1
THE LEADER.
REGINA, N.W.T, THURSDAY MORNING MAY 15, 1902.
HAULTAIN'S SPEECH
In Closing the Provincial Autonomy
Debate in the Assembly.
A QUESTION OF MANDATES.
The Premier Analyses the Position of
the Opposition on Autonomy — Dr.
Patrick's Absurd Bill of Rights
Idea. A Hudson's Bay Railway
would solve Many Difficulties —
The Division.
Thursday, April 10.
The Speaker took the chair at 2:30
o'clock.
Hon. Mr. Bulyea introduced
a bill for the protection of useful birds
and mammals, and Mr. A. E. Cross
one respecting the city of Calgary,
both of which were read a first time.
Mr. McKay moved for the correspondence in connection with the erection
of the Osborn school district. The bill
to incorporate the RomanCatholic
Bishop of Athabasca passed its second
reading. The bill to amend the ordinance incorporating the Saskatchewan
Exploration company also passed its
second reading.
MEDICAL PROFESSION ORDINANCE.
Dr. Patrick moved the second reading of a bill to amend the Medical
Profession Ordinance, so that any person producing a diploma of qualification'as a
doctor of medicine, and a
certificate that such diploma has been
granted by examinations which entitle
him to be registered as a member of
the College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Manitoba, should be allowed to be
registered in the Territories upon payment of a fee of fifty dollars. At present any
student must first pay the $75
for registration in Manitoba to avoid
another examinationin the Territories.
Dr. DeVeber opposed the bill, because it was granting a special privilege to Manitoba University.
denied to
the other universities of Canada. He
moved the six month hoist.
Mr. Gillis and
Dr. Elliott opposed
the bill on the same grounds. Dr.
Elliott was in favor of more liberal
legislation for the admission of qualified doctors.
Dr. Patrick said the amendments
making it applicable to the whole Dominion would he moved when in committee of the
whole. He would not object to that.
The House divided on the amendment, which was carried by 19 to 10.
PREMIER CLOSES AUTONOMY DEBATE.
Mr. Haultain, in closing the debate
on provincial autonomy, said he
felt somewhat under a disadvanage in taking up this subject,
which had been discussed at so
much length. However, a number of
important questions had been raised
during the debate and he felt that he
would have to ask the House, even at
this stage to allow him a short consideration of them. After three day's debate, after
the motion has been put
and a lengthy amendment proposed;
aftera number of long speeches, the
general result had been the important
discovery that there are divergences of
opinion with regard to the areas within which provincial institutions should
be worked out. These divergences of
opinion, which were mentioned by the
Minister of the Interior, had
been still more clearly indicated. So far as the main result
of the discussion, especially as carried
on by gentlemen on the other side of
the House, went, it had only added to
the information, which, he fancied,
was pretty well possessed by the Minister of the Interior, that there are
divergences of opinion with regard to
the area of the proposed province
or provinces. The reply which he
proposed, to make on the general debate, was necessitated
purely by the matters which were contained in the amendment, and by the
statements made by hon. gentlemen
in their speeches in support of the
amendment. In his opinion the
amendment was not relevant in any
sense, to the main motion. It introduced something which had nothing
whatever to do with the main motion,
and if hon. gentlemen wish to go on
record, they would have found better
opportunity by moving a specific
amendment. He did not take the
point of order because he did not wish
to allow himself to be open to the
charge of an attempt to burk discussion. Hon. gentlemen had attempted to
read into his speech, on moving the
motion, a meaning and significance it
did not suggest. He had said distinctly that he did not ask an expression
of opinion regarding the contents of
of the Memorial addressed to the
Ottawa Government, that the question
of one or two or three provinces, or
even annexation to Manitoba, was not
even remotely concerned with the
resolution. In spite of this plain statement, hon. genntlemen had persisted,
through wilful misinterpretation or
misconception, upon reading a contrary meaning into it. They want to
tell the Government, at Ottawa that
the postponement of the consideration
of the question of provincial institutions in the West was justifiable; and
they want, more than that, to say that
they do not want to hasten the change
until some unanimity has been obtained upon a subject which this debate
has proved there never can be unanimity. The Opposition practically say:
Because the Dominion Government
has discovered there are divergences of
opinion, we are going to vote want of
confidence against the local adminstration by bringing in an amendment
which simply proves that the Government's discovery is correct. The Dominion Government
found there were
divergences of opinion, therefore we
will vote want of confidence in the
local government because they hold
one opinion regarding this question.
