolutions.
Mr. FIELDING. The value of these
lands is always a problematical question, and
it may not be easy for any of us to put a
value on them. In the early stage of the discussion a request was made for information
and information was brought down which I
think covers most of what my hon. friend
seeks. If hon. members will look at sessional paper No. 97, they will find that information
therein given respecting the areas
of the provisional districts of Alberta, Assiniboia and Saskatchewan. All the information
he desires, I think, he will find
there except that as to the value. That is
a question as to which each of us is free
to form his own opinion, and in the amendment which we have put before the committee
we have eliminated the estimate of the
area and the value and have put in a specific .
sum. We avoid a discussion, for the purpose of the Act, of the value and area of the
land .
Mr. HAGGART. The cost of management
should be deducted in allowing the interest
on the value of the land. The minister too
will remember that we had a promise from
the Minister of the Interior when the Grand
Trunk Pacific was under discussion, that a
large quantity of these lands would be
available for sale, and would realize to the
government of this country nearly the cost
of construction of the line across the continent. Has any provision been made for
keeping apart lands for the fulfilment of
the promise of the Minister of the Interior,
that they could be used for the payment of
the transcontinental railway ?
Mr. FIELDING. It seems to me that provision is made. We keep the whole of the
lands, not a part, we keep them all.
Mr. TURRIFF. Over a year ago, I made
an estimate of the amount of section lands
that would be available after all the land
grants which railways had earned or would
earn had been applied for, and I estimated
that there would be probably 50,000,000
acres of odd sections available. It would
however be impossible, I think, for any one
to put a value on that land, simply because a great deal of it is not surveyed, and
we do not know of what character it is.
In reference to what the Minister of the
Interior said about selling lands for the
building of the Grand Trunk Pacific he did
not make a statement of the kind attributed
to him. He said that the building of that
5483 COMMONS
road would open up the country and the
value of the land would be enhanced.
Mr. HAGGART. Does the hon. gentleman
deny the statement I made that the Minister of the Interior made that statement?
Mr. TURRIFF. I did not deny any statement; I simply said that the statement made
by the Minister of the Interior was that
the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific
would open up the country and that the enhanced value of the land opened up would
be equal to what the road would cost.
Mr. HAGGART. He made a direct promise to the House that the land there could
be disposed of for the purpose of recouping
the country for the building of that road.
However, while I am on my feet, let me
draw attention to the return brought down
by the Finance Minister. It simply gives
the joint area of undisposed lands in the
provisional district of Alberta as 38,190,964
acres, and of Saskatchewan at 51,832,246
acres. These lands may be included in the
free lands and homesteads and when these
are taken up there may be no land at all
at the disposal of the government.
Mr. LAKE. I think the return which was
brought down to which the Minister of Finance referred does give a considerable
amount of information on this question
which has been raised, although the return
is couched in such a way that it is very
difficult to get the information that it contains clearly into one's mind. What I
would
like to suggest is that although it is perfectly
true that the basis of calculation is eliminated from the resolutions, still I think
the
only way in which we can arrive at a right
understanding of what the calculation
should be is by making a calculation
based on a definite area of land and a definite value to be given to that area. It
seems to me that is the only way in which
we can arrive at anything like a safe calculation, and therefore I would like the
Minister of Finance to give us some such
calculation as that or to say whether he
considers we ought to abide by the calculation which was made in the original resolution.
I find that in this report which was
brought down it is stated that there is a
total of 277,931,790 acres of land still undisposed of in both provinces. I suppose
for
the purpose of rough calculation we may
divide that into half, attributing one half
to each province. That would mean nearly
139.000,000 acres of land in each province
still undisposed of. Of course, I am quite
willing to admit that it would be very difficult to make a close calculation as to
the
value of the whole of that land ; but in that
return we have the statement showing an
estimate given by the Surveyor General as
to the condition of these lands. He has
5484
made a statement containing these various
items: Lands suitable for grain growing;
lands requiring irrigation; lands suitable
for ranches and other descriptions of farming; and water. These are the figures at
which he arrives:
|
Saskatchewan. Sq. miles. |
Alberta. Sq. miles. |
| Lands suitable for grain
growing. .. .. .. |
86,000 |
80,000 |
| Lands requiring irrigation.. |
32,000 |
41,000 |
Mr. LAKE. The figures in this part of
the return are given in square miles and not
in acres.
|
Sq. miles. |
Sq. miles. |
| Land suitable for ranches or
other description of farming.. .. .. .. .. .. . |
106,887 |
113,559 |
| Water. . .. .. .. .. .. |
27,000 |
20,000 |
Take the case of Saskatchewan; and I
presume there will be no objection to our
discussing either one province or the other.
Take Saskatchewan, there has been, according to this return, about 22,235,385 acres
of
land disposed of. Supposing the whole of
this were wheat land, that would still leave
34,804,615 acres of wheat lands at the disposal of the government, and in addition
a
very large amount of land which would require irrigation, and an enormous tract fit
for ranching, according to the estimate of
the Surveyor General. I would like to have
some calculation made of the value which
should be put upon these lands. How have
the government arrived at this capital sum
of $37,500,000, upon which they are going
to distribute interest to the new provinces,
according to population? What was the
basis of that calculation? We find that
wheat lands in the Northwest are selling at
a far greater value than $1.50 per acre.
Take the sales by the Canadian Pacific
Railway in January this year, the average
price obtained for the land was $4.10 per
acre. I have looked through the report of
the Department of the Interior for the years
1903, and 1904, and find there a statement
of the lands disposed of by the various land
companies in the Northwest—the Hudson
Bay Company, the Canadian Pacific Rail
way and other companies—and I find that
the average price obtained by the Hudson
Bay Company for their lands was $5.50 per
acre, by the Canadian Pacific Railway $3.50
per acre, and that the average price for the
lands sold during the previous eleven years
was about $3.50 per acre. It turns out, on
totalling up these figures, that the grand
total of the lands sold by the land companies during those previous eleven years
amounted to 10,512,349 acres. and that the
sum for which they were sold totalled just
about the sum which is to be allowed each
of the new provinces as compensation for
25 million acres of land. That is to say,
the amount received by the companies
5485 MAY 8, 1905
amounted to $36,992,482. Thus the land companies, during the eleven years previous
to
the 30th June, 1904, sold something under
eleven million acres of land for nearly $37,000,000. Those are the returns given in
the
report of the Department of the Interior.
What I want to get is a definite idea of the
basis of the calculation which was made by
the government in arriving at this sum to
be allowed the new provinces as compensation for their lands.
Mr. OLIVER. If the hon. gentleman will
say just what information he wants in order
to arrive at a basis for his arguments, I
shall be very glad to order it to be prepared.
I thought that the information submitted
would be sufficient; but if it be not, and I
am definitely informed what will be sufficient, certainly such a statement will be
prepared. I may say that the question is
not so much what a certain quantity of
land in the Northwest Territory could be
sold for as a question of how much money
is required to carry on the government of
the new provinces in comparison with the
amounts which are available for the other
provinces to carry on their provincial business. As stated in the resolution, it is
not
a matter of buying and selling lands, but of
providing for the support of the provincial
governments in proportion to that given the
governments of other provinces from Dominion subsidies and the sales of land. We
wish to place these new provinces in at
least as good a position as the older ones.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If that be the case,
what is the use of any recital respecting
the lands ? I do not see the force of it, yet
the resolution was based altogether, in the
first instance, on the amount of land and
a certain value per acre. That has since been
modified by the amendment introduced by
my hon. friend the Minister of Finance for
the purpose of getting rid of the difficulty
suggested by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), who said that these new
provinces, having their right to the lands
recognized by the terms of the proposed
statute, would continually come back upon
the government with the plea that the lands
had much improved in value, and
there would consequently be constant friction between the Dominion government and
the new provinces. But my hon. friend has
put the matter in a new aspect; and I do
not see why, if he is speaking with the concurrence of his colleagues, the Minister
of
Finance should have introduced the amendment in its present form, and why he should
not simply eliminate all reference to the
lands and put the matter in the form of a
subsidy for the reason suggested by the
Minister of the Interior, namely, that it is
necessary for the carrying on of the governments of the new provinces, to make a certain
additional grant to them.
Mr. OLIVER. That is exactly what is
being done by the amendment, as I under
5486
stand it. This is a special allowance in view
of the lands. There must be some reason
given for making such an allowance different from what is given the other provinces,
and that is the reason ; and the question of
the value of the lands is not the main
question to be considered, as the amendment introduced indicates. I was going to
allude to a remark made by my hon. friend
from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) as to the value
which has been received for lands sold by the
land companies. On that value he proposed to
base a comparison with the value of other
lands in the Territories. I point out that
the lands sold at that value were lands
specially selected by the railway company,
lands that, in many cases had been specially
advantaged by the construction of the railway. The value of these lands. of course,
is no fair basis of comparison in estimating
the value of the lands remaining. The fact
that these lands have been selected and
taken out of the possibility of revenue for
either this government or the provincial
government absolutely reduces the value of
the remaining part of the lands.
Mr. LAKE. I would suggest that the
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has forgotten that I included the lands of the
Hudson Bay Company which were not specially selected. And the price received for
them was $5.50, as against $3.50 per acre,
which was obtained for the lands of the railway company which the minister says were
specially selected. I might mention a further
basis of calculation in the school lands which
have been sold recently in the Northwest.
These are not specially selected either.
The school lands are simply two sections
in each township. And the average price
for which they sold was about $9 per acre.
The average price for school lands in Assiniboia was $9.69 and the average of all,
I think I am correct in stating was over
$9 per acre.
Mr. TURRIFF. In the case of the school
lands it is only the best lands that have
been sold, in most cases. A high valuation
is placed on the school lands, and if they do
not bring that price they are not sold at all.
In the last sale of school lands in Assiniboia,
the lowest price was $7, and anything that
purchasers did not think worth that was not
sold, but still remains the property of the
government. The same thing applies, to a
large extent, to the Hudson Bay Company's
lands. The company put a high price per
acre and hold these lands until the particular
part of the country in which they are becomes well settled, and so they get a high
price. This policy is carried out even when
it is necessary to hold the lands for many
years. And, in case of the school lands, the
government still hold the lands which Will
not bring a good price.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. In view of the argument of the Minister of the Interior (Mr.
5487 COMMONS
Oliver) with reference to the value being
placed on the lands that are already held
by the other provinces, I would call attention to the remarks made by the hon. gentleman
on the 24th of March last. He said :
I find that the province of Ontario, with a
population of two and a quarter millions in the
year 1902, derived from its lands $1,499,000.
We find, by the arrangement that has been
made with these Northwest provinces, that
when their population reaches that of the province of Ontario, they will be deriving
two and
a quarter millions in respect of their lands.
He was leading us, as I understand, to
believe that the provinces were receiving
two and a quarter millions for their lands
whereas Ontario was only receiving $1,499,000. If he is basing his argument on the
value of the lands in that Territory, I think
he would find that his statement is not in
accordance with his present argument.
Mr. FOSTER. Some explanation may
have been given when I was not in the
House. and if so I would not like to call
upon the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) to
give it again. But I do not remember having
read it. There must have been some method
by which these figures. as to either the
quantity of land or the valuation of the
lands, were arrived at. I would like to
know from the Finance Minister what that
method was. Take, for instance one province. Would the Minister of Finance tell
us by what method he and the government
arrived at the quantity of lands that would
be fair to allow in comparison with the total
area of the province. And then I would like
to know by what method he and they arrived
at the conclusion that a fair valuation of the
land would be $1.50 per acre. I do not
imagine for a moment that the government
assembled around the Council Board would
arrive at a conclusion as to the quantity
without first going into the quantity of lands
in the province. Nor would they reach a conclusion as to the value to be allowed without
taking the different grades of lands and
values of those different grades. Having
done this, I should think they would come
to the conclusion that, if they did not give
the lands in toto to the province, they ought
to make a compensation of a certain number
of acres. Then they would make an estimate, based upon the best data possible, of
the average value of these lands. Now, if
we had the method by which the government arrived at these figures, we should
be in a position to reach our own conclusions as to the justness of the grant and
the fairness of the valuation. If something
like that was not done, if the government
made no investigation and took no trouble
in regard to the matter ; if they simply came
to the conclusion, as the Minister of the
Interior hinted, that a certain amount was
necessary for a revenue for these provinces
5488
in lieu of these lands, and, without calculation of any kind. put it at a round figure
25,000,000 acres and, without estimating the
value of the different kinds of lands, wheat
lands, grazing lands and the rest and averaging the whole simply jumped at a valuation,
of course that is a wholly different
case. If they simply said : We want to give
them $37,500,000, and we will play at valuation and play at estimates of area, and
will
put a formula before parliament very dignified and very satisfying to the eye, but
merely an excuse——and under that will give
$37,500,000 in lieu of lands, then why all
this pother and bother about the quantities
of lands or valuation per acre ? If all they
wished to do—and it is the only thing the
Minister of the Interior intimates they
sought to do—was to give $37,500,000, what
is the use of this arrangement of $1.50 upon
25,000,000 acres of land ?
Now the province of Saskatchewan has
either a right to all these lands or it has
a right in compensation to a certain proportion of its lands at a fair valuation;
or if you are not going to take the lands
into account at all, it has a right to ask
you to say what amount of money you will
give it per year, simply that and nothing
more. What is the. use of going to Saskatchewan or to the other province and
telling the people: We have given you
25,000,000 acres of your land, which is a
certain proportion of all the lands in Saskatchewan, at a good average valuation of
$1.50 per acre, if you are doing nothing
of the kind ? If 25,000,000 acres is a fair
proportion of all the lands in the province
of Saskatchewan, that is to he, get at the
proper valuation of them, not a rule-of-
thumb valuation, and give the province
which is to be, the value of those lands
on what is a fair valuation. Now is $1.50
a fair valuation of the average lands in
the province of Saskatchewan? That is
what I think the Minister of Finance is
bound to ascertain, unless he admits what
the Minister of the Interior intimated—
but of course the Minister of the Interior
was not there at the time, and he may
just have thought that that would be the
easiest way by which a minister could accomplish such an object, and therefore there
is nothing in it but the idea of giving so
much money and making an arbitrary basis
upon which it was to be given. But I do
not like to think that the government has
come down to this parliament, under show
of making an elaborate calculation, and
given the proper proportion of lands in
the province to the province, and given them
without a valuation which is fair and just
in commutation. I would like to hear from
the Minister of Finance as to whether he
is right in this respect, or as to whether
the Minister of the Interior is right, as to
whether my first supposition is right, or as
to whether the supposition that one would
take from what the Minister of the Inter
5489 MAY 8, 1905
ior has said, is correct. Are we saying
to the provinces: You have so many millions of acres of land in all, an average proportion
of these we are giving to you as
compensation, and we are putting a fair
valuation upon the average proportion that
we are giving you? That is what any
gentleman from one of those provinces
would think was being done, by virtue of
the long detailed resolutions which, if they
infer anything at all, infer an absolute and
well proportioned classification as to the
quantity of the lands, the proper valuation,
and the proportion which should be given
out of that quantity.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. My hon.
friend is aware that in the preparation of
this Bill we took the position that the
government of the new provinces was not
entitled of right to the lands. We took the
position that the lands fairly belonged to
the Dominion. At the same time we had
to take into consideration the fact that
the lands which were given to the older
provinces, not to Manitoba, were to them
a valuable asset which enabled them to
carry on their business. We thought therefore, since we retailed the lands, we should
do as was done in Manitoba, we should
give something in money in lieu of the
lands. But my hon. friend knows better
than I do, because he was long connected
with the government which dealt with
Manitoba, that Manitoba was not dealt with
upon any rule which is known, at least, to
the average mind. From time to time
Manitoba was given some advantage, but
they were always given in the absence of
any principle which could be properly explained, which, so far as I know, has
never been understood. When we came to
discuss what would be a fair compensation
—I do not like to use the word compensation
in regard to this matter—
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I know it,
still we sometimes use words when we
think we might use better ones. The
word " compensation' is [not a word I
would like to use. At all events, what I
have in my mind was this, that when we
came to consider what we should give to
the new provinces as an equivalent in
money if we retained the lands, we had
to find a basis for a calculation as to the
value of the lands. As to the number of
acres, we have had calculations made more
than once, my former colleague, the present member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has
stated to the House that there were 50,000,000 acres of land available in the two
provinces, that is to say, between the province of Manitoba and the Rocky mountains.
We did not imagine that we had
50.000000 acres immediately available for
settlement, but that is the quantity which
5490
could be disposed of apart from the homestead lands.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. That is outside the homestead lands. We calculate
we have 50,000,000 outside the homestead
lands which can be disposed of; at all
events, that is the way I understood the
calculation. With regard to the price of
these lands, I think it is not possible to
ascertain a fair average value by what
has been realized by railway companies in
the disposal of their lands, and what has
been realized by the disposal of. school
lands by auction, or what has been
realized by the Hudson Bay Company
for their lands. The Hudson Bay Company chose its own time to sell its lands,
at a time when it thought the best price
could be obtained. The school lands are all
disposed of at auction, they are not disposed of indiscriminately, they are put up
at auction always with a view of realizing
the best possible price. Then with regard
to lands disposed of by the railway company, we know that they always dispose
of them with a view of getting the best
price, and they dispose of only such lands as
have increased in value by railway facilities. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle
(Mr. Lake) will admit that we could not
take the prices obtained for'their lands
by these various companies, as a fair average price for the whole 50,000.000 acres.
That would be no fair basis of comparison. But we thought we would have a
fair basis of comparism in the transaction
that took place some years ago between
the Canadian Pacific Railway Company
and the government when, if I remember
right, the government redeemed 6,000,000
acres of their land at a price, I think, of
$1.50.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. That was the
basis of our calculation. There were some
6,000,000 odd acres of land disposed of by
the company to the government, and the
price realized I think was $1.50 an acre.
It is possible that to-day the lands in question might be sold for a little higher,
or
possibly they would not bring as much.
But since that time we have undertaken
national obligations, and we count upon
this land as an asset to help us meet those
obligations. I do not pretend to say that
we could dispose of all the lands we have
to-day at $1.50, I think we ought to realize
more. The government will not dispose of
them immediately, they will be sold from
time to time as the country develops, and
I daresay they will bring to the government enough revenue to enable us to meet
the liabilities we have undertaken. But,
I believe that if you put it as a fair business,
5491 COMMONS
transaction between government. and government, the price which we have given is
a fair one, the basis is a reasonable one
and one which is perfectly intelligible and
will meet with the approbation of the
House.
Mr. LAKE. In reference to what the
right hon. gentleman said, I should be perfectly willing to admit that you could not
put fifty million of acres on the market at
this moment and obtain for them the price of
$1.50 per acre, but I do firmly believe that
if these lands are husbanded carefully we
shall in the long run get fully the price
which has been realized by the land companies for their lands and fully the price
of
school lands and even more than that
price. He has taken the estimate of
the late Minister of the Interior that
50,000,000 acres would be about the amount
of land comprised in the odd numbered
-sections which will be available for dis:posal by the government. I would suggest
to the right hon. gentleman that it would
be only right to take also the estimate
'which the late Minister of the Interior put
upon the value of this land in his remarks
on the occasion of the Grand Trunk Pacific
Railway debate. He stated that within
ten years from the completion of this railway these 50,000,000 acres of land would
be
available, and I think he must only have
referred to the lands which would be opened
up by the railway. He further said that
within ten years from the completion of the
railway—I am only speaking from memory,
but I think I am perfectly correct; if I am
not some gentleman may put me right—20000,000 acres would have an accrued value
of $3 per acre. That is the basis that we
ought to go upon. If these lands are not
going to be thrown on the market in one
block at once the value which they will
have in the future should be given. to them.
Further than that I may quote from a
remark which was also made by the late
Minister of the Interior during the debate
on the second reading of this Bill. When,
speaking in reference to the value of the
school lands fund, he stated that that was
a fund which would be worth $50,000,000.
I may point out that the school lands are
something less than one-seventeenth part of
the whole of the lands included in these two
provinces. I cannot suppose that the late
Minister of the Interior would make a statement of that sort unless he had some ground
for believing that at some day in the future
the amount to be received for these lands
would reach that sum.
Mr. FOSTER. I think, if I can Judge
from what the right hon. Prime Minister
stated, that the inference, if not the statement, of the hon. Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Oliver) is the correct one. It does not
seem to me that there was any calculation
made at all, and that all the specious putting
out of quantities of land and the estimating
5492
of prices simply have no significance at all
except that you want to have a sufficient
number of acres of land to multiply by $1.50
to make up the sum that you have come to
the conclusion you would give to each of these
provinces for its government—$37,500,000. If
so, why should you bring in the land at all ?