Before going into the general question, there were one or two features of
the discussion he wished to notice. In
speaking to the motion before, he had
drawn attention to a statement of the
hon. member for West Prince Albert,
inade on the public platform, and a
private statement —that is, private as
distinct from the platform or House
statement—which was attributed to him
as being made in the rotund a of a
Regina hotel. The hon. member from
Yorkton (Dr.Patrick) took advantage
of that statement, and accused him of
having been guilty of a gross breach of
parliamentary conduct in divulging a
private conversation, and took advantage of the fact to divulge a private
conversation between himself and the
hon. member for Yorkton some three
or four years ago. It was not necessary to explain to the House the difference between
a statement made
openly in a public hotel and a statement made in a private conversation.
Did he need to explain to his hon.
friend the difference between a public
statement, and a private conversation
some years ago when according to his
own statement, they were upon terms
of a certain amount of political
association? How long could political
parties stand together if the moment
a gentleman turned his coat, he was
immediately at liberty to divulge and
make publić, confidences which he received while intimately connected
with former associations? He would
leave the subject at that. The hon.
gentleman, with his versatile nature,
had very quickly picked up the methods of his latest political associates.
Whether the hon. gentleman was a
political chameleon or simply a political mirror, he at least reflected the
ideas, the sentiments, the manners
and methods of those with whom he
so lately had associated. He congratulated the hon. gentleman on having
at last found a resting place—temporary
it may be; he hoped it would be permanent—for his political soul. (Laughter) It would
be interesting to follow
the hon. gentleman in his new career.
What he would do, what he would
say, when he would do it, when he
would say it would always be matters
of conjecture. According to his former
record, he had never been a certain
quantity. He congratulated the hon.
gentleman's political associates upon
having obtained the temporary aid of
a gentleman whose record could never
be considered more than a temporary
auxiliary force. The hon. gentleman
was ready to advance at times with his
party, and then retreat; and as a
matter of fact, he could size the hon.
gentleman up generally as a political
factor, a source of embarrassment to
his friends, of hope to his political
enemies, and of speculation on the
part of the rest of the world. What a
strange combination the hon. gentleman completes—a combination which,
apart from a very few discordant notes
which have been expressed on nearly
all the important points at issue in
this debate, has been wandering and
stumbling about in a sort of dreary
silence of negation. This bantling political party reminded him, in the
words of the poet, of
"An infant crying in the night
An infant crying for the light
And with no language but a cry."
The infant apparently was in such a
powerless state that they had been
obliged to send for the doctor. (Laughter.) It would be interesting if they
could only draw aside the veil of secrecy which of course must envelope the
proceedings of political parties, if they
could only be admitted for an evening
to the deliberations of these gentlemen when they are preparing their
ammunition. It would be interesting
to hear the hon. gentleman from
Yorkton dilating on the golden beauty
of silence to his leader (Mr. McDonald).
or exchanging compliments with the
hon. member for West Calgary (Mr.
Bennett) in the way of assenting to the
questionable maxim that the means
justifies the end, in return for the hon.
gentleman's disquisition as to
consistency, which was given the other
day. He would like to know whether
the policy contained in the amendment
was the result of the new political
combination, or if it was simply a
coincidence. If the former then they
must attribute the authorship of the
amendment to the hon. member from
Yorkton: but he believed the only
consolation that gentleman would have
when he came to reflect upon it in the
future, would be the conclusion in the
words of Touchstone, "It's a very
ill-formed thing, sir, but mine own."
The Opposition had taken the position
of Mr. Dooley, when he wrote his
presidential address. Mr. Dooley in
dealing with the great question of the
Nicaragua Canal, said: "Something
ought to be done for the Nicaragua
Canal, but what the devil it is, I don't
know." (Laughter.)
THE OPPOSITION ANALYSED.
He would like to analyse the position
of this Opposition on the various
provincial suggestions. We hear the
hon. member for Qu'Appelle (
Mr.
McDonald ) urging a settlement of this
question, but as to the details he
preserves silence. He regrets the delay,
and then indulges in unholy glee that
the Federal Government has thrown
us down. He will not support a motion
which simply presses upon the Dominion Government the desirability of
immediately settling the question.
The hon. member for West Calgary
(
Mr. Bennett ), though an ardent
provincialist, ranks himself with his
leader and seems to be pleased that no
action has been taken at Ottawa. He
supports an amendment that simply
means that the question should be
postponed until the next legislature
meets.
Then the hon, member from Yorkton
(
Dr. Patrick ) has had certain and
various opinions on this subject, and
lest his new associates should be misled,
his true position should now be explained to them. (Laughter.) The hon.
gentlemen has had various theories.
While he was free to confess that
obstinacy was a vice, under certain
circumstances, it was yet a most desirable thing under others. The hon.
member could be relieved from any
charge of either consistency or obstinacy so far as adherence to any phase
of this important questien goes. He
admitted the other day at one time
favoring the one-province idea; on
another occasion he had argued that
the faith of the Dominion was pledged
to the constitution of the three provincial districts Assiniboia, Alberta and
Saskatchewan. Later on we find him
with a new god. As late as 1899, he
proposed a scheme of two provisional
provinces. What that meant, the
speaker did not exactly know. The
hon. gentleman talks in the larger
language of the earlier gods, sometimes,
in discussing this question. His idea
was to divide the country up in two,
with an eastern and a western division,
which should be made provinces at
some indefinite date in the future. The
hon. gentleman in supporting this
proposition, argued that the establishment of provinces should be postponed
as long as possible. It would be undesirable that some of the larger powers
should he extended at that time. He
proposed, however, that these two
provisional provinces should be estabished under a Legislative union, with
one Legislature governing the two of
them; and thought this state of affairs
might go on for a very long time—possibly for 15 years. Then he drew an
analogy between these two provisional
provinces, and the Legislative union
which existed between Upper and
Lower Canada; and because they had
been able, in spite of their many differences, to go on satisfactorily and
amicably for 25 or 26 years, he thought
that would be an early enough period
for the two districts to be put into two
provinces.
Dr. Patrick. On that occasion I
pointed out that the States of the
American Union were giving back
many of their powers, even the borrowing powers.
Mr. Haultain. Do I understand the
hon. gentleman to say that he was in
favor of the borrowing powers being
extended to the two provisional provinces?
Mr. Haultain. Well, that only indicates another of those quick changes
in which the hon. gentleman is such
an artist. Within less than six months
of that date, the hon. gentleman in a
pamphlet issued for the information of
his constituents,—at the time he was
getting his mandate,—made this
statement:
"I need scarcely point out to the older residents of the Yorkton district that not
only in
the Legislature, but outside of it, I have lost no
opportunity to urge that the matter of establishing a province or provinces should
be delayed
as long as possible. It is too soon to give our
Legislature power to mortgage the future of
this young country by borrowing money on the
public credit." (Cheers.)
Of course. I do not seek to fasten on
the hon. gentleman this vice of consistency: I am not accusing him of that.
(Laughter.) I am simply trying to
point out the various changes of opinion that the hon. gentleman has undergone. I
will continue to explain what
his opinion was in 1899, and then go
back six months from that date and
see what his opinion was in October,
1898, when he was getting his mandate.
The hon. gentleman at that time in his
proposal of two provisional provinces,
certainly did not refer to the borrowing powers. If he did, then of course
it saves him to a certain extent from
the charge I have made against him.
At the same time it leaves him in the
position of, what was the use of two
provisional provinces if they had all
the powers of provinces? Then fancy
the provisional provinces under one
Legislative union, deciding how much
each of them should borrow! If this
proposition is not proof that the hon.
gentleman is not guilty of the vice of
consistency, it is certainly proof that he
is inclined to indulge in some visionary
schemes. Now, I will ask a little more
attention to the statements the hon.
gentleman made at the time he was
receiving his mandate. This document
I have in my hands is entitled "Facts
bearing on the future of the NorthÂ
West Territories, compiled for the
electors of Yorkton," and dated October 10th, 1898. Now the hon. gentleman is discussing
his amendment,
more than once said that the Government had no mandate, that the Legislature had no
mandate, nobody had a
mandate, and we had to have a general
election before a mandate could be
given. The pamphlet says:
"Electors of Yorkton.—The agitaion which
has been fostered in the neighborhood of Calgary for some years, to have the Provisional
District of Alberta -separated from these Territories and established as a province
with
Calgary as its capital, and the opinion expressed by
the Premier of the Territories on the question
of the establishment of a province in the Tertories, make it incumbent on candidates
for
election to the next Legislature to discuss with
electors, this most important question."