The land evidently had nothing in the world
to do with it. What the government were
evidently looking at was this : What is the
amount that we should reasonably give to
each of these provinces to enable it to carry
on its financial affairs; $37,500,000. You
gave that. You have denied that they should
have their lands. You say the lands should
belong to the Dominion government. They
do anyway. You say that the provinces as
formed shall not have any rights at all over
their lands: You deny any right or title
at the present time to the people of the
Northwest in these lands which may be all
right and you deny any right to their lands
after they are formed into provinces, when
as provinces they, I think, ought to have
their lands and the management thereof,
for various reasons. But, you deny both
of these premises. Then. why do you make
the specious pretense of having anything to
do with lands at all? Why do you not
simply make your resolution read in this
way: That the Dominion government does
not propose to give over to these provinces
their lands, and yet, recognizing that they
must have money to carry on their public
works, you give them the amount of $37,500,000 to be paid in a certain way. That would
be a fair, open, clear exposition of the real
facts which the hon. Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Oliver) has inadvertently let out. The
hon. Minister of the Interior, being young,
is less wily and less skilled in the arts of
concealment than his older colleagues. I
sincerely trust that his virgin modesty and
openness will always remain the same, and
that he will be a shining example of a minister who is frank and outspoken, who will
call a spade a spade, and who, when he
makes a resolution to give money for any
purpose, will not attribute it to some refined method of calculation as to the quantity
of land and the present and prospective
value of land, but will just simply say in his
resolution, as he says before the committee,
that he proposes to give these new provinces
$37,500,000 each. This other is all subterfuge and a specious application of the wily
arts of the politician to lull the sentiments
and probably the rightful sentiments of the
people in the Northwest. The hon. Minister
of the Interior has been good enough to say
that we should have the information. I
would like to know the quantity of lands
there is in each of these provinces that are
considered to be arable lands, the acreage
that is considered to be grazing lands and
the area that is put in the category of
mineral lands. I suppose there are certain
portions of these lands, of which you already
have made surveys and in regard to which
5493 MAY 8, 1905
you have information, that are put down
as mineral areas and which are more or less
large. Then there will be outside of that
some timber areas, and I would like to
know what amount there will be outside of the agricultural, grazing, mineral, and
timber areas which would
probably go as waste lands which could not
be counted on at the present time and may
not be counted upon as much in the future.
The hon. Minister of the Interior must have
that information, of course, and if we had
these areas we would be able to tell a little
better in reference to this resolution, so
long as it has been put upon the ground of
compensation for these lands, if a fair division has been made with the provinces.
I dare say the hon. Minister of the Interior
has that information now. If he has I
would be very much obliged if he would give
us that information before we take up the
clauses of the Bill. We will get as much
as we can while we are going through the
resolution, and I have no doubt that will
leave a large surplus of information to be
brought down when we come to take up the
clauses after the resolutions have been
passed.
Mr. OLIVER. I think perhaps the hon.
member (Mr. Foster) might have saved himself a good deal of argument if he had been
in a little sooner. There is no question before the committee of calculation in regard
to the land at all. The clause to which the
hon. member objects my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has proposed to amend so
that that question does not arise. I do not
know whether the purpose was to avoid such
trouble as that which has come to the mind
of the hon. member, but whatever trouble
there may be attaching to the Bill, it does not
attach in any way such as he suggests after
the amendment proposed by my hon. friend
the Minister of Finance has been made. In
regard to the specific question the hon. member has asked as to the amount of grazing,
timber. mineral, agricultural and waste land.
1 do not know exactly the basis upon which
he asks that question. If the hon. gentleman
were very well acquainted with the conditions in the Northwest Territories, he would
know that it is entirely a matter of opinion
as to whether land is purely grazing land, or
purely grain growing land. or purely timber
land, or purely mineral land. These are all
questions which are decided ultimately by
experience, and in the meantime they can he
only matters of opinion. No white man has
ever explored a great part of that country,
and so it would be impossible to give the
definite information which the hon. gentleman asks. As to the part of the country
which has been explored I can bring ten different men to give ten different opinions
as
to whether a certain piece of land is purely
grazing land or purely agricultural land.
Some of the timber speculators in this city
and vicinity can bear testimony to the fact
that land which they paid their good money
5494
for as timber land is not timber land at all,
and the same may be said with regard to
mineral speculators. If the hon. gentleman
means that he will prevent the Bill passing
until definite information is given him on
this point, it simply means that the Bill will
not be permitted to pass at all, because it
would be impossible to give such information. If he will be satisfied with a fair
estimate made by the officers of the department
he can have that estimate at the earliest possible date.
Mr. FOSTER. We all know that until a
man has exploited a certain area of land he
does not know what it is best suited for,
and that no information with regard to such
a matter can be absolutely accurate. What
I wanted was an approximate estimate, and
in looking through the papers I find that the
Surveyor General has given an estimate of
the lands suitable for grain growing, the
lands suitable for grain growing after irrigation, and the lands suitable for ranches
or other description of farming, so that in
reality there is a pretty fair idea given as to
the information I wanted. The only thing
that is not given is the area of waste lands,
and that I suppose can be ascertained by
deducting the areas mentioned here and the
area of water from the total area.
Mr. OLIVER. Does that estimate include
the organized districts of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Assiniboia, or does it also include
the district of Athabaska which is now included in the provinces of Saskatchewan
and Alberta ?
Mr. FOSTER. It gives the areas in the
provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and
I suppose he means all that is included in
these provinces.
Mr. FOSTER. Such as are not timber,
mineral, grazing or agricultural lands.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER I understand
that there is very little waste land in these
provinces which would not come under one
or other of these descriptions mentioned by
the hon. gentleman. In Manitoba there was
a good deal of swamp lands, but I am told
by the members from the Northwest that
there are no swamp lands in the new provinces or only a very insignificant quantity.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Deville has been a
long time surveyor and I would rather have
his estimate so that personal views may be
eliminated as far as possible. I understand
that the minister will get that information
with respect to Saskatchewan and Alberta.
5495 COMMONS
Mr. FOSTER. It will not take Mr. Deville
long to do that.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. This discussion
indicates that the time has come for a better
system of book-keeping in reference to the
public lands of the Dominion. When one
comes into a rich heritage the first thing he
does is to take stock, and it is high time that
the Dominion of Canada should take
stock of the actual land it has in the
Northwest, with its possibility value
and its possibility for utilitarian purposes. In that way we will gradually collect
a lot of useful information, and the time has
come when no alienation of public land
should take place and no grant should be
made to any one without our knowing what
we are giving away. The province of Ontario has alienated its Crown timber lands
without keeping any account, so that now
they do not know what the residuum is,
they speak of it as wilderness and all that,
but they should have an exact account kept
of it in the provincial legislatures just as
the Dominion legislatures should have an
accurate account of the lands we own in the
Northwest. I would suggest to the new Minister of the Interior that he should take
steps
to have a reliable system of book-keeping
instituted in this respect. I would like to
ask the hon. gentleman, whether all the
patents have yet been issued to the Canadian Pacific Railway for their land grant
?
Mr. OLIVER. I have been only a day or
two in the department but I have made inquiries on this matter, and I will be able
to
answer the question in a few days.
Mr. TURRIFF. The patents have not all
been issued. There is a large amount of
the land that has been selected by the Canadian Pacific Railway scheduled to them,
but the land is not yet surveyed and the
patents are issued just as quickly as the
land is surveyed and the patents approved.
In the meantime they have selected the land.
Mr. M. S. McCARTHY. It is unnecessary
to say at this stage of the discussion that
we on this side of the House are very much
opposed to the Dominion government obtaining the lands in the new provinces. I
wish to point out that the returns do not
appear to have been brought down in such
shape that one can possibly arrive at a conclusion as to the basis on which the government
have proceeded. In the returns that
were brought down the respective areas
were given of the districts of Saskatchewan,
Assiniboia and Alberta. but nothing was
said of Athabasca, which is to be taken into
the new province. It is almost impossible
to figure from these returns just what the
area is of the respective provinces. I have
been attempting to do that, and I arrive at
these figures, that there are in the proposed
province of Alberta 249,000 square miles,
and in the proposed province of Saskatche
5496
wan, 258,400 square miles. In the province
of Alberta we practically have 159,000,000
or 160,000,000 acres. Why, then, are these
calculations to be made on the basis of only
25,000,000 acres ? No reasonable explanation has. I think, been given of that, and
yet
the right hon. the First Minister tells us
that there is no waste land in Alberta or,
practically speaking, in Saskatchewan either.
Why, then, should the estimate be made on
only 25,000,000 acres, when we have in
Alberta alone, practically speaking, 100,000,000 acres? From the return it is impossible
for us to find out how much land
has been alienated from the province of
Alberta. This return shows the number of
acres alienated within the districts of Saskatchewan and Assiniboia, but it does not
tell us what proportion of this has been
taken out of the province of Alberta or the
province of Saskatchewan, and it is practically impossible for any man to work out
any calculation without having this information before the House. With regard to
the question asked by the hon. member for
North Toronto (Mr. Foster), a number of
reports have been made as to that country
by different surveyors, which would furnish
very valuable information to have before
the House while this discussion is in progress. But what I object to particularly
is
the attempt to withhold these lands from the
new provinces ; and then, if they are to be
withheld, we desire to know what compensation is to be given to the new provinces
for them. I have been endeavouring to
figure out just what was allowed to the
province of British Columbia for the 20-mile
strip on either side of the Canadian Pacific
Railway track, which was alienated for
railway purposes by the Dominion government, and, according to my figures, I find
that there is annually paid to the province
of British Columbia the sum of $100,000 for
lands that were handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Estimating the area
of that 20-mile strip on either side of the
Canadian Pacific Railway track, we find that
this $100,000 is paid to the province of British Columbia for practically only 13,000,000
acres, whereas, in the new provinces, we are
not getting one-quarter the compensation,
and even when our population is doubled
we do not get one-half. What I desire to point
out is that the land in the province of British Columbia is land taken along the railway
track, a great part of it in country
which is practically worthless, and yet a
much more liberal allowance is made to the
province of British Columbia for that land
which was taken away from it than is being
made by the present administration for
land that is just as much taken away from
the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I find that these figures for the area of this
land in British Columbia work out as follows. taking the line as straight between
the different points: Stephen to Beaver foot.
22 miles; Beaver foot to Beaver mouth, 42
5497 MAY 8, 1905
miles; Beaver mouth to Glacier, 24 miles;
Glacier to Rcvelstoke, 35 miles; Revelstoke to Salmon arm, 52 miles; Salmon
arm to foot Shuswap lake, 20 miles; foot
Shuswap laketo bend above Kamloops, 30
miles; bend above Kamloops to Ashcroft,
52 miles; Ashcroft to Lytton, 36 miles;
Lytton to. Hope, 62 miles; Hope to Port
Moody, 62 miles; total, 437 miles. The
railway mileage from Stephen to Port
Moody is 508 miles. It will be seen that an
error would be incorporated if the railway
mileage was taken to calculate area of belt.
the difference is' owing to crooks in line—
71 miles. 437 X 40=17,480 square miles.
When near coast, for 30 miles from Port
Moody, only 10 miles in width can be obtained to south of line owing to international
boundary, a deduction of 300 miles.
Another deduction of 10 per cent must be
made for lands alienated—and it is to be
borne in mind that such alienated lands represent the best of the lot. Making these
two
deductions from the total of 17,480, we got
15,462 square miles, and multiplying this by
640 (the number of acres to a square mile)
we get an acreage of 9,895,680, to which we
must add 3,000,000 acres given in Peace
River, making a total of 12,895,680 acres,
or, for convenience, say 13,000,000 acres.
It will be noticed that no deductions are
made for water areas, nor have any been
taken out of area of Alberta, which is 100,000,000 acres. For this 13,000,000 acres
in
British Columbia $100,000 was paid annually to the provincial government, and this
land is in the Rocky mountain belt. There
is no comparison of the treatment and
there is discrimination against the new
provinces. Thus, I desire some information
as to why the government should only estimate the lands in that country at 25,000,000
acres if there are no waste lands, and no
explanation has been given as to that. Until these figures are brought down and some
information or knowledge given the House
as to how the government arrived at the
amount, it is practically impossible for us
to discuss the matter on an intelligent basis.
Mr. BOLE. I wish to ask the hon. gentleman if, in his opinion, the sum set out now
for the government of the provinces is sufficient or insufficient ?
Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY. In my opinion
it is insufficient. It is not, however, a
question of sufficiency or insufficiency. I
have stated my position in regard to these
lands before in this House. It is not only
the allowance we are getting for the lands:
there are other inconveniences to which we
are subjected by reason of the determination of the Dominion administration to
retain the lands. I have, however. gone
over that ground fully before and I do not
propose to do so again. But I will say
that the chief of these inconveniences is
the distance which we are from the seat of
5498
government. The hon. gentleman may
not know it, but we cannot amend even
our Mechanics Lien Act or any Act dealing
with lands at all without coming down to
this parliament. Another objection is the
small representation we have in parliament
at present. We have only ten members
here from that country to-day, whereas if
the lands were left in the hands of the
local administration we would have fifty
members looking after the administration
of those lands for the benefit of the people.
Another objection is we may have, by the
retention of these lands here, a check on
local enterprises. What is there to be
gained by these provinces in assisting the
developing of coal mines for instance,
which is only one instance. There is no inducement for them to assist or encourage
any local development. But as I have already fully stated my views, I do not propose
to detain the House discussing them
again. Let me say that the action by this
government is contrary to the principles
they have hitherto preached. It is contrary
to their policy of decentralization. As Mr.
Blake says, it is overturning the principles
of the union; and as Mr. Mackenzie said,
the very year the release was taken from
the Hudson Bay Company, no person will
pretend that after we have a government
in these Territories, we will continue to
administer these lands from Ottawa. That
is the position I take.
Mr. BOLE. I have no right to make
any suggestion to my hon. friend as to the
line of argument he should take; but it
seems to me that if he thinks the sums allowed are not sufficient for the requirements
of the new provincial governments, he should
confine his argument along that line, because the amendment eliminates the whole
question of acres and dollars and so forth
from the Bill. In view of that fact. the
hon. gentleman should confine himself to
discussing the sufficiency or otherwise of
the sum set apart for the purposes of these
provincial governments.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I presume that my
hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) is looking at the basis on which
this legislation was introduced in the first
instance. That basis is this. Inasmuch as
the public lands in the said provinces are
to remain the property of Canada, there
shall be paid by Canada to the said provinces, by way of compensation therefor,
a sum based on the estimated value of such
lands. That is very simple and plain.
Then it goes on to state what that sum
is. My hon. friend from Calgary is arguing that that sum is not a fair value, if
you take the lands as a basis; and notwithstanding the statement of the Minister
of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), I have not yet
heard from the Prime Minister any annunciation of policy different from that con
5499 COMMONS
tained in the resolution as at first introduced. It is true that the wording of the
resolution has been amended in order to
meet the difficulty suggested by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). But
the
basis upon which the government proposes
to proceed has not yet been departed from,
so far as I understand. Well, then we might
look at the condition. as outlined by a very
important member of the government at
that time, the ex-Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton), in 1903. What is the basis
the government has laid down? The
basis is that we are to pay to the provinces annually, by way of compensation
therefor, a sum based upon the estimated
value of the lands. I suppose that that is in
line with the position taken by members
from the Northwest, for example, my hon.
friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), who
no doubt has urged on the government the
view he announced some two years ago in
these words :
The people of the Northwest Territories contend that the public lands of those Territories
are now simply held in trust by parliament
until such time as new provinces may be created in that area.
That is the view, I suppose. that the
government is taking or else my hon.
friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott)
would not be supporting it. Therefore we
must get at the value of the lands for
which we are proposing to compensate
these new provinces, in the words of the
resolution as at first introduced. When it
was important to show that these lands
were so valuable that the country had a
very great means of revenue in them. the
government, through its then Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Sifton) spoke in these
words :
But we are now arriving at that position
when, I fancy within the next two or three
weeks, a final arrangement will be closed, under which the railway companies which
have
claims for land grants, including the Canadian
Pacific Railway, will have those claims finally
settled. I am pleased to say that as a result of
this, an enormous quantity of odd numbered
sections will come back to the government and
be available for disposition in any way which
the government may be authorized by parliament to adopt. We shall no doubt have in
the
neighbourhood of fifty million acres of odd
numbered sections to dispose of in such manner as parliament may authorize.
That is to say, we will hold in trust for
the people of the new provinces, as my
hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr.
Scott) put it. not only fifty million acres
of odd numbered sections. but also fifty
million acres of even numbered sections
which must be reserved for homestead interests. The ex-Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) then continued:
I propose at an early day to submit a measure providing for the disposition of these
5500
lands. The first principle of which will be the
actual settler on an even numbered section
alongside an odd numbered section shall have
the preference in buying that piece of land at a
price to be fixed in the manner provided in the
Act.
I have no recollection that that Act,
which was to be introduced in a few weeks,
has yet made its. appearance. But continued the then Minister or the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) :
Of these fifty million of acres of odd numbered
sections—the even numbered sections are kept
for the poor man's homestead—twenty million or
twenty-five million at present so far removed
from communication as to be absolutely of no
money vailue whatever. But in my judgment,
within ten years from the time this railway is
completed, twenty million acres of land owned
by the government at present will have acquired
a value at least of $3 per acre. That is not a
thing about which there is any question.
Well, if the government is holding these
lands as trustees for the people of the
Northwest Territories, even if they do not
hand them over to those for whom they
are holding them in trust. what is the position? They themselves admit by the terms
of the first resolution, that they are making.
compensation by this provision to the people of the Territories. Do they base that
compensation on the valuation of $60,000,000
or $75,000,000? The ex-Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Sifton) desired to keep within
bounds, and according to one of his estimates it would be $60.000.000. and according
to another estimate, which 1 have just
it would be $75,000,000 which these
lands will be worth in ten years. Upon
what basis do the government propose compensation? Upon the basis of twenty-five
million acres? The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) said those lands would
be worth $3 per acre in ten years or $75,000,000. But the government propose to
compensate the Territories, not on the basis
of $3 per acre. but $1.50 per acre.
And I venture to think that there is every
reason indeed for the criticism of my hon.
friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) and my
hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). What is the position of the government?
Do they recognize that they
stand in any way in the position of trustee
for the people of the Northwest Territories
in respect of these lands ? My hon. friend
from Western Assiniboia cannot support
them unless they take that view. That
was his solemn declaration, made, I am
sure not once, but many times, and
certainly made in parliament. Well, they
apparently carry out that view by providing that there shall be compensation. But
when they compensate the provinces for
the lands, they compensate them on the
basis of fifty cents on the dollar. What
justification has the government for that ?
It does not make any difference Whether
it is enough for the requirements of the
5501 MAY 8, 1905
Northwest Territories or not, it the basis
which I have just suggested, is the one
on which the government is proceeding.
And, if the government is proceeding on
any other basis, we would like to know it.
They have not suggested any other basis,
except that my hon. friend the Minister
of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) declares that it
is only a question of what the Territories
require. But the government, by their resolution, declare that it is only a question
of
doing justice to the Northwest Territories
in respect of lands which we hold as trustees
for them. And, notwithstanding the declaration of the Minister of the Interior, we
shall hold them to that until we have some
announcement from the Prime Minister (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) to the contrary. Here
is a declaration on the part of the government that we should compensate them for
these lands on the basis of $37,500,000
for each province, or $75,000,000 in all.
What possible justification is there for departing from the figures that were given
by the Minister of the Interior, when as
we must suppose; he was endeavouring
to place before the House and the country
the fair value of these lands, a fair estimate
of the number of acres and also a fair
statement of the resources this country as
a whole possessed for the purpose mentioned in these lands ?
Mr. FIELDING. I think that the argument of the hon. leader of the opposition
(Mr. R. L. Borden) is somewhat defective
so far as touching the particular point he
speaks of is concerned. He spoke of the
value of these lands ten years hence. If
they become more valuable than now, it
will largely be because of the large expenditure by this government, and it would
not be right to compensate the provinces—
it compensate is the word to be used, though
I do not admit that it is in view of this
amendment—that compensation should not
be on the value ten years hence, when
that value will be to a large extent the
result of the expenditure of money by the
people of the Dominion. I think the hon.
gentleman will see that his argument does
not reach the conclusion to which he has
pointed.