Now, for what reason, as a rule, do
candidates discuss questions with their
electors before elections? Is it not in
order that the electors can give them
an opinion, or for the purpose of telling
electors what they, as candidates,
believe regarding public questions, and
ask to be sent to represent, those views
in the Legislature? The hon. gentleman says:
"I need scarcely point out * * * I have lost
no opportunity to urge that the matter be delayed as long as possible. It is too soon
to give
our Local Legislature power to mortgage the
future of this young country by borrowing
money on the public credit."
In October 1898 the statement was
that, "It was too soon to give the
Legislature the power to mortgage, the
future of this young country by borrowing money, "—and in the following
April, 1899, the hon. gentleman says he
made the argument on the analogy of
the American states that we should
establish two provisional provinces
with all the powers of a province to
borrow money. Not only did the hon.
gentleman state the fact of his conviction, but he indulged in a little prophetic
map drawing, and showed what
in his opinion these provinces should
be. The hon. gentlenian says: "One
province or two provinces—that is the
conundrum," and then he undertakes
in the blithe way in which, he undertakes to do other people's business, to
carve out a very much enlarged province of Manitoba. He then indicates
by figures that there are two provinces
of220,000) square miles each, and his
5
REGINA, N.W.T, THURSDAY MORNING MAY 15, 1902.
HAULTAIN"S SPEECH
(Continued from page 1)
figures point to an eastern and a western province. It is true one of them is
a little higher than the other and he
may claim he referred to a northern
and a southern province. The Prince
Albert members may draw some consolation from the opinion held by the
hon. gentleman three years ago, and it
is probable that he will be obstinate
enough to indulge in it at the present
time. (Laughter.)
WHAT TWO PROVINCES?
Now the proposition of the amendment is two provinces. What two
provinces? That is a fair question to
ask hon. gentlemen who are allied with
the question of two provinces, as
against one. Will they be two provinces, north and south, which the Commissioner of
Public Works has shown will
throw the whole of our organised territory into the southern province? Or
will they be provinces, east and west,
which I fancy certain members of the
House would believe in. The hon.
member for St. Albert (
Mr. Villeneuve )
is willing to go the length of three
provinces, and is willing to put himself in the hands of the Dominion Government.
He says we will have three
provinces if that Government thinks it
desirable to so constitute us. He
practically says: "We are the creatures and they are the creators—do
with us whatever you will."
QUESTION OF MANDATE.
Then the hon. gentleman says we
had no mandate. What about the
mandate which the hon. gentleman
received in the elections of 1898 according to his election address which I
have just read? He says in it is incumbent upon candidates to discuss with
electors, this important question. Did
he discuss it for the purpose of not
getting a mandate, or for the purpose
of coming down here and being able to
say: Nobody had a mandate. Or did
he discus it, as he states himself, in view of the fact that, "the
subject was certain to be raised in the
next House, I have prepared this information." So far as a mandate is concerned, there
seems to have been a
mandate to the Legislature, judging
by what almost every member has
stated. The hon. member from West
Calgary (
Mr. Bennett ) has said so. He
goes further and says the Government
had a mandate to discuss non-controversial terms. The whole House
will agree that we had a mandate, except possibly on the question of area.
My opinion on the question of area is
well known. The matter had been
discussed in the House as early as 1896,
and the House at that time declared
most emphatically in favor of a single
province. More than that, it has been
so stated in the House and in the
country. The hon. member for West
Calgary referred to my speech of May,
1900, as non-controversial. So it was.
I purposely asked the House to leave
controversial points out of the question. The question of area at that time
would have been controversial. Therefore; we were not in a positon to
make a recommendation with regard
to it, but we were in a position to discuss some of the general features of
what our terms should be. I was
anxious not to have a division of the
House. Even then there were divergencies of opinion, but we were discussing a feature
of it on which there
was no reason that we should differ.
If I had then proposed the one province
idea, judging by the opinion I have
been able to gather from members of
the House. I could have received a
mandate, because I believe a majority
of the House is in favor of one province.
I did not think it would be of particular value to obtain an expression of
opinion at that time, and therefore I
did not ask for it. I wanted unanimity
on the most important subject, that
we might spork as one man to the
Dominion Government. We knew
perfectly well that we could not be
unanimous on the question of area:
we could not be then, and we are not
now. We will never be able to get this
House or the country to agree on it.
The hon. member for Yorkton says
his proposition is that we should gather the views of the people and incorporate them
in a Bill of Rights. Imagine the hon. member going all over
the country gathering the views of
168,00 people on the question of one or
two provinces, and then embodying
them in a Bill of Rights!
Dr. Patrick My idea was to make it
an issue at the elections.
Mr. Haultain —I did not say those
were the words of the hon. gentleman
and I do not wish to put a strained
interpretation on his views. But he
says we should gather the views of the
people. I would like to picture the
hon. gentleman running around obtaining the views of 168,000 people and
afterwards incorporating them into a
Bill of Rights. Can you image the
Bill of Rights the hon. gentleman
would draw after doing all this? It
would be just as variegated, just as
contradictory, just as meaningless as
the longwinded amendment he has
just introduced into the House. It
would still contain the various
provincial propositions. In the Bill of
Rights he would have his one province
idea, his two province idea, his double- headed-two-province idea, and he
would have the hon. member for St.
Albert's (Mr. Villeneuve) idea of three
provinces, if the Dominion Government wanted it—and I am perfectly
certain if the whole country were polled
that one man would be found to favor
annexation to Manitoba. So that it
would be an important contribution to
the literature on this subject and greatly aid in its settlement if we had the
general expression of opinion. (Laughter.) Would would that aid the Dominion
Government? Would a Bill of Rights
drawn after a general election in which
five or six, or fifteen or twenty opinions
were expressed, furnish the Dominion
Government with any further knowledge, or put at a conclusion, especially
after they have declare that they
already know there is a divergence of
opinion? If an expression of opinion
on one side of the subject upon which
the Government was well aware there
was a divergence of opinion, was a
block to the settement of the question,
how would a settlement be aided,
either by going back to the country and
asking the opinion of the people, or in
drafting the Bill of Rights the hon.
gentleman suggested? Would the
Dominion Government be in any better
position?
Mr. Haultain—Of course the hon.
gentleman says yes, but if he can
tell me how much more the Government at Ottawa would know than they
know today, except that there was a
divergence of opinion, I would be glad
to hear it.
Mr. Bennett—The whole point is
really this: In the speech which the
hon. gentleman made on 2nd May, 1900,
he said the question of area was a controversial question and one upon which
no opinion was taken from this House.
Therefore, on this question, there
should be an expression of opinion
before the country was pledged to it.
Mr. Haultain—What has that got to
do with the question I am discussion?
Mr. Haultain—I am not discussing
whether the terms of my speech in
1900 were controversial; what I am
saying is: Would the consideration of
the subject be aided or furthered so far
as the Dominion Government is concerned, by coming back to the House,
or drafting this wonderful Bill of
Rights?
Mr. Haultain—What further would
it disclose? What further information would it give, except what there
was, as the Government was already
aware, a divergence of opinion?
Mr. Bennett—For this reason, that
the Dominion Government would
know that this Government had authority from the House to pledge this
country to one or two provinces,
whether there was a divergence of
opinion or not.
Mr. Haultain—The hon. gentleman
is again introducing an entirely different point. I am not arguing whether
this Government had a mandate to
pledge this House, because the Government never did pledge this House.
What I am arguing is, that so far as the
Dominion Government is concerned,
they would not be in a bit better position to settle a question which they
must settle ultimately, the responsibility for which rests upon themselves;
by coming back to this House they
would still know there was a divergence of opinion, but they would also
know there was a
MAJORITY FOR ONE PROVINCE
in this House. The hon. gentleman
will no doubt be perfectly satisfied
when he discovers that the majority
of this House are in favor of one province, and that the subsequent ratification of
our proposals to the Federal
Government justifies them. The hon.
gentleman at great length argued out
this question on the question of agency,
and in making reply I need not go
beyond the bounds of elementary law.