Mr. FIELDING. Expenditure in the construction of railways, for instance; and
the vast sums of money which we are
expending, and will continue to expend,
on immigration; and all the various expenditures which will flow from the national
treasury to the benefit of that Territory, and which, owing to the nature of
the country, must be on a liberal scale.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have never understood that the National Transcontinental
5502
Railway was to be built solely for the
purposes of the Northwest Territories. On.
the contrary I have understood the position of the government and its supporters to
be that this railway was to promote
the general interest of Canada, the eastern
provinces as well as the Northwest Territories. Therefore, I cannot see any very
good reason for charging the whole of
that expenditure against the Northwest
Territories. That does not seem to me
a fair basis. So far as the value of the
land is concerned, it is true that the ex-
Minister of the Interior says that in ten
years these lands will be worth $3 per
acre. But he does not venture to say that
they are not worth more than $1.50 per
acre at present. And the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Fielding) will notice by the terms of
the resolution that the value upon which
we are to pay the Territories in ten years
from this time is not raised to $3 per acre,
but remains for all time at $1.50 per acre
on 25,000,000 acres. According to the former view of my hon. friend from Western
Assiniboia—and it seems very much borne
out by the terms of the resolution—it is not
so much a matter of compensating the people of the Northwest for the lands as endeavouring
to do simple justice to them in
giving the entire benefit of their lands. At
least, that position ought to be adopted
if the government accedes to the view
which the hon. gentleman put forward
at the time. It might be provided
that, for the first ten years, an advance
would be made to those for whom we
hold these lands in trust. But the mere
fact that you are only making an advance
for ten years is no reason, in my judgment why you should not do full justice to
them at some future time. With their increased population and their increased necessities
we should certainly bring the value
of the land up to the figure which the ex-
Minister of the Interior himself has suggested.
Mr. SCOTT. It is my opinion that the
resolutions before the House do substantially
meet the views I expressed four years ago,
and three years, and two years ago. Even
if that were not the case, even if the hon.
gentleman's interpretation were the one to
be accepted, in his statement that it must
then be impossible for me to accept the
resolutions, he is setting up a standard for
me which he does not allow to govern himself on all occasions. If I recollect aright,
on the 22nd of March last, he put on the
record in parliament in the form of a resolution, his view that full autonomy should
be granted to the Northwest Territories—
Mr. SCOTT- full autonomy with regard
to scllools and also with regard to lands.
5503 COMMONS
But in less than an hour from that time,
he suggested that the people of the Northwest Territories should be asked to relinquish
a measure of autonomy with regard
to the lands, that they should accept the
lands with a string to them, the string
suggested being that they should accept
responsibility for the administration of the
lands, but they were to give away the even
numbered sections as free homesteads, and
to continue to sell the odd numbered sections according to the policy which is in
force at the present time or that which
was foreshadowed by the ex-Minister of the
Interior in his speech on the Grand Trunk
Pacific Bill a couple of years ago. Let me
say to my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr.
M. S. McCarthy) who made a comparison
with British Columbia, that if we allow
ourselves to drift into comparisons of details with respect to the several provinces,
we shall find between every province in
Canada just as acute differences as he
finds between the way British Columbia
was treated with regard to a strip along
the Canadian Pacific Railway and the way
the new provinces are being treated in
regard to their lands. In fact, the hon.
gentleman overlooked the most striking case
of all, that of Prince Edward Island. That
province is allowed $45,000 a year, as I
understand, not exactly in lieu of lands,
but on account of the fact that she had not
any lands. Now see what scope there is in
that citation for the purpose of comparison.
Take the case of Manitoba. I recollect reading a statement made by the Prime Minister
of Manitoba a couple of weeks ago, in
which he pointed out that the maximum
revenue provided under the arrangement
made by a Conservative government of
this Dominion with that province, would be
$648,000, that would be the maximum revenue they would receive under the existing
arrangement when that province reached
the maximum population provided for. He
then pointed out, with every appearance of
a deep sense of grievance, that these new
provinces will have a maximum revenue of
$2,207,000.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr.
Foster), to whom I listened with much interest this afternoon, was much mistaken in
thinking that these resolutions were agreed
to without serious consideration of the
matter of the lands. The revenues derived
by the other provinces come from the Dominion treasury in the form of cash subsidies,
and from the amounts which they are able
to derive by administering, selling and otherwise disposing of their public domain.
In
considering the provisions for these new
provinces, attention was naturally given to
these two aspects of the case, we endeavoured to reach the proper amounts
of ordinary cash subsidies by looking at
the amounts the other provinces receive.
Then we endeavoured to arrive at what
would be a proper amount to allow the
5504
new provinces in consideration of the fact
that they are not going to have in their
actual possession the source of revenue
which the other provinces except Manitoba,
have in their possession, that is to say, the
public domain. Of course there were two
points of view, there was the federal point
of view and the point of view of the people
of the new provinces. Now let me say to the
hon. member for North Toronto and the hon.
member for North Lanark (Mr. Haggart), or
to any one else who may think that too much
money is being granted by these resolutions
to the new provinces, that they may set their
minds at rest in that regard. While we have
not perhaps the actual measurement in acres
of the quantity of land, while perhaps we
are not able to arrive at an absolute estimate of the value of these lands, I think
no
person has any doubt about the fact that we
have an enormous public domain out there,
and that if a private corporation had that
domain in its possession and treated it entirely from the point of view of revenue,
they would consider it worth a great deal
more than the $75.000,000 which is specified
in these resolutions for both provinces. If
this government decided to treat that public
domain strictly from the point of view of
revenue, I venture to think they would be
able to dispose of it for a considerably larger
amount than $75,000,000. Even if we knew
the exact number of acres of wheat lands,
the exact number of acres of grazing lands,
the exact area of timber lands, and of
mineral lands, we could not be much
further ahead than we are at the present time. I do not suppose there are
any two individuals who would agree
as to the value to be put upon this enormous
public domain. I might say, as the ex-Minister of the Interior said with regard to
these
50,000,000 acres, that in a short time they
may bring $3 an acre. Probably he was
right. Or I might be disposed to think
that they may be worth even $5 an acre;
and by stretching the time a little, that in
twenty-five or thirty years hence, if some of
these lands still remain in possession of the
Dominion government, they may be worth
$30, $40 or $50 an acre. As I say, it is impossible to agree upon an estimate with
regard to their value. When we were in consultation about this matter we had the advantage
of the presence with us of the hon.
gentleman from East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) who until recently was the Commissioner
of Dominion Lands; and I suppose
he has as much information about that
public domain as any one else in Canada.
He told his colleagues, and the members of
the government who were in consultation,
that there were, to the best of his knowledge,
or that there would be, available from time
to time, in addition to the even numbered
sections which are set apart for free homesteads, in the neighbourhood of 50,000,000
acres of odd numbered sections available [or
sale. Some members of the government
5505 MAY 8, 1905
pointed out that against that calculation it
must be remembered that the homestead
lands had to be administered, and that their
administration cost a considerable amount
from year to year, and that even if $3 an
acre was considered a fair value for the
50,000,000 acres, the cost of administration
of those lands also ought to be deducted. It
may be pointed out too,—I think it was
pointed out once or twice, that there was
a tacit understanding that the Dominion
government was going to continue the
mounted police force in those two new provinces, which at present means an expenditure
of some hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. There were occasional allusions
to the fact that it was the intention
of the government to continue the immigration policy, which last year I think cost
in
the neighbourhood of $600,000 or $700,000.
0n the other hand, we had to remember that
in addition to these odd numbered sections
amounting to 50,000,000 acres, there were
considerable areas of timber lands, considerable areas of valuable coal lands, and
perhaps some other mineral lands. It was not
in the mind of any person taking part in
these consultations that we could arrive at
any hard and fast understanding of the
actual value. The idea was to reach an
approximate value by comparing the conditions in the other provinces, and keeping
in mind the revenues derived from the public
domain by those provinces, and in that way
arriving at what would be fair amounts in
the way of land subsidies to pay out to these
new provinces.
Alluding to the question of values, and
having regard to the statement made this
afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary
(Mr. M. S. McCarthy) end the hon. member
for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), it may not be out
5506
of place for me to recall what I said in
speaking on the second reading of the Bill,
that up to the present time the Dominion of
Canada has not reaped any net revenue from
the administration of the public domain in
Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.
Some time ago I asked the Deputy Minister
of the Interior to have a statement prepared
for me in that regard. In my speech of a
few weeks ago I gave a resume of this statement and if the committee has no objection
I would like the privilege of handing it in
full to the 'Hansard,' as it is long, and
would take me a considerable time to read.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I requested a
similar privilege some time ago, and the
First Minister refused. I must object.
Mr. SCOTT. I wish to put in the whole
statement. it was sent to me by the deputy
minister on the 11th of March. He says :
Inclosure :
Ottawa, 11th March, 1905.
Dear Mr. Scott,—In compliance with the request contained in your note to me of the
6th
instant, I beg to inclose you herewith a statement of the approximate revenue and
expenditure in connection with Dominion lands in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories
from the 1st
of July, 1870, to the 30th of June, 1904, and also
a statement showing the arrears due the government on account of Dominion lands on
the
30th of June, 1904.
Yours very truly,
W. W. CORY,
Deputy Minister.
Walter Scott, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I would like to ask
the Prime Minister as to one matter that I
do not think has been very clearly brought
out by any information laid before the
House, and that is what quantity of actually
good land there is in the Northwest in each
of these provinces, suitable for agricultural
purposes. The reason I ask is that a rather
extraordinary statement was made by one
of the hon. gentlemen from the Northwest,
the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Talbot).
In the first place he says:
There is another reason why it is best for
the federal government to administer those
lands. It may not be considered a good reason
by some, but I think the experience of most of
the other provinces will give some weight to it.
It is this. We might at some future time have
a careless or extravagant government in one or
both of the new provinces. If such a thing did
happen our resources would rapidly disappear,
and we might in a very few years be compelled
to appeal to extensive direct taxation.
I myself would not be inclined to think
there was any greater danger in that regard
from entrusting the lands to provincial control than from leaving them in the control
of
the gover nment of Canada. There is
certainly no more reason to apprehend a
reckless or extravagant government in the
Territories than there is to apprehend such
a government in the Dominion as a whole.
Further than that, the direct and immediate
interest of the people, the circumstances that
the disposal of the lands would be a matter
of immediate local concern. would seem to
me to give greater security in that regard if
they were under provincial control than that
which might be expected to result from
Dominion control. However, the hon. gentleman of course is entitled to his opinions
in
that regard. But he went on to say something else :
Some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the
House would like to make the public believe-
that all the lands in these vast areas are agricultural lands. Such is far from being
the case.
In fact only a small portion of those lands will
ever be fit for agricultural purposes. Millions
of acres are under water. Millions more consist of muskeg and slough, while millions
more
are sand hills and barren. There is no doubt
there is an immense quantity of good agricultural land in the country, but it is only
a fraction of the whole.
I would have been inclined to expect my
hon. friend the Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Oliver) to rise in his wrath, as
well as in his might, and assail the hon.
gentleman who made that statement about
the lands in the Northwest. but I have
not heard from him in that regard up to
5520
date. It is a pretty sweeping description.
I am not inclined to agree with the hon.
member for Strathcona so far as some of
these statements are concerned, that is, from
the information which I have been enabled
to gather with respect to the quality of the
land in the Northwest. I do not think that
the hon. gentleman's observations are borne
out by any information we have before the
House at the present time. But when statements of that kind are made by hon. gentlemen
who come here from the Northwest,
they would seem to me to merit some attention from the government, and I think we
should have some statement before the committee as to the proportion of good land
available for agricultural purposes in the
two new provinces.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I am sorry
that at this moment I cannot give my hon.
friend information as to the exact quantity
of good land which is available for agricultural purposes in these two new provinces.
I could, however, make an effort to have a
computation made. which I will do, and
hope to place in his hands at a very early
date. Such information ought to be available. I agree with my hon. friend that there
is no more probability of a reckless government existing in those provinces than there
is here at Ottawa. We remember that there
has been a reckless government at Ottawa in
the past, and there may be again. But if
there is a reckless government at Ottawa,
the consequences to the people in the depletion of their assets would be less grave
than
would be the case if there was a reckless
government in the Northwest Territories. If
the lands were left under the control of the
provinces the temptation would be very
great to waste them, as the lands would
afford them a ready asset to meet their liabilities ; whereas if there were such a
thing
as a reckless government in Ottawa, they
would have other resources to draw upon
besides the lands. Therefore I should think
the observation of the hon. member for
Strathcona was not without some foundation. As to the character of the lands, I
must say that I am a little surprised at the
description given of them by my hon. friend
from Strathcona. My impression at the
present time is that, with a very small exception, especially in the province of Saskatchewan,
all the lands are available, either for
ranching or for agriculture, by far the
greater proportion. I do not know how
much waste land there is. I understand
there is very little swamp land, as there is
in Manitoba. At the same time, I cannot
give the information to my hon. friend he
asks for, but when we take up this question
again I hope to be able to give him the information.
Mr. LAKE. I wish to make the remark,
amongst others, that no money is sufficient to compensate the people of the
Northwest for the loss of their lands. The
administration from Ottawa is a serious in
5521 MAY 8, 1905
convenience to the people of that country.
I think every member from the Northwest
knows that as well as I do. There are many
letters coming all the time from our constituents asking us to see the land department
at Ottawa and to arrange matters for
them. A very large proportion of the people of the Northwest have business to do
with the land department, and it would be
very much more convenient for them it
they were enabled to do their business on
the spot. Besides, I do not consider that the
administration of lands from Ottawa is at
all what it should be, and is far less satisfactory than it would be on the spot.
There
are many points I might specify in which I
think the administration at Ottawa is decidedly not in the interest of the country.
At
this moment I will not say any more about
that, there will be other opportunities later
on. But I make the assertion that I do not
think the administration of the lands in the
Northwest Territories is what it should be,
or is what it would be if the administration
was carried on from a central point in the
Northwest Territories. It stands to reason
that it is very much more easy to interest
the members of a House sitting right on the
spot and composed of gentlemen who are
all acquainted with the circumstances of the
country, than it is to interest a large House
such as is assembled at Ottawa. For instance, we have ten members for the Northwest
Territories, and if anything is going
wrong in the Northwest Territories it is
necessary for some of those ten members,
possibly a very small number of them to
acquaint the whole of this large House with
the circumstances, and to get this House of
214 members interested in the matter. That
is especially difficult in view of the fact that
so many other matters of vast importance
have to be dealt with here.
I think it might be taken for granted as
a general principle that the administration
will be better on the spot than it can possibly be if the administration takes place
from a centre, 1,500 miles or more away.
The hon. member for West Assiniboia apparently thought it would be unwise to trust
the local assembly with the administration
of affairs up there. I think the right hon.
First Minister has shown that human nature is much the same everywhere and that
there is as likely to be as good administration by the direct representatives in the
local house of the affairs of the new provinces as there is likely to be if they
are administered from Ottawa. The hon.
member for Assiniboia, also, I think, asked the question as to how it would be
possible to carry on the local government
at the present moment without the revenue which is to be granted by the Dominion government
as compensation for the
loss of the lands. I looked at the Auditor General's Report a few minutes ago just
to see what the revenue derived from Dominion lands amounted to, and what the act
5522
ual working expenses were on account of
these lands and I find that the net revenue
from lands and timber agencies, less certain
refunds which were made, amounted to
$890,152 last year, and that for the previous
year it had been $113,287 greater than that.
The expenditures on current account, Dominion lands offices, salaries, examination,
and protection of timber lands and so on
amounted to $247,282. Well, it seems to
me that the difference between these two
sums constituted what was really the revenue from Dominion lands during the
twelve months ending 30th June, 1904, a
sum which amounts to something over
$600,000. Of course, in addition to that
there is a large expenditure on capital account for surveys and so on, but, I think,
the government of the Northwest Territories would equally be able to raise a sum
on capital account to meet such capital expenses as the expenses of surveys and so
on. So, I gather from the Auditor General's Report that there is a very considerable
revenue coming in at the present time
from these lands, an income which was
very nearly as large as the compensation
which is to be granted for the first few
years for the loss of the public lands. I
have no doubt in my mind whatever that it
would be quite easy for the local government to very considerably add to that income,
thoroughly acquainted as all the members of the local house would be with the
local conditions. A new point was introduced into the discussion also by the hon.
member for West Assiniboia when he
stated that the retention of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police was a consideration
which had to be looked at in connection
with this question of public lands. For my
part I cannot see that the question of the
retention of the Mounted Police is affected
one iota one way or the other by the question as to whether the Dominion or the
new provinces have the possession of the
public lands. If the amount of compensation is being placed at this present figure
on account of the retention of the Royal
Northwest Mounted Police we should certainly like to hear some assurance from the
government that that body will be maintained.
Mr. HERRON. Before this resolution
passes I would like to add a word to what
has already been said in reference to the
lands in the Northwest. I was very much
surprised to hear the hon. member for West
Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) state this afternoon
that a great change has come over the people
of the Northwest lately in reference to their
lands. In my part of the country no
change has come over the people. They are
just as strongly in favour of having their
lands to-day as they were one or two years
ago, and .I do not think anything Will be
done or anything can be done in this House
to compensate the people in that country
5523 COMMONS
for the lands taken away from them by
this government. A good deal has been said
as to what the provinces would do, should
the lands be handed over to them, for money
to carry on the government. I may state
that there have during the last few years
been large sales of coal lands made. That
is one way in which a revenue could be
obtained by the new provinces. I understand that within the last two years a sale
of coal lands amounting to about $300,000
was made to one man. That information
may not be correct but I saw the report in
several papers. If that is true it applies
to a very small portion of our coal lands.
I understand that large sales are being
made continually to outside corporations.
I understand that Jim Hill has, in the
neighbourhood of Pincher Creek where I
live, 10,000 acres of coal lands. I do not
know what he has paid for them; I do
not know, in fact, whether he owns the
lands or not, but it is generally supposed
that he owns them, and if he paid the
same price for these lands that other people
are paying for similar lands the amount will
be quite considerable. Other coal lands are
being sold from time to time. That is one
source from which a considerable amount
of revenue would be received by the new
provinces.
Another way in which, I think, it would
be very expedient for the government to
deal with a portion of the Northwest lands
would be to grant a pre-emption to settlers.
I do not know whether it is generally accepted in this country or by members from
the Northwest Territories, but in my locality it is considered that a quarter section
of
land is not sufficient for a homestead. I
think this government should take into consideration the selling to homesteaders the
odd quarter section adjoining their homesteads. As I understand the policy of
the department at the present time there
is no land for sale in the Northwest
Territories to any person. I believe that
is the present policy of the government.
No doubt they will sell in time, and I
do not see any reason why they should
refrain from selling land to settlers. We
know they have been selling it to corporations. I am quite sincere in what I say
in reference to placing these odd sections
at the disposal of homesteaders in addition
to their homesteads. I think the government could sell this land at a good price,
and I do not think they could sell it to any
better people than the homesteaders, selling
it to them at the price of railway lands, for
instance. I say the time will come very
soon, when, if even the Dominion government retain these lands, they will be putting
up the price; they will not be giving
these lands as free homesteads. I do not
think it is justice to the pioneers who have
gone in and settled that country, taken up
land and advanced its value until today
it is worth $5 to $10 an acre, in fact from
5524
$7 to $20 an acre and then to allow new
settlers to go in and get that land for nothing the same as the early settlers did.
Mr. BOLE. Does the hon. gentleman
(Mr. HERRON) advocate homesteading the
odd sections ?
Mr. HERRON. Yes, certainly for the present, but I believe it will not continue very
long. I do not think it should continue
very long. The point I am making is that
the land is worth from $10 to $20 an acre.
and I do not think the government should
continue very long to give that away.
Mr. BOLE. I was wondering where they
were going to get the revenue to run the
government.
Mr. HERRON. I have named one or two
sources of revenue from which we could get
perhaps as much money as we are getting
under the present Bill. I believe we could
derive a large revenue from the sale of our
mineral lands in that country for some years
to come, and with the revenue that will
come to the provinces under this Bill, I do
not see how they are going to provide for
provincial services. The amount allotted
for the first year under this Bill could be
spent in my own district alone, and then it
would not half supply the needs of the district in building roads and bridges and
other things which are absolutely necessary.
Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the
House know that when the Territorial government was giving us $700,000 or $800,000
a
year there were applications in for the expenditure of $15,000,000, which large sum
could be very judiciously applied to meet
the wants of the people.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. This afternoon
the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott)
read an extract from a speech of mine that
I had—
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. No; but I was
wondering how he could possibly make the
views therein expressed conflict with my
present views. I did say something about
the recklessness of legislatures voting away
the property of the people, but I was speaking of all legislatures, including the
Dominion parliament. It must be remembered
that these legislatures, which so cheerfully
gave away the heritage of the people, were
nearly all under Liberal governments, but
a change is taking place now. There has
been a change in my own province, and two
minutes ago I received this telegram from
Toronto, which shows what a Conservative
government is doing to protect the interests
of the people:
Whitney announces that Order in Council
granting Electric Development Company power
to develop extra 25,000 horse-power will not be
ratified.