I can tell him that if an agent makes a
proposition without the authority of
his principal, the subsequent ratification by his principal makes it a perfectly good
bargain.
Mr. Haultain. So that if it is any
satisfaction to the hon. gentleman to
know it, I firmly believe and have
every confidence in what I know is the
opinion of a majority of the members
of the House, and we can easily get a
ratification of our position on that occasion. So that coming back to the
question, you might keep going to
Ottawa and coming back to this House,
drafting Bills of Rights and discussing
and arguing for the next 20 years, and
you will never arrive at a more definite
conclusion than the Dominion Government has arrived at, and that I arrived
at in 1900, that that question is controversial and that there are divergencies
of opinion. That merely is all that
this amendment has shown; that is all
the amendment is worth, and everybody knew it before the amendment
was brought in. If what was admitted
in this House and was known to everybody, was a block to our negotiations:
if the Dominion Government sent us
back because of divergences of opinion
what they knew, and we knew, and
everybody else knew, and which was
naturally brought about by an expression of opinion in favor of one province,
then I would say: Suppose we went
back to them and said, "we have been
converted, the hon. gentleman from
Yorkton has a wonderful double-barrelled two province scheme," would
not the Federal Government still say
there were divergences of opinion?
The hon. gentleman seems to think, as
long as we accept his idea, there are no
divergences of opinion. (Laughter.)
" Simply accept my doctrine, and
there is no diversity of opinion,"—although we would still have the various
opinions as to whether the two provinces should run north and south, or
east and west.
What are the difficulties as expressed
in Mr. Sifton's letter? First, sparseness
of population made it undesirable.
This sparseness was not brought about
by the memorial sent to Ottawa, so
that, if that is the principal reason for
the Federal Government not acting,
the local administration cannot be
blamed for being sent back. I need not
advance the argument that, if sparseness of population is a bar to the immediate settlement,
what about sparseness of population in case two provine
es were formed, as the hon. gentlemanÂ
proposes; especially if the country is
divided east and west, leaving the
northern province without any population at all.
Next as to the increase of population,
which will bring about such a change
in conditions that provincial institutions should not be established. That
is an argument which, I believe, was
never dreamed and cannot surely be
blamed against the local administration. The next position taken by the
Federal authorities is regarding the
divergence of opinion as to one or two
provinces. Simply because we expressed one of the various divergent opinions, that
is the one reason discovered
by these hon. gentlemen why the
Dominion Government refused to take
action. Was the divergence of opinion
first suggested by our talking about one
province, or was it not suggested for
years in the debates in this House? If
we suggested one province, was that a
sufficient reason for the Government
to say: There are other opinions,—go
back, or, to use the quotation from the
hon. member for Yorkton, we were
told to go 'way back and find out
something. Suppose we should accept
this gratuitous invitation, what would
we have discovered? We would have
found there were divergences of opinion as to one or two provinces. We
would then go back to Ottawa and
say: We have accepted your invitation and gone back to the Legislature.
What have you discovered? We
have discovered, in the language
of Mr. Sifton's letter, that there are
divergences of opinion as to one or
more provinces. Then they would
say: You better go back to the country and follow the suggestion of the
hon. member for Yorkton, and find out
the opinion of the 168,000 people. Well,
we would come back and have a general election, and presuming we would
still be in charge of the negotiations,
we would go to Ottawa and relate our
discovery. Mr. Sifton would ask us
what we had to report, and we would
say: We have gone 'way back' to
the people and have discovered that
you were perfectly right in stating in
your letter that there were divergences
of opinion. Then let us imagine the
impossible, and presume the hon,
gentlemen appealed to the country
on this wonderful double-barrelled
two province thing and got sufficient support to put them in power,
and they go to conduct negotiations
at Ottawa. The hon. gentleman
for Yorkton will have to draw a
new map and have a conference with
the members for Prince Albert about
it. (Laughter.) He goes down and
makes his two province proposition,
but I have discovered there is a divergence of opinion: you better go back to
the Legislature—and so on, ad finitum,
ad absurdum. (Laughter.)