5525 MAY 8, 1905
A Liberal government in Ontario gave
away three great franchises in connection
with the development of power, and two
days before the election they doubled the
capacity of water that one of these companies was allowed to take, and in that
reckless way the property of the people was
handed out to exploiters. The Conservative
government in Ontario is trying to remedy
this. I believe, with the member for Qu'Appelle, that there would be a more satisfactory
administration of the public lands
by the local authorities than by the central
authority at Ottawa. The new Minister of
the Interior has come into the House fresh
from the west, and I would like him to tell
us whether the opinion of the west is, as it
was formerly, that the public domain shall
be handed over to the new provinces. We
are told here by one or two members from
the west that their views have changed,
but I am quite certain that the views of the
people of the west in this respect have not
changed.
Mr. OLIVER. All of us who come from
the west are anxious to have this Bill passed, and if we do not reply to every assertion
that is made from the other side, it is
rather because we wish to forward business
than that we are particular about how gentlemen on the other side care to represent
or misrepresent the position. By this time
we have fairly well arrived at a conclusion
as to what is the position of the opposition
in regard to this question. They appear to
be unanimous in the view that the lands of
the west shall be treated as a source of
revenue, and that the west should depend
upon its lands for its revenue. That is the
view that prevailed when the Conservatives
were in power, and every member on the
other side has reiterated that principle today. I need not remind the House or the
country that under that policy, not only was
the land not a source of revenue, but it was
a source of direct loss; it did not pay the
cost of administration. It was not until the
principle of the land for the people, the
principle of free land to the settler, was
adopted that the price of land in the Northwest increased. It is because of the policy
of the land for the settler that land in the
west has attained its present value. Just so
sure as the policy of the land for revenue is
adopted again, just so sure the result will
be as before. With the experience we have
had, it is late in the day or us to make the
mistake of killing the goose that lays the
golden egg. It is the free settlement of land
that makes the balance of it valuable, and
just so soon as you place the burden of support of provincial government upon the
revenue derived from the sale of the land,
just so soon you will depreciate the value
of the land and injure the province and injure the country. I am fresh from the west,
and I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. W. F.
Maclean) that I discussed this question with
5526
the people I have the honour to represent.
He knows the result. This subject was persistently placed before the people, and the
provisions of the Bill in this regard were,
so far as I could learn, unanimously endorsed by the people. We do not want a
policy of the land for revenue; we want a
policy of the land for the people, and the
members who parade the fact that certain
lands in the Northwest are to-day worth
certain money are only giving evidence of
the desirability, of the necessity for, and of
the success of, the policy of giving away the
land to anybody who will take it and use
it. The idea that you could derive from the
whole land of the country the same value
that you can for a small part of it when you
are using the greater part of it for the purpose of attracting settlers, is an idea
that is
absolutely absurd, and one which I think will
not be approved of by even our western
friends on the other side of the House.
As to the ability of the people of the
Northwest to manage their own affairs
their land or other matters, no question is raised by any person, but there
is a difference in point of view as I had
occasion to remark at another time. The
provincial government, which circumstances
compel to derive ultimately the larger part
of its revenue from the disposal of its
lands, is under necessity and stress of an
absolutely different administration of its
lands from the Dominion government
which makes its money out of those lands
by their settlement. As I said on a previous occasion, the Dominion government
can afford, and well afford, not only to
give the lands away, but to spend a million dollars a year in attracting settlement
to those lands and still make lots of money
for that country and for every province in
the Dominion by doing so. It need scarcely be stated to the members of this
House that the provincial government
whose interest in those lands is from their
sale and rental is not in a position to give
them away, is not in a position to spend
money in order to attract settlers to them,
and give them the lands for nothing; as
is the Dominion government which derives
its revenues from the customs duties on
the increased trade due to the presence of
these settlers in Canada. There is no question about the ability of the provincial
government or the Dominion government; it
is a quesiion of the circumstances under
which each government carries on its affairs,
and again I say in answer to the hon. gentleman's question, we in the west appreciate
thoroughly the necessity from every
point of view of those lands being administered as far as possible in the interests
of
settlement and not in the interests of revenue; it is for that reason that we want
those lands to remain under the administration of the Dominion which is able to
administer them and still make a profit, and
we are glad to receive a cash allowance in
5527 COMMONS
place of the revenue that otherwise we
would have to take out of those lands,
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Perhaps my hon.
friend does not understand me. The Dominion he says pays a certain subsidy to
the province and pays out large sums of
money in respect of the administration of
those lands.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Well, can we not
very well hand the lands over to the provinces and give them that additional amount
and still have local control? Why would
it not be better for the Dominion to take
that course? As far as the Dominion is
concerned, there would be no loss of money
according to the hon. gentleman's statement.
That is why I said just now that after
all it is a mere matter of control.
Mr. OLIVER. If that is the suggestion
of the hon. gentleman I would certainly
advise him to put it in the form of a motion
and place it before the House and the
country.
Mr. OLIVER. I certainly would not, for
I believe in the principle that if we are
paying the cost of the administration of
these lands we should administer them.
Mr. OLIVER I have not followed the
hon. gentleman.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I suggested that
Canada shall make a proper allowance to
the new provinces, having regard to the
fact that they must take over certain items
of expenditure which now devolve upon the
Dominion of Canada in connection with the
control of these lands. The hon. gentleman
surely does not object to the new provinces
getting an adequate allowance to carry on
the business which is entrusted to them.
Coming from the west he does not take that
position.
Mr. OLIVER. Does the hon. member
propose to give the provinces the cash allowance we propose in this Bill, and also
to
hand over the administration of the lands
and also to recoup them for any possible
loss incurred in the administration of
those lands ?
5528
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I say that if we
impose on them under the terms of this
Bill a certain expenditure, it is reasonable
and necessary that we should make provision for that expenditure, and I have also
said over and over again that I believe the
provinces should be entrusted with the
control of these lands. I do not think the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) had concluded
his remarks so I shall not add anything
more until after he has finished.
Mr. OLIVER. I have no hesitation in
saying that the principle that the government which provides the money should
have the control is one that I would always support, and that if the Dominion
government had to provide the provinces
with the money with which to administer
the lands, it would be right and proper—
and as a western man I would say it
would be right and proper—that the Dominion government should administer that
for which it pays. But to repeat, if I
can make myself clear, it would not matter
if to-day we handed over to the provinces
the amount of money that we are proposing
to hand over and then handed over to
them the land and then handed over an additional amount to repay them for possible
loss on the administration of those lands,
the principle would still remain that the
Dominion government could afford to give
the lands away and still make money, and
that the provincial government could not afford to give the lands away and make
money; and that therefore those of us who
believe in the propriety and the good
policy of administering these lands for the
sake of settlement rather than of revenue,
other things being equal, certainly want to
see that administration remain in the hands
of the Dominion government. Now in regard to a suggestion made by the hon.
member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) as to the
revenue that is being derived from the
sale of mineral lands—and by inference he
suggested that a sufficient revenue might be
derived from the sale of mineral lands
without trespassing on agricultural lands-
I do not know what money could be derived from the sale of mineral lands, in
the Territories ; I do not know what money
has been derived in the past or can be derived in the future. I hope that a very
large revenue can be derived from that
source, but even supposing that there can
be a considerable revenue derived from
that source, it does not alter the principle
I have stated, but we may judge possibly
of this by comparison. The district of
Alberta, as every one knows, is not what
would be called a highly mineralized territory. There are important and valuable
mineral coal deposits throughout the prairie
country and in the Rocky mountains and
these of course are of very great value,
but certainly Alberta is not mineralized to
anything like the extent that the adjoining
province of British Columbia is. There is
5529 MAY 8, 1905
a province of larger area than the proposed province of Alberta, a province
which is, I might almost say, entirely
mineralized, which has coal, and gold, and
silver, and lead, and copper, and iron, and
every metal almost on earth, and has them
in the greatest abundance. I suppose there
is no other country of equal area that is
as highly mineralized or mineralized with
as valuable metal as British Columbia.
British Columbia has timber and land and
that province works all its natural resources for all they are worth as sources
of revenue, yet if I have read the reports
of the provincial government correctly, the
total receipts from the sales of lands from
all sources that I could gather in the province of British Columbia a year or two
ago amounted to some $615,000.
Mr. OLIVER. Yes, this is all I could
gather. I have here the revenue from sale
of mineral lands, timber lands and the
rest, and the whole thing totals $615,000.
If that is the total which British Columbia
derives from the sale of lands and the
rental and working of all its natural resources, I submit that we in Alberta cannot
reasonably expect to support our provincial government from the sales of our
mineral and timber lands.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I would like to
say to the hon. gentleman that one of
his arguments at least would lead to some
extraordinary results. He says that whatever the Dominion government provides
money for, they should control. Well, the
Dominion government, under the terms of
this Bill, provides money for the administration of justice in the new provinces,
and for other matters which are under
control of the provinces. All I was suggesting was that if the lands were under
control of the new provinces, it would be
proper to take into consideration the expense involved in the administration of
those lands. He says you must not get
revenue out of these lands as that would
hear harshly on the people. But I did not
observe him to rise here and rebuke the
argument of his predecessor two years ago
when he led us to believe that we would
get from sixty to seventy-five million dollars out of these lands. Well, it will not
bear less hardly on the people if that
money be taken by the Dominion than if
it be taken by the new provinces. I heard
no word of repudiation from the hon. gentleman when the ex-Minister of the Interior
(Mr. Sifton) announced that policy. On the
contrary, he voted in support of the government and in support of that argument.
Are we to-day having a new policy announced ? Has the hon. gentleman decided
to repudiate the policy of the government
as announced by his predecessor, because
5530
that is what his argument leads to ? Let
me tell him that in the province of Nova
Scotia, which has an area of only 21,000
square miles, and where a wiser policy has
been pursued in respect of its mines than
that which is being pursued in respect of
its Crown lands, the amount of money
received from mineral lands in the year
ending 30th September, 1903, was $619,234,
which is a very comfortable amount of
revenue for a province with a small area,
and which was within a few dollars of
one half the total revenue of that province during that year. And I might add
also that it is a province, only portions
of which are mineralized. The Annapolis
valley and other very large portions of
the province, which are suitable for agricultural purposes, are of course not mineralized,
but there is quite a large area—
between one-half and one-third—whlch
might be regarded as mineralized land.
If such lands were handed over to the
new provinces, probably some system of
not giving away the whole of the mineralized land, but reserving a certain interest
to the people in the shape of
royalty, might be carried out with equally
good results. In the province of Alberta,
such a policy would contribute largely to
the development of the country. The hon.
minister may see possibly that there might
be some room for reflection in the suggestion that the lands, even if the present
system were maintained, would be of some
use to the new provinces. The Dominion
government did not propose to make
$60,000,000 to $75,000,000 by doing away
with the homestead entries. The predecessor of my hon. friend distinctly said that
these homesteads must be reserved for the
poor man, but he proposed to make this
money out of the alternate sections which
are not reserved for homestead sections.
But I would point to the fact that we shall
enter upon the business of selling something
like 50,000,000 acres of land in the Territories
in a short time, and if we watch the manner in
which the business of selling land by railway
and land companies, has been going on, we have
no reason to doubt that, if we choose, these
lands win be disposed of with some degree of
rapidity. What I desire to say is this: There
is probably, out of that 50,000,000 acres of odd-
numbered sections—the even-numbered sections
are kept for the poor man's homesteads—20,000,000 or 25,000,000 at present so far
removed
from communication as to be absolutely of no
value whatever. But, in my judgment, within
ten years from the .time this railway is completed, 20,000,000 acres of land owned
by the
government at present will have acquired a
value of at least $3 per acre.
And in the previous part of his remarks
he pointed out that by reason of the corporations selecting their land, the government
would be free to dispose of the odd-
5531
COMMONS
numbered sections, reserving the even numbered for the poor man's homesteads, and
we would get $60,000,000 to $75,000,000 out
of it.
Mr. HERRON. I might say with reference
to the comparison which the hon. gentleman
drew between the lands of British Columbia and those of Alberta, that if we have
no precious minerals in Alberta, still we
have these immense coal deposits which
are probably just as valuable as the precious metals. Some of the coal mines of
Alberta have sold for as large a sum as
some of these silver and copper mines of
British Columbia. One of them sold for
no less a sum than $3,000,000. Within
twenty-five miles of the locality where I
live, I suppose we have fifty coal mines just
as good as the one I referred to, which sold
for $3,000,000. Coal mines are being developed
all over that country. Not more than a
month ago, an eminent engineer reported
on a mine newly developed within the last
year, and in his report he said that there
were ten million tons of coal above tunnel
levels. That is only one mine out of fifty
within twenty-five miles of where I live.
It seems to me that a province with natural
resources of that kind would have no difficulty in raising a fair amount of revenue.
You might also take into consideration
our fisheries, which may be of considerable
importance. I think that if they were
under the control of the Northwest government we should not see them leased at
$10 a year for 21 years. If they were
handled in the proper way, they would be
another considerable source of revenue. I
consider the minerals of our country also
very important. And I think we could make
a law which would do more to promote the
development of our mineral resources than
can be done from here. The mining laws
of the Dominion, I consider, very unsatisfactory to the people engaged in' mining.
And something should be done to remedy
this difficulty.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Oliver) laid down the
doctrine a little while ago, that not only
should the Dominion have these lands, but it
should also have the immense revenue from
customs to be yielded by that country. That
is, the Dominion is to have everything, and
the old provincial righters have completely
changed their doctrines. The minister spoke
of this land being the land of the people.
Formerly it used to be 'the land for the
province ' but the minister covers the change
by a general assertion of ' the land for the
people. But the fact is he is abandoning
the old platform on which he and his friends
used to stand before this House and before
the country. But I believe there is no
change in the view that the people of the
country take on this subject. As has just
been stated by the hon. member for Alberta
(Mr. Herron), the mineral lands may be
5532
worth more than the agricultural lands, but
these now are given over to the Dominion.
Why not adopt this solution of the difficulty,
take stock of what there is there and give
half to the people of the west and keep half
for the Dominion ? I hold that those provinces when established, should be started
off with a large public domain of their own.
They can give lands to the settler as well
as the Dominion can. They can encourage
mining by giving mineral grants. And perhaps they can do more than the Dominion
can to develop the mineral lands by a policy
similar to that of Nova Scotia. The province
of Nova Scotia, for its size, is probably the
richest province of the Dominion, by reason
of its immense mineral deposits, especially
in the way of coal. If there are these great
coal deposits in the west that they say there
are, and if coal is essential to the west, as
I believe it to be, it would be a good thing
if the new provinces had this public domain.
And, if they cannot have it all, they should
share it. It may be the view of the hon.
gentlemen opposite that the provinces should
not have part of this domain. That may be
the view of the Dominion government, but I
do not think it is in accord with the speeches
made in the west or with the resolutions in
the territorial assembly, nor do I believe it
to be in accord with the views of the people
of the west to-day.
Mr. LAKE. I believe that the consensus
of opinion in the Northwest is in favour of
the possession of the public domain by the
people of the new provinces. It is curious
to me that hon. gentlemen opposite say that
they have not heard any dissatisfaction expressed in the country with the policy they
now propose.
Mr. SCOTT. Why did not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) go to Edmonton and ask
the people to endorse his view ?
Mr. LAKE. I think the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Scott), if he has heard from any but his
own political associates must have heard a
good deal more on this subject than he is
willing to admit. We have been told by
hon. gentlemen opposite that they have heard
hardly any objection to the educational
clauses of the Bill. The hon. member for
Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) nods his
head in assent to that. I can assure him
that both with regard to the educational
clauses, which we are not now discussmg,
and the land clauses I have heard a great
deal of dissatisfaction expressed, and have
had a large number of letters on the subject.
I can well understand that hon. gentlemen
supporting the government think that the
Dominion should retain the land. The idea
was expressed to me by a leading Liberal of
the Territories before the recent election.
He said to me : 'You cannot expect the
Dominion government to divest themselves
of the enormous patronage involved in the
the public lands of the Northwest.' But the
point I wish to call attention to just now is
5533 MAY 8, 1905
that referred to by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). That hon. gentleman
asked the question which has not yet
been answered. He wished to know if this
territory bordering upon Hudson bay—most
of it, I think, comprised in the district of
Keewatin—is to be divided amongst the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan,
will that portion of the territory to he
added to Ontario still remain, so far as the
possession of the lands is concerned, in the
hands of the Dominion government, or will
the lands be handed over to the province ?
And, will a difference be, made in that respect between the part of the territory
given
to Ontario and that given to the new province of Saskatchewan ? That is a question
to which I would very much like to hear an
answer, because I think it has a very clear
bearing upon the subject before us. We
know that a few years ago a very large
amount of territory was handed over to the
province of Quebec—116,550 square miles.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I beg the hon.
gentleman's (Mr. Lake's) pardon,—nothing
was given to Quebec.
Mr. LAKE. There seems to be a great
divergence of opinion between the right hon.
leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) and the local government of Quebec, because in the Order in Council which
the Quebec government passed, upon which
this Act of parliament was subsequently
founded, it was stated that the definition of
the limits which were proposed by the Quebec government meant an increase in area
of
116,550 square miles. There can be no question, even if the right hon. gentleman (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) is right, and it was merely
a new definition of the boundary, that it certainly drew the new boundary line far
away
to the north of the one which existed at that
time. In any case, I think we should receive a definite answer on this point. Because
only a short time ago, when the Minister of Justice was speaking on the
Autonomy Bill, he said that in order to
place the public lands of the Northwest
Territories in the possession of the new provinces it would require a divesting Act
by
the parliament of Canada. So far as I have
been able to see, there has been no divesting Act in regard, at all events, to that
portion of the lands which the government of
Quebec believed had been added to that province in 1889.
When we were asking for information
this afternoon as to the basis of the
calculation of the money grant given
in lieu of lands, the information which we
got showed us pretty conclusively that it
was based upon the idea that 50,000,000
acres of land of the odd numbered sections
5534
are to be opened up and brought within the
reach of civilization by the Grand Trunk
Pacific. I do not think it can be said that
any portion of the present district of Athabaska would come within that scope. I think
the whole of the district of Athabaska is
really considered by the government to be
of little value at the present moment. Would
it not be good policy, if the government determines to retain possession of the land
in
the present provisional districts of Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Assiniboia, to hand over
the district of Athabaska, at any rate. into
the complete possession of the new pro«
vinces ? I think that would furnish a great
incentive to the new provinces to try and
open up this district. It seems to me that
if a remote district of that sort is placed
under the administration of a local government who have no beneficiary interest in
the land, it would he a source of expenditure
without affording any revenue. The provincial government might find a considerable
amount of immigration going into the district of Athabaska, 300 or 400 miles away.
These settlers would call loudly for
the opening up of new roads and the
building of bridges over some of the big
rivers, and that would mean taking away a
certain amount of money which would otherwise be spent in .the more thickly settled
districts nearer home. Therefore, it seems
to me that the local government would not
be very anxious to encourage settlement in
the remote districts ; whereas, if the lands
in those remote districts formed part of the
province, the local government would do
their utmost to encourage settlement there.
because they would be enhancing the value of
their own property. For instance if the minerals are in the possession of the Dominion
government. the opening up of a new coal
mine would bring some money to the Dominion government in the shape of royalty, but
it brings no revenue to the local government;
in fact, it is a source of expenditure, because the local government has to provide
for the inspection of the mine and for the
safety of the miners. Therefore, the opening up of an undertaking of that sort is
a
loss to the local government, although it is
a gain to the Dominion government. But
if the mines and minerals belonged to the
province it would be quite a different proposition for then the local government
would be anxious to develop its resources
and make a revenue in order to repay for
the extra expenditure they Would have to
make in providing for the inspection of the
mine and safeguarding the lives of the
miners.
Mr. MORIN. In regard to this question
of lands in the new provinces, I cannot
understand why the government do not annex those provinces and then give them the
milk and the cream, and let them go. What
is the use of this government acting as a
clerk of the new provinces? Here is the
federal government proposing to collect the
5535 COMMONS
money for the sale of the land and hand it
back to the provinces. Why don't you give
them a quit claim to the land, and let the
provinces take care of themselves ? If they
can take care of themselves, they can take
care of their own land. This is a childish
policy; it is as plain as A, B, C. Now,
what will take place ? I may not live to
see the day, but the day will come when
this government will receive no revenue
from those lands, and then the government
will say to the provinces: We cannot pay
you any more, because we get nothing from
you. Then they will say to this government: Why didn't you let us alone in the
first place ? Why did you rob us when we
had something ? Isn't it as broad as it is
long? That is the way I understand it,
anyway.
Mr. OLIVER. I think the hon. member
has put his finger on the weak spot of our
opponents' argument. He suggests that the
time will come when the revenues from the
lands will not be equal to the subsidy in
lieu of the land. However, he is mistaken
when he suggests that at that time, if it
arrives, this government will be able to say
to the provinces : We don't get the money,
and therefore we cannot give it to you. That
is the advantage of this agreement to the
people of the Northwest, that, whether that
time arrives or not, if it ever does arrive,
it will not be the privilege of this government to say that it will not pay that money,
because it will have to pay that money
whether it derives any revenue or not. That
is why we are supporting this provision.
Mr. MORIN. Very well. Will the hon.
gentleman tell me whether the government
proposes to act as a broker in this matter ?
Mr. OLIVER. The government is not
acting as a broker at all—
Mr. MORIN. Call it any other name you
please.
Mr. OLIVER—because it is merely continuing to transact the business that it has
always transacted, and the transaction of
which has been successful and satisfactory ;
and the local government is going to continue to transact its business, in which its
administration has been successful, but its
revenues will be on a somewhat different
basis from what they were before, and that
is all the difference. I just want to make
reference to a point mentioned by the hon.
member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) and also
by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. R.
L. Borden), in reference to the revenue to
be derived by the provinces, or that might
be derived by the provinces in one instance,
from the sale of coal lands, or royalties on
coal and, in the other case, from the sale of
the odd numbered sections of land. The
hon. member for Carleton read an extract
from a speech of the late Minister of the
Interior, in which he suggested the idea
that certain lands might be sold at the price,
5536
as I understand the extract, of $3 per acre.
I am not able to say how far the late minister was laying down the policy for the
future conduct of the government.
Mr. OLIVER. I will only say that the
principle still remains the same, that this
government can afford to give the lands
away, and if it does not see fit to give
the lands away it can afford to sell the lands
to settlers better than the provincial government can afford to sell them if it has
to sell them. He places the figures at $3
an acre of the land to be sold when land
today is being sold at $6 per acre by railway companies. I submit that the provincial
government under stress for revenue,
as the government of every province in
the Dominion is at the present time and as
the governments of these provinces might
very well he expected to be, would in the
natural course of events, be apt to charge
exactly what hon. members on the other
side of the House have been suggesting
during the whole of this day—the last
cent the land was worth and wring the last
cent they could get out of it for the purposes of revenue. That is the principle that
hon. gentlemen opposite have laid down.
That was not the principle laid down by
the late Minister of the Interior. The
principle was that there was a possibility
of deriving a certain amount of money
from the sale of land, but the price he
suggested was under the present conditions, a low price, a price such as might
be supposed not to be a bar to successful
settlement. The same in regard to the sale
of coal lands or royalties on coal. In their
comparison between the existence of coal in
Alberta and the existence of coal in Nova
Scotia our hon. friends on the other side
of the House do not seem to appreciate the
source from which the value comes. Coal
and land in themselves have no value. The
value in the coal is in the market that may
be got for the coal, and the value of the
land is in the demand that exists for the
land. If nobody wants the coal or the
land the coal and the land are worth nothing. In Alberta we have hundreds of
square miles of coal practically worth nothing, because there is no market for it.
Therefore, a comparison between the revenue that may be derived from coal in
Alberta and the revenue that is derived
from coal in Nova Scotia is not a proper
comparison.
Mr. OLIVER. Because there is no great
population dependent upon that source of
supply. There will be, we hope, but there
is not at the present time. To-day practically the area of coal land in the Edmonton
districts is worth no more than ordin
5537 MAY 8, 1905
ary farm land because there is so much of
it and because there is no outside market
for it. The market is not large enough.
What I want to say in regard to coal is
the same as I said in regard to land, that
the provincial government under stress for
the raising of a revenue might very well
place a royalty on coal that would be a
bar to the development of the industry in
the stages through which it must pass while
awaiting the development of the market.
At the present time there is a royalty charged on coal by this government. This royalty
of ten cents a ton is levied on coal mined under land granted on certain conditions.
Other and adjoining land granted under
different circumstances produces coal, but
pays no royalty and I am credibly informed, that the circumstances belng as
they are, the difference of ten cents a ton is
sufficient to put out of business the coal
mine—it is local mines that I am speaking of—that has to pay that royalty as
compared with the one that does not pay
royalty. I submit we cannot afford to have
our coal industry any more than our
land settlement placed in jeopardy by placing it in the danger of provincial government
which might very well be in financial
stress as is the government of every province of the Dominion at the present time—
Mr. BRODER. Would they not likely be
as anxious for development as the federal
government ?
Mr. OLIVER. Surely, they might be anxious, but if they had not the means, they
could not do what they might desire to do
and the experience of every government
of every province of this Dominion is that
they are under financial difficulties. Their
provincial revenues are not equal to their
provincial expenditures in scarcely any
instance, they are continually looking for
other sources of revenue and under the circumstances it certainly seems very plain
that the danger to the development of the
natural resources of the country is too
great. We cannot afford to take the risk.
We have heard of the great province of
Ontario. It is a great province and it has a
great people. It has a great undeveloped
area and in that great undeveloped area
is a vast clay belt, we are told—a clay
belt suitable for settlement, awaiting settlement and we have a vigorous government
in the province of Ontario. We have had
one for many years and we have one now,
we suppose. Has the province of Ontario
at any time, or under any circumstances,
or in any way successfully placed one
single settler upon that great clay belt
of Northern Ontario? Where has been
the immigrant policy of the government
of Ontario ? Where has been their policy
of development of their great northern
country ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I think the late
Liberal government claimed that they had
created a New Ontario.
5538
Mr. OLIVER. They acquired this new
Ontario, it is true, but what I am pointlflg
out is that after they acquired it they have,
just as we would be afraid would be done
in the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, skinned it of its natural resources
for the sake of provincial revenue.
Show me where they have put money into
the development of that part of the province of Ontario.
Mr. OLIVER. I am neither defending
nor attacking the government of Ontario.
I am stating what I understand to be the
plain facts and it is open to any hon. member of the House to correct me it I am incorrect.
I am laying down the principle
that no provincial government is circumstanced to undertake the work of the developement
of a new country as is the Dominion government, because it derives its
revenue from a different source and where
the Dominion government has good and
sufficient reasons for inducing free settlement by the expenditure of large amounts
of money, no provincial government has any
inducement or can afford to undertake that
work and as a matter of fact does not
undertake the work.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. Alas, and alack
a day for provincial rights in the House
of its old friends. Apparently the new provinces can do nothing. They are not able
to administer public lands or public trusts,
and if they were given charge of their
estate they would only squander it. That
apparently is the view of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. SCOTT. That is the hon. gentleman's statement.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. No, it is the
statement of hon. gentlemen opposite, and
especially of the hon. Minister of the In
terior (Mr. Oliver). Later on in this discussion I intend to move a resolution something
on these lines: that this clause be
amended by the substitution of terms giving at least half the coal areas in each
of the new provinces to the respective governments of those provinces. If there is
any thing that the west is rich in it is in
coal, and if there is anything the future, of
the west depends on it is coal. Unless
these settlers are assured for all time of
the control of a cheap supply of coal, they
run the risk of passing under a coal monopoly, as in the United States, where all
the great cold areas, especially the Anthracite coal regions in Pennsylvania, have
passed into the hands of barons, so that
the people are paying $6 per ton for Anthracite coal when they should get it for
$1.50 per ton, the cost of mining and transportation. Are we to repeat this mistake
5539 COMMONS
in our western country ? The members
from the west should insist that at least
one-half of the coal areas should pass to the
provinces and be kept for all time as a
fuel supply for the people of the west.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I am willing to
give them the whole of it, but let us at
least make provision now for one half of
it. Just as sure as there is a sun in heaven,
that coal will be given away in grants of
one kind and another, or sold for a mere
trifle.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I do not say
that, but if we have two trustees like the
Dominion government and the provincial
government it might be better protected
than if we had only one trustee. There
should be an arrangement between the Dominion government and the local government;
that this coal land will be kept for
all time for the benefit of the settlers.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. If Saskatchewan
has no coal fields, then I am willing that
she should have an interest in these coal
areas. I preach the new doctrine in this
House; that the people of the west should
be partners of the Dominion government
in the ownership and control of this public
domain, and I challenge any man here from
the west to deny that that is a sound proposition. Later on I intend to make a proposal
that these new provinces should have
at least one-half interest in the coal deposits of that new country.
Mr. HERRON. The Minister of the Interior suggested that the Dominion government would sell the
lands cheaply for the
purpose of developing the country, but I
can point out to him that the sales they
have made along the foothills have not had
that effect. There was a sale made six or
seven years ago of 10,000 acres to a foreign
company, another sale of 15,000 acres to another company a few years ago, and not
one
shovel full of earth has been turned since.
That land will be valuable in time to come,
and I do not believe it is a good policy for
the country that the government should sell
it now at a nominal figure and allow it to
remain there undeveloped.
Mr. OLIVER. That proves that what we
need in Alberta is a market for the coal in
order to give it value, and that in the process of development we must be careful
how the business is handled or it will check
that development.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I would not look
at it in that way. I would think that the
people who take up these coal lands should
5540
either develop them or pay a rental until
the market does come. Why should they
be permitted, without contributing one dollar to the revenue of the country, to hold
for thirty or forty years, coal lands that
will be worth millions of dollars and perhaps tens of millions of dollars at that
time
if the country is well settled ? I cannot understand why in the name of common sense
such a policy should be adopted. In most
countries where these matters are well
thought out the coal areas are leased and
not sold out right. If they are not worked
so as to produce a royalty, the people who
hold these lands must pay an annual rental,
so that they shall contribute something from
year to year in respect to the increased value
that these coal lands acquire through their
being held. Both the Prime Minister and
the Minister of the Interior stated this afternoon that these lands are of great importance
to the people of the west, and
that if they were handed over to them they
would have to depend very largely upon
these lands for revenue. They argued that
the provinces would be less likely to take
good care of them than would the Dominion government to whom these lands are of
much less moment. I should think that argument would work the other way. These
lands are of direct local concern to the
people of the province, and in my view
the province is more likely to take good
care of them than is the Dominion. I do
not know why we should suppose that the
people of the Northwest are any more reckless, any less capable or any less honest
than the people of Canada as a whole, or
why the representatives of the people of the
west assembled in their legislature would
be any less capable, any less prudent or any
less provident than the people of Canada as
a whole. If they are not less capable, less
provident, or less honest, surely they would
be likely to take better and not worse care
of these lands than the federal legislature.
Mr. OLIVER. I do not know exactly
what the suggestion of charging an annual
rental on coal property has to do with the
subject under discussion.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will tell you. The
hon. gentleman, (Mr. Oliver) said that these
lands could not be developed because there
is no market for the coal, and therefore, to
follow out his argument to its logical result; it is a wise policy to sell these lands
to speculators who will hold them until
there is a market, and pay nothing to the
public revenue while the increment of
value is being added. I say that is not
good policy, I say that in the meantime
these speculators should pay an annual
rental to the public treasury in order to give
at least some compensation for the enormous profits which they in the end will make
out of these coal lands.
Mr. OLIVER. I am quite willing to argue
what should be a proper policy to pursue
5541 MAY 8, 1905
in regard to these lands, but 1 do not see
what it has to do with the question as to
whether the Dominion or the province
should carry out such a policy.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will endeavour
to make it plain. I say that the people of
the Territories are just as honest, just as
capable and just as provident as the people
of the rest of Canada ; and seeing this thing
occurring under their own eyes they would
be much more likely to stop it than we
seem to have been during the past ten, or
fifteen, or twenty years.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I do not dispute and nobody will dispute that the people of the Territories whether
they are
represented in this House or in their legislative assemblies are the same, but my
hon. friend will agree with me that the
argument I gave him this afternoon is unanswerable.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. My hon.
friend does not apprehend the argument;
it is this, that if a government, whether
it be a local or a federal government, gets
in trouble financially, the Dominion government has more resources to fall back
upon than a local government; the local
government has no resources other than it
own lands, and therefore they are more
liable to sacrifice these lands to meet an
immediate contingency than the Dominion
government will be. Let us look at the
experience of the past. There is no denying that most of the provincial governments
are not at the present time in a very flourishing condition financially; most of them
are
more or less embarrassed, and moreover I
do not think, judging from the past, that
my hon. friend has a bright example as to
the administration of public lands by the
several provinces. Take the neighbouring
province of British Columbia. They gave
away their domain, they gave away the
richest mineral lands they had, the coal
lands for a mere song, and when in 1897
the Canadian Pacific Railway came here
for a subsidy to assist them to build the
Crow's Ness Pass line they already had
an enormous subsidy in lands from the
British Columbia legislature, an enormous
subsidy, so large indeed that before we
gave any assistance to the company to
build that line, we compelled it to surrender to us 50,000 acres of their best coal
lands which we keep as a reserve, so that
the people will have under all circumstances the benefit of the coal that is there.
"We were not satisfied with the reservation
of 50,000 acres of coal lands, but, it I remember aright, we also compelled the company
to sell their coal at a stated price,
which we were sure would prevent any
monopoly of those lands, and would have
the effect of preventing the very thing
5542
which terrifies my hon. friend from South
York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) in his new zeal
for provincial rights. That zeal altogether
new and only of short duration because I
remember only last year he was deprecating the mistake made by Sir John Macdonald
in permitting a federal government
and in not having a legislative union.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. That was
last year; now he is a provincial righter
and has all the zeal of a new convert who
always goes too far and does not understand the doctrines he is talking about.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The new light that
my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F.
Maclean) has received in this matter is
but a feeble glimmer to that which has
come to the right hon. gentleman and those
on that side of the House. I still do not
agree—
Mr. R. L. BORDEN—with the premier's
argument. I did not suppose in his heart
that he expected that any one would agree
with him because after all his argument
does not rest on much. He says that these
provinces are likely to be in great stress
fnancially while the Dominion government
is always likely to have plenty of money.
That may or may not be; we cannot always foretell. I still base my faith
upon this that if those lands are of
more importance to the province than they
are to the Dominion as a whole, and if
their people are equally honest and capable, we may expect them to take better
care of the public domain than we could
possibly do. We surely should not attribute to the people of those provinces so
extremely reckless a disposition as to believe that they will sell their birthright
for
a mess of pottage, simply because of a
temporary stringency. That is all the premier's argument amounts to. Some provinces
may not have administered their
public domain wisely; I am not contending that they always have done so, but
has it not been the argument of my right
hon. friend and his followers that this Dominion has not always administered the
public domain wisely? How often have
I heard the changes rung upon that as one
of the misdeeds of the Conservatives in
the past, and yet my right hon. friend and
his colleagues were willing in 1875 to give
twice as much land to have the Canadian
Pacific Railway built as was eventually
given by Sir John Macdonald, so that both
political parties in the Dominion of Canada, have not according to the argument
made on the other side of the House been
guilty of excessive prudence in that re
5543 COMMONS
gard. I do not know enough about the
history of the province of British Columbia
to be prepared to offer an opinion upon the
wisdom of the administration of the public domain of that province. I know that
in my own province I do not approve of
the way the Crown lands have been administered; they have been sold instead of
being leased under proper control as to
cutting upon them. In Quebec, as I understand, there is a system of leasing
which perhaps may not always have been
carried out very wisely, and in Ontario
there is also a system of leasing and I believe in respect to the Crown lands, in
respect to minerals, in respect to the public
domain generally, it would be wise for
the province to retain the ownership and
lease subject to annual rentals as far as
that policy is reasonably practicable. It
has been followed with great success in
Nova Scotia with respect to minerals and
if it were not for the revenue derived from
minerals, Nova Scotia would have an annual deficit of a large amount or the public
services would have to be provided for
much less liberally than they are at present.
Mr. WILLIAM WRIGHT. I am strongly
of the opinion that the lands ought to be
handed over to the management of the
Northwest. I submit that they could
manage them much more economically than
they can be managed from Ottawa no matter what party may be in power. They
are the people on the ground. We have in
this House ten representatives for the
whole Northwest to voice the views of the
people there, but in the two legislatures
that will be formed there will I think be
fifty representatives, there will be representatives from every section of that country.
I submit that they are much more
interested than we can possibly be in the
development of that country. I have different reasons why I would like to see the
land in the hands of the people there. I
do not think the right policy is being followed now in regard to the administration
of these Northwest lands. Under the
immigration arrangements that were introduced by the Interior Department, the government
were I believe giving each alternate quarter section to prospective settlers,
and I think selling the next quarter section
in order to raise a revenue sufficient to carry
on the management of the lands. Now it
is proposed to hold these lands as a source
of revenue. If this policy is carried out,
we might ask ourselves how much revenue
we are to get from it. If we have lost
more than $1,000,000 in the past, will we
not lose a million in the future if this
policy is continued, so that ultimately these
lands will be all gone and nobody will have
been benefited, because I submit that in
giving a quarter section to each settler
we are not fulfilling all our duties in re
5544
gard to settlement, because as any one who
is familiar with that country knows, a
quarter section is not sufficient to establish
a settler in the west.
Provision should be made for at least
another quarter section to every prospective
settler ; and I think that the ex-Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Sifton) when he proposed
putting a motion of that kind some time ago,
intended to allow the settler to have the
opportunity of buying the quarter section
alongside of him. That, I think, would be a
move in the right direction. It would be an
improvement on the present policy of giving
the quarter section at a nominal rate to
some company or partnership or individual
who will hold the land for speculation. To
allow such lands to be held for speculative
purposes is a natural hinderance to the
settlement of the Northwest, because it augments the price which the settler will
eventually have to pay ; and every dollar added to
the price of the land is so much in the way
of the settlement of that country. The
proper policy would be to extend the present
condition of giving a quarter section by providing that the actual settler, who cultivates
the ground, will have the opportunity of
buying another quarter section at a reasonable price. To-day, after he gets the first
quarter section for nothing, he finds himself
against the land of some speculator, and is
forced to pay from $6 to $15 an acre before
he can get the next quarter section. Two
or three days ago I had a conversation with
a man who tried to get land out there and
found the diffculty so great that he actually
came back in disgust and refused to settle
under the present conditions. These people
say that if proper conditions were imposed,
they would move out there this spring and
become settlers, but of course greater inducements are given to Doukhobors and
Galicians and so on than to the young men
from other parts of Canada. One gentleman
that I saw said that he went up there to a
land oflice and was pointed out a certain
number of quarter sections upon which he
might locate. After going out at considerable expense and selecting one, when he
came back and tried to enter for location he
was coolly told that they promised to hold
it six months for some man in Ottawa, and
that if he would wait until the spring and
this man did not want the land, he could
have it. After two or three similar experiences he came away in disgust, and has
probably given up any notion of locating in
the Northwest. If the present policy be continued, it will materially affect the settlement
of that country. I do submit that if
the people there had the management of the
lands, they would administer it economically,
promote settlement to a larger exent than is
being done to-day, and save a large sum of
money to this government. Even looking
at the question from the standpoint only of
economy, we would be making money for
this Dominion and the Northwest by allow
5545 MAY 8, 1905
ing these new provinces to handle the lands
themselves. They are more interested in
getting good settlers than we can possibly
be, because it is they who will suffer if
settlement is retarded. Looking at it from
every standpoint, I do not see what we have
to gain by administering the lands from here.
After all the money is gone, which we will
get from the sales of lands in the future, we
will have to dip into the Dominion treasury
to pay the running expenses in connection
with the management of lands in the North
west, so that to continue the present policy
would be suicidal, if only from a financial
standpoint. There are many other considerations I might dwell upon, such as the
giving away of vast coal lands. Last
fall a large area was given away at
$1.25 an acre and other large areas
handed over to companies at insignificant
sums. That is a policy which ought to be
stopped. If these coal lands are not of any
value we might as well hand them over to
the Territories. We might as well do that in
any event for all that we are getting for
them. To say that the new provinces would
squander and mismanage the lands is an insult to the people. The only good reason
advanced so far is that advanced by the First
Minister, that the provinces might be in distress for money; but I do not think that
these local goverments, which will have the
same ability to borrow as other local governments, need be in any want of money,
and we can as well afford to give them a
reasonable monetary annual payment as we
can to the other provinces. The other provinces have their lands and yet get an
annual subsidy of so much per head. Why
not treat the Territories in like manner ?
They should be given the same rights as the
older provinces and be treated with as much
fairness and consideration, and I have not
yet heard any good reason why this should
not be done.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The right hon. gentleman should 'have been a Chancery lawyer,
for once he gets a ward in Chancery, he
wants to keep it there all his life. Evidently
that is his intention in the case of these new
provinces. He wishes to keep them as wards
in Chancery and to manage their affairs for
all time. He did tell us, when he introduced
these Bills, that he was putting on the
coping stone, that he was completing the
emancipation of that country, but evidently
his intention is to keep the west in the condition of wards for all time. The new
provinces are not to be free to administer their
own public lands but are to be treated as
wards and the Dominion is to be their perpetual trustee. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman
is more anxious about the patronage
than anything else and thinks that his sunny
measures will be promoted by having this
large patronage at his disposal. I am surprised at the moderation of my own views
in the matter of paternal government when
I see this governments
proposition, which is
5546
paternalism in its rankest form. There is to
be no emancipation of the provinces, no provincial rights, no trusting the people
of the
west to manage their own affairs. They are
instead to be managed by the Dominion and
the control of their own financial heritage is
to be taken out of their hands. Again I
would ask the right hon. gentleman to
answer the question proposed by my hon.
friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), with regard to this new territory in Keewatin.
If
it is to be divided up among the provinces of
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario, is Ontario to be given a deed to the Crown lands
it takes over and are the other provinces to
be still in the position of wards and not to
be given control of these lands ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I intended to
answer the question of the hon. member for
Qu'Appelle, but did not understand exactly
what it was.
Mr. LAKE. The question I put is this.
If the lands of Keewatin are to be divided
among the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba and the new province of Saskatchewan,
will the lands, which are to be included in
the province of Ontario, be placed absolutely
in the possesion of that province ? If that
be the intention, will the same treatment he
meted out to Manitoba and Saskatchewan,
and will they enter into full possession of
those lands ? It seems to me that unless
Ontario were placed in full possession of her
slice of territory, the government might find
that the precedent they are now setting
would create a demand on the part of Ontario for a subsidy in lieu of these lands.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I must say to
my hon. friend that I had not considered
this aspect of the question. There was
no necessity, I believe, for the government
to come to any decision upon this point,
especially in view of the manner in which
the subject was brought up. My hon.
friend is aware that when we brought down
this Bill we did not include in Saskatchewan the whole of the area included in that
territory. The territory in Keewatin is
also claimed by the province of Manitoba.
And I have no doubt, from the representations made to me that the province of Saskatchewan
will also claim that portion of
the territory. The province of Ontario has
signified its intention to claim that its
boundaries should be extended to the shores
of Hudson bay. Under these circumstances
the government decided not to dispose of
the territory, but to wait and have a conference with the representatives of Ontario,
Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with a view
to disposing of this territory. I am not
prepared to say, at the present time, what
the government should do. The only thing
I can say, speaking for the government, is
that we think it fair and just that the representations of these several provinces
should be heard before a decision is come to.
5547 COMMONS
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My hon. friend
from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) has given the
Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a very
hard nut to crack and I must say that the
right hon. gentleman has not made much
impression upon it.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Oh, in due time.
I did not know but that the right hon. gentleman had a preference for a summer session.
The Prime Minister has already
practically admitted that a statement made
by a member of this House in the constituency of Mountain, in the province of Manitoba,
embodied a decision which would be
accepted by the government. And that
statement, speaking from recollection, was
that a portion of the territory not yet appropriated would be divided in this way;
the line would run, I think from the northeast boundary of Manitoba, or some point
near there, up Churchill river to Fort
Churchill, then down the coast of Hudson
bay to Weenisk river to Weenisk lake, then
to Fishing lake at the boundary of the province of Ontario and thence south to the
49th parallel. This was to be the new
boundary of the province of Manitoba. The
portion of the land to the north and west
would go to Saskatchewan and the portion
to the east would go to Ontario. That
division, as not only one but two hon.
members of the House stated, and as
practically the Prime Minister has said
would be adopted. The question that the
hon. member for Qu'Appelle asks is this:
Having decided upon that course, you must
have come to some conclusion whether you
will or will not, in that portion of the territory to be handed over to Ontario, carry
out exactly the same policy which you
are carrying out with respect to these
new provinces. In other words: You
will add to the province of Ontario
30,000 or 40,000 square miles of territory. Will you reserve the public domain,
in these lands to this government, or
will that domain pass over to be administered by the province of Ontario as other
provincial lands of Ontario are administered ? If you do hand this public domain over
to Ontario, will or will you not adopt the
same principle with regard to Manitoba?
And, if you carry out the policy of transferring the public domain to these two provinces,
how shall you make any exception
in the case of the province of Saskatchewan ? And, if you carry out that policy in
the province of Saskatchewan in regard to
the added territory, what reason can possibly be given for withholding the lands in
the remainder of the province? It seems a
very logical sequence, and I should think
5548
it could afford some room for reflection by
the government. I assume that practically
the government will get out of it by not
handing over any land to Ontario. And
thus that fine province may find itself divested of a certain amount of territory
because a difficulty arises through the inconsistent conduct of the government.
Now, there is one matter I wish to bring
to the attention of the member for West
Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). It relates to the
hon. gentleman's attitude toward provincial
autonomy. I have a little reference to some
remarks of his. He referred to a certain
proposal I made which was mentioned this
afternoon. I said, in the first place, that I
thought the lands ought to be handed over
to the control and administration of the
provinces, I adverted to the arguments of
the Prime Minister that that would be dangerous to the immigration policy of the government.
I thought there should be no
such danger, but I suggested that if the
government were of opinion that there was
such a danger, they might hand over the
land of the province on certain stipulations with regard to free homesteads, to
which the consent of the people of the
Northwest Territories would be obtained.
On this point the hon. member for Western
Assiniboia said :
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am amazed that
any man in this House should give voice to such
a suggestion for invasion of provincial autonomy as is contained in the suggestion
of my
hon. friend.
As I understand him, in his opinion it is
an invasion of provincial autonomy to hand
these lands over to the province under any
restriction whatever even though the consent of the people of the Territories, through
their representatives, were obtained-
Mr. R. L. BORDEN—but he regards it
not as an invasion of provincial autonomy
to refuse to hand over any portion of the
lands, but to retain them all in the possession of the Dominion government. That
would seem to me a little inconsistent.
Mr. SCOTT. I may be permitted to say
that when I made that reference to the suggestion of my hon. friend I was taking for
the moment his point of view with regard
to autonomy. He was taking the view
that we must lay out the new provinces
upon exactly the same basis as that on
which the four original provinces entered
confederation. For instance, they must be
dealt with in a certain way with regard to
education. He had a particular view
in that matter. They must be dealt with
so and so with regard to the lands, and in
every particular, if I understood my hon.
friend aright, it was his view that this parliament was not free to deal as it chose,
but it must follow strictly certain lines
which are laid down in the British North
5549 MAY 8, 1905
America Acts from 1867 to 1886 inclusive.
Taking that point of view, I endeavoured
to point out to the hon. gentleman that his
own suggestion involved the most violent
invasion of provincial autonomy I had ever
heard any body give voice to.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Where does the
hon. gentleman find any provision in the
British North America Act that substantiates anything he has said just now ? He
says that my proposal involves some invasion of provincial autonomy ; what section
or subsection of the British North America
Act is he referring to ?
Mr. SCOTT. It is clear to every person
that the provinces of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario own their
public domain, they are entirely unrestricted
in the usage of their public domain, it is
their chief source of revenue. The province
of Nova Scotia gets much more from its
public domain than it does from the federal
subsidy, so with the province of Ontario, so
with the province of Quebec. My hon.
friend's suggestion was, if I understood him
right, that we were not free to deal with
these new provinces with regard to the
lands in any other way than thosa four provinces were dealt with; but then, he said,
if
there is a reasonable objection against that,
why not put in this restriction ? Would
it not be the statesmanlike thing to find a
way of adopting the power of the provinces
in their disposal of these lands,' he suggested. As I pointed out in my speech on
the
second reading, it would he a restriction
that would amount to scores of millions of
dollars to come.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. If he regards that
as an invasion of provincial autonomy, does
he regard it as a greater invasion of provincial autonomy to retain the lands altogether
by the Dominion ?
Mr. SCOTT. My hon. friend knows my
view with regard to the proposals which are
before the House. My view is that this
parliament has the discretion to give such
constitution to these new provinces as it
chooses to give. We are proposing to pay
a certain amount of money to them in lieu
of their public domain. I have been out in
that country recently and have conversed
with scores of men who take an interest
in this question, and they all agree with
me that this proposal is far better for the
provinces even than the proposal to transfer the land unrestrictedly to the new
provinces, and that as between the projosal
that is being put into effect and the suggestion to turn over the public domain with
my hon. friend's restriction, there is
no comparison at all. With respect to the
remarks which have been made by the hon.
member for Qu'Appelle going to show that
the people of the Northwest are not satisfied with these land proposals, I asked him
a moment ago. I ask him again now, and I
5550
ask the member for South York, if they are
in earnest in what they say about these land
proposals, why did they not take the opportunity to go into the district of Edmonton
and place their policy before the people of
that district ? Surely they had a fine opportunity of placing their views with regard
to the land question as well as the school
question before the people of Edmonton ?
But I understand they hold that it was no
use to go, because there are a number of
Roman Catholics in the district of Edmonton, and Roman Catholics forsooth, have
no right to express an opinion upon the
constitutional questions involved in this Autonomy Bill. But whatever reasons may
underlie their contentions as to Roman
Catholics and schools, surely as regards
lands the interests of the Roman Catholic
and Protestant citizens of the Northwest
must be identical. And let me say here
that this land proposition, in the judgment of the people of the Northwest
Territories, is a much more serious, a much
more momentous question than is the question that divides my hon. friend from
Carleton and myself with regard to separate schools. There is a certain question
between him and myself as to whether
the settler out there shall have the privilege to send his child to a school-house
on section 11 or to a school-house on
section 14. But the settler in the Northwest Territories is more concerned to know
whether he is going to have money enough
to educate his child either in the schoolhouse on, section 14 or in the schoolhouse
on section 11, than in the minor question as to which section his child shall travel
to in going to the school-house. Very
recently, in company with some of my
hon. friends from the Territories and the
new Minister of the Interior, I spent three
weeks in the Northwest Territories, I was
up in the constituency of Edmonton, passed
through the constituency of Strathcona,
spent four or five days in the district of
Calgary, came through my own district, and
put two days in at Regina. During that
time I conversed with scores, if not with
hundreds, of gentlemen, perhaps most of
them Liberals, as would naturally be the
case, but with a great many Conservatives
also, and not a single man of them raised
any objection against the land proposition
of these measures. Many of the gentlemen
I spoke to, Liberals, independents and Conservatives, some of them Conservative members
of the legislature, spoke to me in strong
terms of approval of the measures before
the House at the present time in particular
relation to the lands.
Mr. COCKSHUTT. When the Bill was
up for the second reading, I took the opportunity of opposing this particular clause
relating to the financial terms. I think there
are very good reasons why these clauses
should be opposed. I have listened during
the afternoon and evening to hon. gentlemen
5551 COMMONS
opposite, and I have not been able to gather
any good reason for changing my views
on this question. In the first place, the
financial grant is a large one, it has to
be paid by the Dominion, therefore every
province becomes a party to the arrangement, and it is for every province to decide
whether this grant is too large or
not. We have been told by the new Minister of the Interior that we have lots of
money. That is a very pleasant thing, but
that may not always be the case, and the
time will come when taxation will bear
heavily on this country. Therefore, I think
these financial terms should be watched very
closely. I have not heard the Finance Minister deal with that part of the subject.
Perhaps he has ways and means of raising
money that will not embarrass us much in
the near future. But this is a large question.
The other provinces, I think, are getting 80
cents per head as a subsidy from the Dominion treasury. That is perhaps sufficient
in Ontario, it may be sufficient for the Northwest, providing they get their land.
To
my mind, this course would be the better
one to give them a smaller financial grant,
but to give them possession of the lands, or
a large portion of the lands. It appears to
me that in so doing you would place where
it properly belongs the responsibility for
the administration of the lands. I listened
to the Minister of the Interior just now, and
I must say, if I followed him correctly, that
he advanced a strange line of argument
with regard to the land values. I understood him to make this argument, that the
more lands we gave away so much more the
remaining lands increase in value. That is
a very strange proposition, the more of your
assets you give away the more you will
prize what are left—that is what his argument amounts to. The more land we give
away the more we will value those that are
left. Then, if we continue to give away our
lands, the time will come when what we
have left will be worth $100 an acre. But
would that be in the best interest of settlement? I think not. We want the lands,
not only for settlers, but we want them
especially for the right kind of settlers.
We want them for good settlers. I
believe it is very much better that we
should grow solidly than that we should
grow rapidly. I do not know whether
the hon. Minister of the Interior admires
the class of settlers that is going in there
now to a very great extent or not, but I
must say, that, as far as I am aware, and
I believe this is the view of a great many
people in Ontario, it is not the right kind of
settlers that these lands are being given
away to. We would rather see a better
class even if we grow more slowly. Rapid
growth is not the desideratum that we
should strive for. We should look for
quality as well as quantity. Therefore,
I think the hon. gentleman, in pursuing that
kind of argument, has not justified his posi
5552
tion. He made the further statement that
Ontario has done nothing with her Crown
lands. He says: I want to know where
they have ever placed a single settler up
there. I am not here as the sponsor of the
Ross government. We had that government for thirty years. I did my best to
turn them out and I am glad to say that
we did at last get them out. They gave
away vast tracts of our estate to their
political friends, but there is to-day in
New Ontario a large area of land left
from which a good deal of revenue will
accrue to us for generations to come. If
these lands in the west are worth as much
as it is said they are and if they were
handed over the government of that country could be sustained for years and generations
on them. It would seem, according to the hon. gentleman, that the people
of the west should say : We will part with
our inheritance, but we will take a mess
of potage for it. These $2,000,000 will be
only a mess of potage as compared with
the value of these lands in years to come.
Just compare that with the position of
a man who has fallen heir to a great
estate and who, on the death of his father,
says that he prefers to retire on a life annuity and refuses to take any responsibility
in connection with the management of
his estate. What would you say of such a.
man? Would you not say that he was
a coward ? So he would be, because he
would be laying down his birthright, selling it for a mess of potage. Man is here
for
something more than to take an annuity and
to live for ever in peaceful retirement. He
should take the responsibility that falls to
his lot. Why should these new provinces
be put in a different position from that occupied by the other provinces ? All the
other provinces have their Crown lands
except Manitoba. Have you any reason
for making an exception in this case ? They
are the most competent and the best able
to administer these lands. They are on the
spot. If there is anything wrong in connection with the administration of these
lands these people are in the best position
to make it right. They are the people to say
what class of settlers they want in that
country. They may say: We will take
them a little slower but we will get the
right kind. We will take the kind that will
be a big boon to the country, that will build
straight and true and right and if they do
that they will not regret the policy of a little slower growth, of more solid growth,
but of growth on right lines. Look at the
great United States to the south of us. All
that is best in that great republic came
from that first little band of settlers who
landed on Plymouth Rock. They are
the people who laid the corner stone and
set the foundation of that great republic.
All that is truest and best in the United
States to-day has descended from that little band of settlers that came out from
5553 MAY 8, 1905
Great Britain to seek freedom and the
privilege of worshipping God in their own
way. These people came out and
laid the foundation of that great republic.
To-day we are growing faster in the Northwest than we have been doing in the past,
I question very much if the Department
of the Interior, of whose wise administration we have heard so much, is exercising
the care and wisdom which it should
exercise in the settlement of that country. I think it would be better if we
selected our settlers a little more carefully.
I think these lands should be worth something to the settler coming in. My hon.
friend from Muskoka (Mr. Wright) has
stated that a Canadian has not the same
advantages going in there as a man coming from a foreign country. If that is
so it is a condition which should be rectified. Why should not the son of the Canadian
farmer receive as good treatment
as the man coming from the old country?
I cannot understand that. It strikes me
as a strange thing that a Canadian is not
receiving as good treatment as one who
comes from a foreign land. Many of Ontario's best sons have gone to the Northwest.
Thousands and thousands have gone
from Ontario and those are the kind of
men we want in the Northwest. I commend to my hon. friend the Minister of
the Interior this matter and I would ask
him to see to it that the right kind of settlers go into that country. Do not be in
too great a hurry to give away these lands.
I understand that he says that we can make
money out of giving them away, but I
think it will he very difficult for him to
prove that we can make more by giving
away these lands. I understand his argument is that we can make more money by
giving away these lands than by offering
them for sale. He tells us that the coal
lands are no good because there is no
market for the coal. The same argument
might apply to wheat, or to any other product of the Northwest. It'is a matter of
transportation. That coal is worth money
if we can find a market. It is only a matter of transportation. If we could not
get the wheat out of the country, because of insufficient transportation the
wheat would have no value. These coal
lands will certainly be of great importance
to that country as development goes on. I
would be quite willing to trust these people with the administration of these lands.
I think it is their part to succeed to that
responsibility. I believe that they can administer these lands as well as they are
being administered to-day. We are told they
are well administered. From the remarks
that have been made by the Minister of
the Interior these lands have not realized
as much to this country as they should
have done. The hon. gentleman perhaps
knows more about that than I do, but in
the province of Ontario, although its as
5554
sets have been badly handled, the province has received a vast income and is
today receiving a vast income from its
Crown lands and will do so for generations to come. He says there are no settlers
in Northern Ontario as a result of
that. Let me point to the Soo and to New
Liskeard which five years ago was scarcely
heard of and which has a population of
5,000 to-day. Settlers are going in there
in large numbers and if these Crown lands
were handed over to the Northwest provinces they might also be able to draw
a large settlement. If there was anything
wrong about the administration of these
lands the fifty representatives that are
going to represent the people of these two
new provinces in their local assembly, being
the people on the spot, could deal wisely
and promptly with the conditions arising
in connection with these lands if they were
placed under their control. It was not
in the House this afternoon when the hon.
Minister of Finance introduced some amendments. I have just had an opportunity
of seeing them casually. They may be in
the right direction and I think that perhaps some of them are, but it did occur
to me that the administration of these
lands should be placed in the hands of the
provinces and that the cash subsidy, not
only in justice to the rights of the other
provinces, but in the best interests of these
new provinces themselves, should be cut
down to about the same figure as that
which the older provinces are receiving.
I do not see any good reason why that
should not be done and I think that would
be approved of by the country as a whole,
because the cash subsidy is to be paid out
of the pockets of the people of the whole
Dominion. I think it would be advisable
to revise the language of this clause and
give the public lands to the provinces to
which they really belong, thus pursuing the
policy that has prevailed in this country
ever since it was a country that the Crown
lands shall belong to the various provinces
of the Dominion and that the cash subsidy
should be the same to these new provinces
as it is to the provinces of the older parts
of the Dominion.
Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I am delighted to
see that our hon. friend from Brantford
(Mr. Cockshutt) has got back his courage
again. The other night he spoke to us for
about an hour and a half. He took us all
over creation. He told us that he had
worshipped in the Catholic churches of
Europe, Cuba and other countries, but for
a long time we could not tell how he was
going to vote, and we were left in doubt
until the hour of midnight when he whispered in subdued tones that he proposed to
vote in support of the amendment. His
conscience then immediately pricked him
and he proceeded to recite the Lord's
Prayer. He said, in low tones that he had
5555
COMMONS
changed his views on the question, but I
can tell the hon. gentleman that if be consulted his constituents he would learn reasons
why he should oppose the lands being
handed over to the provinces. The manufacturers and business men of this country
want to see the business of Canada continue to prosper as it has done for the past
eight years. We have made wonderful
progress under the present conditions ; immigration is pouring into our country in
great volumes and business generally is increasing very rapidly. If the lands were
handed over to the provinces, I am afraid
the hands of the clock would be turned
back, not that the people of the Territories
are not competent, but they would necessarily have to disturb the existing system
and we cannot aiford to take any chances
on that.
Mr. COCKSHUTT. I would remark to
the hon. gentleman that my courage has
returned. I was not aware that I whispered in low tones what side I was going to
take. If the hon. gentleman Mr. Zimmerman) did not hear me it was not because
he could not, for he heard me a few minutes before when he interrupted me. I do
not remember that the hon. gentleman
found time during the debate to state his
views. But I can tell him that there
never was any doubt from the time I began to speak until I concluded as to what
way I was going to vote. Every one who
knows me well, can tell the hon. gentleman what my opinions are. If the hon.
gentleman could not understand the drift
of my speech that is not my fault, because
my decision was never for a moment undefined from the beginning to the end of
the debate.
Mr. OLIVER. The hon. gentleman (Mr.
Cockshutt) has made a very valuable contribution to the debate, for he has let us
know exactly where the gentlemen on the
opposite side of the House stand on this
very important question.
Mr. OLIVER. Yes, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cookshutt) had the courage to
say what some of his friends think but do
not say. The hon. member stands for the
principle of slow settlement in the Territories; he stands for the principle of smaller
subsidies; he stands for the principle of the
sale of the lands. He declares that the
system of settlement in the province of
Ontario has been a success. We are glad
to know all these things, and we are glad
to know that gentlemen opposite stand now
where they have always stood, namely, for
slow settlement for the sale of the lands,
and for general stagnation. The hon. gentleman has suggested that it was under a
Liberal administration in Ontario that the
lands were not properly administered, but
5556
Ontario was not always Liberal, and the
history of the administration of the Ontario lands since the first provincial government
was created, proves that a province which depends upon the sale of its
lands for its revenue cannot afford to handle these lands with the liberality that
the
Dominion government which does not depend upon that source of revenue is able to.
Mr. W. WRIGHT. Does the hon. gentleman not know that nearly all the new
lands that have been settled in Ontario
within the last thirty years, have been absolutely given to the settlers ?
Mr. OLIVER. I believe that the lands
have been given to the settlers under that
very Liberal administration to which the
hon. gentleman objects, but what I said
was that in all this great clay belt of
northern Ontario which is laid down upon
the map and which is said to be of very
great agricultural value, there is not at
the present time a single settler in that
great clay belt as laid down on the map,
nor has the government attempted to place
a settler there.
Mr. W. WRIGHT. Does the Minister of
the Interior know whether there is actually
a clay belt there at all ?
Mr. OLIVER. The very fact that it is
not known whether there is a clay belt or
not fit for settlement, is all we want to
know of provincial administration of a new
country.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. The hon. gentleman himself told us- this afternoon that
there were millions of acres in the west,
and we did not yet know whether they
were good for anything or not.
Mr. OLIVER. I said there were millions
of acres that have not yet been settled.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman
told us that we were really only acquainted with a very small portion of that country.
Mr. OLIVER. I do not think I said that.
I said there were large areas in Alberta
and Saskatchewan that were not known,
but I do say that the efforts of the Dominion government to colonize that country
have resulted in placing half a million
people in the districts of Saskatchewan and
Alberta during the same period that the
province of Ontario has not placed a single
settler on its lands known as the clay belt.
With regard to the advantage or disadvantage of giving away the lands, my hon.
5557 COMMONS
friend seems to be unable to understand
that the giving away of a part of the land
can increase the value of the remainder.
If he is not able to understand that then
I am unable to explain it to him. The fact
is that the giving away of the lands in the
Northwest and the policy under which these
lands have been given away during the
last few years, have resulted in doubling
and trebling the value of the lands still
remaining in the hands of the government
and the railway companies, and at the
same time it has had the result of increasing by millions and millions of dollars
the
revenue of this Dominion and the trade of
Canada. I am astonished beyond measure
to hear the representative of a manufacturing constituency in the province of Ontario
declare that he does not know that it makes
any difference as to whether the west is
settled or not. If there is one thing the
manufacturers of eastern Canada depend
on more than another, it is on the securing
of settlers upon these prairies. It is that
increase of settlement that has given them
their increased business within the last
few years, and it is to the further increase
of that settlement they must look for
still further increase of business. If the
hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) does not know that, I am satisfied
there is not another manufacturer in this
great city who does not know it. As to
the allegation that there is discrimination
as between foreigners and native Canadians in the administration of the Northwest
lands. I may say that I have not been administering the Department of the Interior
very long, but I have lived in the Northwest for many years and so far as my
knowledge goes there is no such discrimination. I say that the administration of
the lands in the Northwest has been on a
fair basis and that the settler is not asked
who he is or where he comes from. The
policy of the government is to secure settlers for this Iand, and if it should happen
that this or the other difficulty is in the
way, the men we make settlers of in the
Northwest are men who go there to overcome difficulties and not to be overcome by
them.
Mr. W. WRIGHT. Did the hon. gentleman say that they did not give grants to the
Doukhobors and give facilities in that way,
supplying cattle, horses and implements so
as to give them a start in a manner which
has not been done for men from Ontario ?
Mr. OLIVER. There do not happen to be
any Doukhobors in my own part of the
country and personally I am not aware of
all the facts of the case, but I am aware
of this fact, that in cases where there has
been a general scarcity resulting from frost
or grasshoppers it has been the practice to
5558
assist the settlers regardless of nationality
in the procuring of seed grain. I believe
that policy has been pursued by different
governments, and so far as I know there
has been no disagreement in regard to it.
I think it as well to say right here and now
that the slur which I believe is very frequently cast that there is discrimination
in
the lands of the Northwest as against Canadians has no foundation in fact, none Whatever,
and that the aim in the administration
of that department has been as I hope it
will always be to secure the best men that
can be got for the settlement of the country. I would be delighted as the administrator
of the department if the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) would
secure us a few shiploads of settlers of the
same character as those who landed on
Plymouth Rock. I will be glad to guarantee
him and them the best facilities the country affords. We want a lot of settlers of
that kind and if he can direct us to any port
where they can be secured, we will use
every effort to bring them to Canada and
to establish them in the west.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. But the hon. gentleman is settling them on the rock of the
constitution.
Mr. OLIVER. We will settle them on the
black lands of the Saskatchewan.
Mr. COCKSHUTT. I wish to correct an
impression which the hon. minister conveyed which is not warranted by anything I
said, that is. that I stood for slow growth.
That was not my remark; I said there are
other considerations besides rapidity of
growth, and I said that quality as well as
quantity is one of those considerations. The
hon. member had no right to say that I
stood for stagnation. He thinks I am standing in the way of my own business. I am
sorry he thinks that, but at the same time,
he will see that I am looking after the interests of the country and not of my own
business when I make that proposition. I
think this is a consideration that will appeal to all the provinces, that quality
is a
great consideration, and that in giving
lands in the west they should be given only
to people who are likely to make a sound
foundation for a great nation. That is a
sound doctrine; I do not retire from it. I
do not think the hon. gentleman was warranted in fastening that implication upon
me.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I regret that the
new Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver)
seems so anxious to obstruct the progress
of this Bill. Just as we were about to pass
this section when no one was ready to take
his feet for the purpose of saying anything
further about it, the minister, who I suppose is in charge of the Bill, found it necessary
to rise, and to keep us here an hour
or an hour and a half longer in the discussion he has opened up on the clay belt in
5559 COMMONS
Ontario. It is difficult to say what the clay
belt has to do with this Bill, but as the
hon. gentleman has struck out new lines in
other respects, he has struck out new lines
in regard to government legislation. I think
it a little unworthy of the hon. gentleman—
we might have expected it when he was
away on the back benches, but it was hardly worthy of him as Minister of the Interior—to
attempt to make a little cheap
political capital by putting words into the
mouths of hon. gentlemen on this side of
the House which they had not used.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. He put words into
the mouths of the opposition which I venture to say were never uttered by any member
of the opposition. If he looks at Hansard, he will see that. I am not going to
waste time as he has done by repeating
these words but he will recognize them tomorrow. It is not the usual course of a
minister who is trying to get a Bill through
parliament, when he has been treated with
a fair amount of courtesy to suggest that
gentlemen who have spoken on this side
of the House are dishonest and cowardly—
because that is what the hon. gentleman's
remarks mean if anything. We hardly expect that sort of thing from a Minister of
the Crown. He said the hon. member from
Brandon was at least honest and had courage.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. And he said it in
such a context that he was imputing the
want of those qualities to every hon. gentleman who had spoken on this side.
Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, am I responsible for all inferences that any hon.
gentleman might choose to draw from my
remarks ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. No, he is not, but
when he uses language that warrants a
direct inference he may expect that the inference will be noted.
Mr. OLIVER. I can only say that it is
usual when the cap fits for gentlemen to
wear it.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. There the hon. gentleman has made the suggestion again. The
hon. gentleman has always prided himself
in this House as a private member, he and
one other hon. gentleman have always spoken of themselves as the only two honest and
independent members in the House.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I have not heard
any other hon. gentleman in the House
speak of them in that way but they themselves have done so.
Mr. OLIVER. If I am to be called in
question in this way I would certainly repudiate the statement made by the hon.
5560
gentleman that I ever spoke of myself in
that way.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I say that it is
but the direct inference to be drawn from
the hon. gentleman's remarks as was the
case just now, because the hon. gentleman spoke of every one else as not possessing
those qualifications, and although he
did not speak of himself we all thoroughly
understood what was in his mind and he
understood it and he understands it now.
It has been in his mind very often in the
House but it is not worth while if he expects to get this legislation through to take
the course of throwing sneers across the
floor of the House which might not be noticed when he was a back bencher but may
be when he is trying to get legislation
through the House, or rather trying to obstruct its progress for his leader called
for
a vote just as he took the floor.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman will call. It is like the man who
called spirits from the vasty deep. The
question was whether they would answer.
The hon. gentleman may call.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Or there may be
more response than he wants. Now. in regard to this interesting question of the clay
belt of Ontario which the Minister of the
Interior insists we shall go into, he regards
the clay belt as I understood him as absolutely useless. Well we heard a great many
speeches two years ago about the wonderful value of this clay belt when the government
proposed to spend a great many
million dollars in running a railway through
it.
Mr. OLIVER. Do I understand the hon.
member to say that I said that the clay
belt was useless?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. He said that up to
the present his own Liberal friends who
have been boasting of their achievements
in that regard have not succeeded in planting a single settler in that district.
Mr. OLIVER. What I tried to say was
that they had not tried.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. My hon. friend the
Minister of the Interior is going from bad
to worse. It was bad enough to say they
had good intentions and did not succeed in
carrying them out, but it is infinitely worse
to say that they did not have even good
intentions. That is what some Conservatives
in Ontario have been saying of the right
hon. gentleman's friends during some time
past, but I never heard so frank an admission with regard to it as that which my
hon. friend has just given. We heard most
glowing descriptions of this clay belt in
5561 MAY 8, 1905
Ontario from the First Minister and from
other members opposite two years ago when
we were discussing a proposal to pledge
the credit of this country to the extent of
about $150,000,000 for building a transcontinental railway. It was then described
as
a most wonderful country. We had not
only quotations by the right hon. gentleman
from the relations of the Jesuits of 250
years ago but also from reports of the government of Ontario showing what a magnificent
country it was. Why the Minister of
the Interior used to applaud these quotations himself most vociferously at that time,
but he seems now to have lost every possible
recollection of them. Let me cite to him,
when he says that not a single settler has
been planted in that country, what was
then said. Perhaps I am not locating the
clay belt in the right place. as I am not so
familiar with it as he is ; but I notice in
the report by the officers of his own department the following :
This year has witnessed an unprecedented influx of settlers into the Rainy River valley.
Would that mean the clay belt ?
Mr. OLIVER. If the hon. member does
not know where it is he had better let out
the job of discussing it.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I am trying to let
it out to the hon. gentleman, but I am not
getting much help. Could he inform me of
the location of the clay belt ? I understand
it takes in this Rainy River valley.
During the past eighteen months the town of
Rainy River has sprung into existence, with a
population of 2,000. They have municipal organization.
Further on, referring to the settlement on
the White Fish river, the report says :
The settlement is now fifteen miles long and
seven miles wide, more than three hundred
families and a population of 1,500. Three school
houses have been erected and maintained, and
three other districts are being laid off. One
new church has been erected and there are
four or five other places where church services
are held. Three saw-mills have been put up,
and last year the settlers sold 300,000 ties and
eight hundred car loads of wood, which netted
them about $110,000. Good trunk line colonization roads have been constructed.
And so on for two or three pages. I
think therefore that in justice to the clay
belt which my hon. friend. for some reason
or other, has seen fit to attack—without any
provocation whatever. I am sure, for the
clay belt has done nothing to provoke him—
I should bring these facts to the notice of
the House and free that much maligned
country from the aspersions which that hon.
gentleman has seen fit to pass upon it, with
the sole object of obstructing this legislation.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. As I came in I
just chanced to hear the Minister of the
Interior saying that the class of settlers
5562
brought into the Northwest were the best
possible selection that could be made.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I am just replying
to the arguments advanced by the Minister
of the Interior. If he was out of order,
surely I can refute the illogical arguments
advanced by him. The first minister should
have exercised his prerogative and called
his colleague to order. It is only a few
years since the present Minister of the Interior made this very chamber ring with
denunciations of the class of settlers the
government were bringing into the region
of East Edmonton. I refer to the Galicians. I could point out to him still further,
as showing that discrimination against
the people from the eastern part of Canada
who settle in the Northwest, that the Doukhobors from Russia and the Galicians from
Austria and the Polish part of Russia and the
Roumanians are landed in the Northwest at
less cost than a man can travel to that
country from Ottawa. They are put there
by government agents on lands selected for
them, whereas a Canadian has to select
land at his own expense, and pay a higher
rate of transportation than a Doukhobor
or a Galician. There has been no encouragement whatever during the last few years
given to the British race from eastern Canada or the British Isles compared with that
given these people.
Mr. CRAWFORD. In connection with the
remarks of the leader of the opposition who
attempted to call down the Minister of the
Interior, I took down the words of the hon.
member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), and
I do not see that any construction can be
placed upon them other than that given by
the Minister of the Interior. The hon.
member, in referring to the matter, said :
Get right class of settlers ; go slow and wait
for settlement. These are the words he used
in speaking of the immigration to this country. Well, I happened to go into some of
the details in connection with the cost of
bringing immigrants to this country, and
the information I got from the Immigration
Department was that the American settlers
cost the country less per head than any
others and that the British immigrants had
more money spent on them than any other
class. There was more spent on British
immigration per head than any other class
of people.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Does the hon. gentleman include the cost of Mr. Preston and
other gentlemen flourishing and luxuriating
in London ? The British immigrants
brought more money into this country per
head than any other class. and they were
robbed deliberately with the connivance of
the government agents.
5563 COMMONS
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I make use of the
expression advisedly. These men at Saskatoon had horses and oxen loaded upon them
at exorbitant prices. I took the precaution to warn the government to send their
agents among these people so as to protect
them, but instead these agents stood in and
got a rake off and allowed these extortionate practices to be done.
Mr. LAMONT. One of the chief men at
Saskatoon who unloaded horses and oxen on
the settlers was John Barr, a brother of J.
M. Barr, the leader of the colonists.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE. I think that the question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was very a-propos,
and that was as
to the division of the district of Keewatin.
The First Minister, with his usual agility,
has talked all around that question without
attempting to give a satisfactory reply. He
saw the rather embarrassing position in
which he was placed when he declared his
intention of dividing that territory in the
manner indicated by his speech in introducing the Bill. Then he claimed that the province
of Ontario, and even the province of
Quebec, and also the new province of Saskatchewan, had equal rights to the extension
of their territory to the shore of Hudson bay
with the province of Manitoba. So, if he
means to have a division of the district of
Keewatin, he will have to hand over the
lands to these various provinces, or he will
have to refuse them their lands. If he hands
over to Ontario the portion of Keewatin that
he thinks Ontario is entitled to, and vests
that domain in the province of Ontario, he
must adopt a similar policy in regard to that
portion to be given to Manitoba also that
portion to be added to Saskatchewan. If he
refuses to hand over the domain to Ontario,
that province will be claiming financial compensation for these lands. Moreover. you
will have the unique spectacle of Ontario
owning all its public domain save the portion
of Keewatin reserved by the Dominion government. If you hand over to Manitoba the
domain in that portion of the territory given
to that province, you will have Manitoba
not owning the 73,000 miles comprised within its present boundaries, but owning that
portion of Keewatin over which the province
will extend to Hudson bay. And you will
have a similar state of affairs in Saskatchewan. So, I do not wonder that the right
hon.
gentleman was not able to make a satisfactory reply. He attempted a little jocularity
at the expense of the hon. member for South
York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and accused that
hon. gentleman of exhibiting the new found
zeal of the convert, quoting expressions of
that hon. gentleman of a year ago on which
he put a different construction from the view
expressed to-day. We are not obliged to go
back a year to show how inconsistent the
right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)
5564
has been on this question of refusing to
hand over the public domain to the new provinces. My mind reverted to the speech
made by the right hon. gentleman on the
21st of February introducing this Bill. At
page 1518 of ' Hansard' he argued that the
lands should be retained by the Dominion
government. He said :
It is conceivable that if these lands were
given to the new provinces, the policy of either
one of them might differ from ours and clash
with our efforts to increase immigration.
That was the principal cause he assigned.
Then he goes on :
It might possibly render these efforts nugatory. For instance, if either of the new
provinces, under the strain of financial difficulty,
were to abolish the free homesteads, which have
proved so beneficial and so great an inducement
to immigration, one can readily understand
what a great blow that would be to our immigration policy. Or if the price of government
lands for sale were to. be increased over the
present very moderate rate, that would also be
another blow to that policy.
To-night he tells us that the provincial
government, in order to get ready money,
might sell the lands at an inferior price-
quite a contrary argument to the one he used
on introducing the Bill. At that time he told
us that, under the pressure of financial
stringency. the provinces might increase the
price of the land so much as to discourage
immigration: to-night he states they might
give the land away practically for nothing.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. R.L. (Bor-
den) asked the Prime Minister if he could
not give us some estimate of the value of
the lands within the area of the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and
the right hon. gentleman stated that he was
not in a position to give that estimate. I
have here a book which was circulated
among the people of the Northwest
and to which the right hon. gentleman
must have given his consent. This was the
hand-book of the Liberal party circulated
among the people of the Northwest with a
view to securing their votes in the last election. It is called 'Hand-book of Canadian
politics illustrative of the progressive administration of the Liberal government.'
' The story of a government that does things.'
Chapter 18 is headed. ' What the Hon. Clifford Sifton has accomplished.' In the course
of this chapter it is stated :
Manitoba, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan and Alberta possess an area of 238,000,000 acres
of
land. . . About 18,000,000 acres have been
given in free homesteads, but after deducting
this and an additional 50,000,000 for lakes,
rivers, bad lands, &c., there remains of government lands enough to provide 160-acre
farms
for at least 800,000 farmers.
That would make a total of 128,000.000
acres. And we know that the total area of
Manitoba is so little that the Manitoba land
included in this estimate cannot make a very
large figure. The hand-book goes on:
5565 MAY 8, 1905
In addition to this, the millions of acres of
land disposed of to railways and land companies
is, of course, also available for settlement.
There is, however, an additional tract of rich
grain-growing lands yet untouched—
Where ?
—in the unorganized district of Athabaska, containing over 160,000,000 acres. After
making
allowance for water and lands unsuited for
agriculture, Athabaska will give fully 100,000,000 acres as the future homes of practically
another 800,000 settlers.
So, we have this district of Athabaska
which is divided between the two new provinces almost equally, containing at least
100,000,000 acres of rich grain-growing land.
Yet, in the measure now before us the government are only allowing 50,00,000 acres
to the two provinces at $1.50 per acre. This
hand-book also refers to an article by Dr.
Wm. Saunders, of the Experimental Farm,
published in the April, 1900, number of the
'Canadian Magazine.' Speaking of Dr.
Saunders, the hand-book says that 'he has
given some estimate of the available land in
the Northwest Territories for that branch of
farming' that is, grain-growing. And he
shows that Manitoba, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan and Alberta contain 171.000,000 acres,
and he estimates :
That there are within the limits referred to,
after making allowance for land unfit for agriculture, about 171,000,000 acres suitable
for cultivation, by which is meant land of such degree
of fertility as to admit of profitable farming.
The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) and his friends. last fall had sufficient information to enable them to issue
this
hand-book showing the enormous tract of
land available for settlement. But to-day
they plead ignorance of the quantity of land
in that country. To serve their own ends the
government were willing to tell of 'what the
hon. Clifford Sifton has accomplished.' to
speak as though he had discovered this land
and had made it profitable for agriculture.
Yet, now that it suits their purposes they are
minimizing the extent as well as the value
of that land. Otherwise, we would not have
this mere pittance—for so it is by comparison,—of 337,500.000 allowed to each province
for its domain. I am not surprised
that the right hon. gentleman Sir Wilfrid
Laurier is asking for time to bring down
figures that will meet the objections of this
side of the House. But, considering the
figures he and his friends gave in this handbook issued last fall, it seems clear
that they
are giving the new provinces too little in lieu
of their public domain. But we have been
told: What is the use of discussing the
quantity of land and the value per acre in
view of the new resolution which wipes that
out of consideration and gives a lump sum ?
But we know that it is on this basis that
they are arriving at a lump sum. And why
have they wiped out that $1.50 an acre and
the 25,000,000 acres for each province ?
What object have they in doing so ? That
5566
has not been explained But if you look up
the speech of the ex-Minister of the Interior. you will find the secret. He pointed
out that if we placed the land at $1.50 an
acre and the quantity at 25,000,000 acres, in
the future these provinces might be coming
back and demanding greater assistance
from this parliament, because they might
say that the lands were more valuable than
the $1.50 they had been allowed and that
there was a greater number of acres. So in
accordance with the views of the ex-Minister
of the Interior, and in order to provide
against this contingency, they have simply
excluded the $1.50 and the total number of
acres from this Bill. And we see the hon.
gentlemen from the Northwest Territories on
the other side of the House assenting to a
proposition that will prevent the other provinces from coming back to ask for an increase
in the future, and at the same time,
not providing for sufficient money to run
their government for all time to come so as
to avoid the necessity for them to appeal to
this Dominion for more assistance.
Now, the member for West Assiniboia
(Mr. Scott) has shown himself to be an expert as a political acrobat. In fact all
the hon.
gentlemen on the other side of the House
from the west have taken a position unfavourable to the new provinces being given
the
ownership of these lands. The member for
West-Assiniboia made one of the strongest
speeches against that view when he first came
into the House, and to-day he has changed
his view, and, with all the zeal of a new convert, he is one of the strongest opponents
of
handing over the lands to the provinces and
is making argument after argument to show
with how much greater advantage this Dominion government can manage those lands
than they could be managed by the new provinces. If I desired to take up the time
of
the committee, I could read excerpts from
his speeches that would show how different
his attitude upon this question used to be
from what it is to-day. The present Minister of the Interior, or rather the would-be
Minister of the Interior, the member for
West Assiniboia, has boldly asked: Why
didn't you go up to Edmonton and challenge
the opinion of the people during the recent
election if you believed the people of the
west are opposed to the Dominion retaining
those lands ? The hon. gentleman was very
brave ; he was not nearly so satisfied as he
tried to make us believe. The hon. gentleman was quite willing himself to swallow
the original clause 16 in the Autonomy Bill
for the sake of getting the plum of the portfolio of the Interior. But today he says
that
we were afraid to go up to the constituency
of Edmonton and challenge public opinion.
Why did not the government select himself
for the portfolio, the man they had marked
out for it? Because they were afraid to
open up a constituency where the average
Canadian elector resides. and to take an expression of opinion from men who under
5567 COMMONS
stand the politics of our country, from people who have been long enough here to become
acquainted with public questions.
One reason why we did not go to Edmonton can be found in the remarks addressed
to this House a few years ago by the present Minister of the Interior himself. It
has been said that we did not contest Edmonton because there was a certain number
of Catholic voters in that constituency.
That is not the case. One of the reasons
why we did not go, is the reason assigned
by the present Minister of the Interior, that
his constituency is largely populated by a
class of people who are not acquainted with
British institutions, who do not understand
our laws, and who would not understand
the schools question or the land question.
Now, what did that hon. gentleman state in
regard to this very question two or three
years ago ? I will read his remarks:
I am not in a position to speak of the Doukhobors from an intimate personal knowledge,
as none of them are resident in the constituency I represent, but on the Galician
question
I claim to be an authority because I believe
[that fully half of the whole Galician population of Manitoba and the Northwest is
located
in the district I represent. I understand that
there are some 12,000 or 14,000 in one colony.
Already one local electoral district is in all
probably in the hands of the Galician vote, if
these people are qualified to vote.
That is one reason why we did not go
to the constituency of Edmonton. He speaks
as follows in another place:
I am here to say to-nlght that I believe the
present conditions of the country would be
better, our prosperity would be greater, we
would have a still larger number of good settlers, if we did not have that class of
immigration at all.
That is the kind of men that he wished
to lay this question before for their endorsement.
Another idea that is conveyed is that all foreign peoples are the same, that because
the
German people are foreigners and because they
are desirable settlers, therefor the Galicians
being foreigners and the Doukihobors being foreigners, are also desirable settlers.
Do my
hon. friends know that they could not insult a
German and Scandinavian as much in any other
way as to compare him with a Doukhobor or a
Galician ? The pride of race is as strong in
these people as it is in us, and they object, and
object very strongly, to being placed in the
same category as a Slavic people, a people who
less than two generations ago were serfs of the
soil, and who unfortunately have not had the
opportunities, even if they had the capability.
to rise very high above that position to-day.
Make no mistake, there is no comparison between the German who comes from Galicia and
a Galician who comes from Galicia, and no man
will resent such a comparison more than the
German himself. But the Galician or the Doukhobor who have been reared under circumstances
which did not permit them to know
what free government is, who know nothing of
government except that government is a tyrrany, these people, let them, be ever so
good,
5568
cannot be citizens as we would wish them to
be citizens, or as our Scandinavian and German
fellow citizens are.
These are the expressions of the present
Minister of the Interior. I do not think he
has changed his views, at any rate he has
never repudiated these words so far as I
know. I could quote various other expressions to the same effect:
Let me say one word to the government, and
it will be a word of advice. I speak here tonight on behalf of the most populous district
of the west ; and I have reason to believe that
I speak the sentiments of the majority of the
people between Lake Superior and the Rocky
mountains on this immigration question. There
is no question that the people of the west feel
more strongly on than the immigration question, and there is nothing that they more
earnestly resent than the idea of settling up the
country with people who will be a drag on our
civilization and progress. We did not go out
to that country simply to produce wheat. We
went to build up a nation, a civilization, a
social system that we could enjoy, be proud of
and transmit to our children, and we resent
the idea of having the millstone of this Slav
population hung around our necks in our efforts
to build up, beautify and improve that country.
and so improve the whole of Canada.
There the member for West Assiniboia
has one reason why the Conservative opposition did not see fit to challenge an expression
of opinion from these people, who
are depicted by the Minister of the Interior
as illiterate, ignorant of British institutions
and of our laws and politics. Now, there
has been something, I think, kept back by
this government, some reason why they did
not wish to hand over these lands to the
provinces, something beneath the surface.
I think it has been touched upon by some
hon. gentlemen in some of their speeches,
and I think I pointed it out myself when
speaking on the second reading. But any
person who lives in the west knows whereof
I speak when I say that one reason why the
government are retaining those lands in
their possession is that they desire to have
the wonderful leverage which they will have
at election time by holding all these lands
in their own hands. Every homestead inspector, you might say, is an active political
partisan, an election agent during the course ot
a campaign. Yes from one end of the year to
the other. I do not have to go outside my
own constituency to find examples of what
occurred during the last campaign. One
homestead inspector in my riding openly
appeared at the polls in that contest, stood
there in company with a mounted policeman with his side arms on, and in company
with an interpreter from the Yorkton land
office—the three of them—and the electors
had to run the gauntlet of the three of them
before coming in, each one bringing pressure to bear upon them, threatening them
with retaining their homestead patents if
they voted for your humble servant.
These people were simply intimidated.
they went in and shouted out how they
5569 MAY 8, 1905
desired to vote and it was left to the deputy returning officer to mark their ballots
for them, it being simply open voting.
After he had secured the whole vote en
bloc this homestead inspector openly made
the boast that now he would betake himself to the constituency of Dauphin, the
election having been postponed for one
week, and that after getting through there
he was going to the constituency of my
hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Cash) to
lend his active assistance there. That is
the reason, and it is a very important reason to the government, why they are so
anxious to retain these lands in the hands
of the Dominion government. It is because of the wonderful influence that these
government officials have over these people, who, as the hon. Minister of the Interior
states, are not at all acquainted with
our homestead laws and whose future prosperity, if these officials were to put into
effect what they have threatened to do,
would suffer a very serious impediment.
That is one reason why the lands are not
handed over to the provinces: If they were
handed over the provinces would have their
own officials and it would not interfere
with the immigration policy of the Dominion government any more than it does
in the other provinces of the Dominion
where they have the ownership of the public domain. They could work in harmony
with the officials of the Dominion government and it would not be an impediment
to the encouragement of immigration. At
this late hour I will not take up the time
of the committee any longer, but I protest
against the government retaining these
lands and I claim that there can be no sufficient monetary consideration to compensate
the people of the west in the future for the
loss of their public domain. These lands
should be handed over to be administered
under the advice of the fifty members who
will represent the people in the local legislatures of these provinces and to be administered
by the respective governments
of these provinces, who will have officials on
the ground and who will administer them
much more advantageously to the people
interested there than they can be administered 1,500 or 2,000 miles distant from the
scene of operations.
Mr. LAKE. Mr. Chairman, I do not
wish to detain the committee longer, but I
do not desire the vote to be taken without a reference to some of the remarks
which have been made to myself personally by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr.
Scott). He has been twitting me
with not having gone up into the Edmonton district and he referred to myself
amongst others as having said that the reason was that there was a Roman Catholic
vote. This is an entire revelation to me.
I never had any idea of going into the Edmonton district, nor did I ever give the
rea
5570
son which he has suggested for not going
there. I should have had pleasure in going
into West Assiniboia if the hon. member
had become the Minister of the Interior. I
must confess that I could not see the drift
of his remark that Roman Catholics should
have the same right to express their
opinions as Protestants. Who said they
had not? I can assure the hon. gentleman
that it was not any one on this side of the
House. It seems to me that he was simply
following a course with which we have
become familiar and which has been pursued by hon. gentlemen on the other side
of the House who have grown accustomed
to telling the members of the Roman
Catholic faith that the Protestants are attacking their religion. That is the very
surest way of promoting bigotry and religious strife and it has been sedulously
practised by members opposite and is absolutely without any foundation at all.
Mr. BUREAU. What about the cartoons
in the 'News' and 'World.?'
Mr. LAKE. I think that the hon. gentleman should look at some of the cartoons
which have been published by papers on
his own side of politics.
Mr. LAKE. Well, if the hon. gentleman
wishes I will describe a cartoon which appeared in the Ottawa ' Free Press' in which
the right hon. First Minister was shown as a
knight in full armour with the lance of righteousness in his hands, going to attack
a double headed dragon breathing out rebellion
and bigotry. I think one head was that
of my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) representing rebellion
and another head was that of my hon.
friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) representing bigotry and on the top of this dragon
was a representation of my hon. friend
from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) without
many clothes on him and in the form of a
devil. This wonderful creature was being
attacked by the right hon. First Minister
with the lance of righteousness. That is
one little cartoon—
Mr. LAKE—that comes to my mind and
I think it compared very badly with some
of the admirable cartoons which have appeared in the Toronto ' News.'
If I were asked what would have the
strongest influence upon an election at Edmonton, I would, with my hon. friend from
Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche), say that it
would be the enormous influence which is
exercised on new settlers in a new country
by the land and immigration officials of the
Dominion government. Their influence is
something overpowering, it is a very difficult
influence to counteract and it is a standing
wonder to myself how it is that any Conservatives managed to get elected in the Terri
5571 COMMONS
tories at all in the recent election in face
of it.
Mr. FIELDING. In the first part of the
resolution the word 'lands' is referred to
and in the latter part we refer to public
lands. If the committee will permit me, I
will insert the word 'public' so as to make
them uniform.
Amendment agreed to.
On resolution No. 4,
Resolved, That as additional compensation
for such lands there shall be paid by Canada to
the said province annually for five years to provide for the construction of necessary
public
buildings. one-quarter of one per cent on such
estimated value, or $93,750.
Mr. FIELDING. I beg to move that the
resolution be amended to read as follows:
As an additional allowance in lieu of the public lands there shall be paid by Canada
by half-
yearly payments in advance 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.
There is no change in the substance of
the resolution but there is a change in the
drafting as previously explained.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Is it intended to
place any restrictions upon the use to which
the province shall put this money?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Then, are not the
concluding words of the amendment surplusage ?
Mr. FIELDING. It is intended to be a
special allowance to the province for public buildings.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Then you intend to
restrict them to the use of the money for
that particular purpose. Could they use it
for the administration of justice?
Mr. FIELDING. No. What I meant
was that it was not intended to restrict them
as to the character of the buildings. The
grant being for a special purpose it is reasonable that they should apply it to that
purpose. The reason for stating it in the
amendment is that in view of any further
transactions we might have. it is well to
know the reasons why it was granted.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Is this government going to trust the province to erect
the buildings ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. They have much
more faith now than they have hitherto
shown in the provinces. Does the amendment mean merely a statement of the reason
on account of which the grant is made for
five years ?
5572
Mr. FIELDING. It is a suggestion to the
provinces as to the use to which it should
put the money. but there is no restriction
as to that particular use. I think it will
be found necessary to spend quite that sum
and perhaps more. We certainly did intend
that the money should be applied to buildings, but there is no other restriction.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING. It was understood that
I should change the phraseology a little of
the resolution relating to allowance in lieu
of subsidy. The question has been raised
as to whether the words of section 2 would
create anything more than an annual payment and after the word 'advanced ' in the
third line of section 2, I propose to add the
words :
—the annual sum of $405,375, being the equivalent of interest, &c.
I think the wording is already plain
enough but this addition will probably make
it plainer that it is an annual payment only
and not a capital sum.
Mr. HENDERSON. I am not quite clear
that the amendment will get over the difficulty to which I have referred. In a similar
instance the province of Ontario claimed
that they were not only entitled to be paid
the annual sum but that if they desired
they were entitled to get the principal upon
which that interest was based. Notwithstanding that the Act of parliament creating
the annual sum declares that it should
be paid as an additional subsidy, and notwithstanding that the wording of that Act
(chap. 4 statutes of 1884) is much more
expressive than the words in the amendment of the Finance Minister himself, a
portion of that capital amount has been
paid over to the province. True, it is
charged to the province as a debt, but no
doubt the intention is that at some future
time the entire sum may be paid over. I am
quite aware that the Minister of Finance
argues against my contention that the Act
of 1884 speaks of this sum as a 'capital
sum.' but as against that there is the broad
statement that the amount of $142,414 is
the annual payment to be made to the province of Ontario in consideration of that
capital sum and the Act declares that the
sum shall be paid to Ontario as an additional subsidy. I very much fear that the
contention will be set up in years to come,
that as this sum is interest there must be
capital behind it, and that if the province
is entitled to interest it is entitled under the
Act of 1885, chap. 4, to call for the principal
when it so desires. I know that the Minister of Finance is endeavouring to get over
that, but I think he should have used words
so explicit that all chance of difficulty in the
future would be avoided.
Why refer to this as interest at all?
Could we not call it by some other name?
5573 MAY 8, 1905
Could we not simply declare the fact
that inasmuch as the province of Alberta
has no debt it is to be paid in lieu of debt allowance this annual sum of $400,000
a year
in perpetuity, and make no reference whatever to the fact that it is based on any
principle sum or its being 5 per cent on an
estimated capital account or debt account.
There will be perhaps opportunities before this has finally passed the House to
further consider the question. I quite approve of the course that the minister is
pursuing in endeavouring to get around the
difficulty, but I respectfully submit that in
my opinion he has not quite overcome the
difficulty and the door is still left open for
the contention that this $400,000 is interest
and that the capital is there and that the
province of Alberta when it desires more
money will have a right to call upon the
Dominion of Canada to pay over the $8,000,000, which is not the intention of this
House and not the intention of this committee. If the hon. gentleman will take
the trouble to read up the debates of
1884 as reported in 'Hansard ' and observe
the explicit language that was used by
Sir Leonard Tilley and also by Sir Richard
Cartwright at that time, and what seemed
to be the clear understanding, that it never
was the intention of the government to
pay $2.848.000 allowed to the province of
Ontario, as additional capital it is surprising
that at this distant date you will find
an hon. gentleman interpreting that
clause in language entirely different
from what Sir Leonard Tilley and Sir
Richard Cartwright used at that time. Sir
Leonard Tilley was distinct in his declaration that the. capital sum should never
be
paid and Sir Richard Cartwright who was
the financial critic at that time accepted
that explanation and understood that only
the $142.414 yearly which was called
interest should be paid over. I would draw
the attention of the minister to this item
again and possibly if he still thinks there
is any room for doubt, before the resolution passes the final stage he will give it
his further valuable consideration and place
the matter beyond all possible doubt by
leaving out any reference at all to the
matter of interest which would leave it
clear that the sum on which this interest is
calculated is not capital at all and that
the province would have no claim on the
capital sum.
Mr. FIELDING. I think the language
of the Ontario case and the language used
here differ so materially that there is reason for a view in respect to the Ontario
case which would not apply to this case.
However, if my hon. friend and I cannot
agree as to the Ontario case, I suppose we
can all agree that we should come to a clear
understanding in this case. Let me say that
in my opinion which I gave in the Ontario
case I was of course speaking on the legal
5574
advice of the Department of Justice.
The intention of the statute must be gathered from the language of the statute
itself and we must not as a rule look to
the speeches of members of parliament
to ascertain the precise meaning of the
statutes. I think that hon. members on
the other side who are lawyers will possibly say that in the form in which we now
propose the motion, it becomes an annual
payment and not a capital sum. However, I have not had the benefit of the advice of
the Minister of Justice on this
amendment as he is not present. I
think in deference to the opinions of the
hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson)
I should not let the resolution go out of
committee before making the suggestion,
and if before the final stage, after consultation. the Minister of Justice is of opinion
that the matter is not clear, I would
be glad to accept my hon. friend's suggestion to make it more clear.
Mr. HENDERSON. I would say this
further that we are not bound, I think,
exactly by the language of this resolution.
We must read it in connection with the Act
of 1885, cap. 4. which gave additional powers
to the province with reference to the use of
money under such uncertain conditions
when it is for the purpose of constructing
public works, so that we must not rely entirely upon the wording of this resolution.
we must read it as it will be interpreted in the light of the legislation of 1885.
That is a matter which I would desire
the Minister of Justice to look over very
carefully indeed. I may say to the Minister of Finance that I took good care to
see the Minister of Justice. We were both
in the city of Quebec and we had quite
a good understanding on that question in a jocular way. I would invite the
Minister of Finance to draw the attention
of the Minister of Justice to that special
Act of Parliament to which he referred
on a former occasion and have that Act
of Parliament read in connection with the
present legislation and see whether or not
it might throw some other light upon it,
or cause some other interpretation to be
made at some future time.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I would be inclined
to think that apart from the Act of 1885
with which I am not familiar, the amendment of the Minister of Finance would
be sufficient for the purpose intended, although I have not given it very much consideration,
but as I understand the matter will be open when we get into committee on the Bill.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I intended to_have
asked, when clause 2 was being discussed why it is that the sum of $8,107.500 has
been selected as the amount of debt the
equivalent of interest on which shall be paid
5575 COMMONS
to the new provinces? I asked a similar
question in regard to clause one, but not
in regard to this clause.
Mr. FIELDING. It is made up on the
basis of the allowance made to the province of Manitoba some years ago, the sum
of $27.77 per head, the same rate as was
allowed Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Afterwards in the re-adjustment in the debt
accounts that sum was increased to $32.43
so that the sum which has been taken in the
other provinces was accepted as the basis
of this calculation.
Mr. HENDERSON. I did not raise that
question but I am very glad that the leader
of the opposition has raised it, as it is a
matter of information, but I very naturally
inferred that the amount of debt of the old
provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick as well as Manitoba were all
taken into consideration in arriving at this
particular sum because it does seem strange
that a specific sum of eight millions and
some odd hundreds of thousands of dollars
should be used. I have no doubt the officers of the Finance Department have gone
into a careful calculation embracing the
debt of the old provinces of Canada as well
as those of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
and Manitoba. I have not attempted to
make the calculation but I assume that all
these things are considered and on that
basis the matter is calculated. We are
obliged to take it for granted that that has
been done with the utmost care and that
whatever has been done has been done with
a view to uniformity.
Mr. FIELDING. We have taken the basis
of the other provinces and applied it to the
estimated population of the new provinces.
Amendment agreed to.
Resolutions, as amended, reported, and
read the second time.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the
resolutions be referred to the Committee of
the Whole on Bill No. 69.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE. The right hon. gentleman has submitted a schedule in connection with the delimitation
of the constituencies for local purposes, and has given
the number of votes cast at the last general
elections. That is very useful, but it would
be still more useful if he could give the
population. He will say that the population is much larger than it was at the last
census, but we would like to have some idea
with regard to the formation of those constituencies by population. We should pay
some respect to representation by population and should have some estimate of the
5576
population of the constituencies of the present day,
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I have no objection to give the population as it was at
the last census, but with regard to the
actual population, we thought the best
method to give an idea of it was to give
the number of votes cast. We have no information in the department showing what
the population may be at present, but if it
is possible to give better information we
shall gladly give it.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE. There might have
been local conditions which prevented the
votes in certain districts coming out. If
the right hon. gentleman cannot glve the
population. he could give the number of
qualified voters in each district.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. That was the suggestion I was about to make. The right
hon. gentleman has not only the number of
votes cast but the number of voters registered.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES. I do not see how
you can give the present population but you
can give the registration.
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at
11.50 p.m.
This individual participated in:
#/media/File:Jean-Baptiste_Morin.jpg){kind=link}