Mr. Bennett. Was not that the way
confederation was carried on in the
various provinces?
Mr. Haultain. They went back
several times and discovered there
were divergences of opinion, and having discovered that, the gentleman
whose duty it was to settle the question,—whether there were divergences
or not—sat down and settled it.
Mr. Haultain—Of course the hon,
gentleman knows exactly. I have
understood there was a little province
down by the sea that they did not
consult.
Mr. Haultain—Very likely, but the
hon. gentleman said they did. (Laughter.) After we had been up and down,
and backward and forward, in these
numerous trips, we would still be in
the position, if leaving for the 500th
time, that there were divergences of
opinion. The hon. gentleman has
suggested that we might have come
back tot e House and ask for futher
instructions. Suppose we did, how
much further would we have been on?
WHERE IS THE OPPOSITION MANDATE?
When hon. gentlemen talk so glibly
about no mandate, and say we had no
right to express an opinion as to one
or more provinces, let us take the
amendment they have submitted, and
I ask them where did they get their
mandate for expressing their definite
and clear-cut opinion in favor of two
provinces? The immediate and practical result of the amendment if carried, would be
to convey to the Dominion Government that there are
divergences of opinion. What do the
gentlemen say? Here is the operative
part of their amendment: "That is the way they
propose to do away with the question
of divergences of views! They are
taking the position of the Three
Tailors of Tooley Street—" we, the
people of England."
Mr. Haultain—No, if you read the
Memorial, you will find that it is
directly stated that we simply expressed the views of the members of the
Government.
Mr. Bennett—Yes, that is it, the
"Three Tailors of Tooley Street."
Mr. Haultain—No, I think it ill
becames hon. gentleman who are in a
hopeless and helpless minority to suggest that we, having the great majority
of this House and the country at our
back, are the "Three Tailors of Tooley
Street." Now, the amendment proceeds to say that it will be the duty of
the next Legislature to adopt a Bill of
Rights demanding that the Territories
be established into two provinces. Is
there anything more absurd or presumtious in the Government asking to be
created into one province than there is
in an insignificant minority dictating
to the next Legislature the sort of
legislation that should be adopted with
regard to exactly the same question?
I put it again to the House, whether
the application of the "Three Tailors
of Tooley Street" applies to the Opposition side of the House or to this side.
The hon. gentlemen are not only attempting to speak for this House, but
dictating to the next Legislature—to
the future members of this House and
to Parliament itself, as to their duty.
If we had no mandate, what mandate
have the hon. gentlemen to contemplate doing what the amendment
proposes? The whole question boils
down to this: They say to the Government, you have expressed an opinion
in favor of one province, therefore we
will declare want of confidence in you
by introducing a resolution which
distinctly advocates two provinces.
They do not content themselves by
expressing their opinion, but they go
further and say it will be the duty of
the next Legislature to ask for two
provinces, notwithstanding the divergent views. It does not matter whether a majority
of the House, or of the
country, favor one province, or whether the member for St. Albert favors
three provinces, or whether Mr. Bennett favors annexation with Manitoba,
but I, the member for Yorkton,
say it will be the duty of the
next House to declare for
two provinces. Wherein are we different from the hon. gentleman?
except that we went to Ottawa clothed
with all the authority of a Government,
having the right of a Government,
possessing the confidence of this House
and the country to speak definitely on
this subject. The long amendment is
a mixture of a definite policy and an
admission of impotency. The hon.
gentleman (
Dr. Patrick ) says we may
not be able to obtain at the outset
what we want. Is that the proper
spirit in which representatives should
go to Ottawa to press the claim of
our people? Is that the sort of men
the people are likely to trust with their
most vital interests? Is that the spirit
in which men should go forth to war
—we are afraid we won't get all we
ask for, because we are merely the
creatures and you the creators. Yet
they then turn around and blame this
Government for suggesting at Ottawa
one phase of a very large question,—
for daring to suggest to our creators
what should or should not be done.
Well, so long as I purpose not only
to express an opinion to our "creators," but also to enforce those opinions
whether we are creatures or creators.
(Cheers.) We are told that because
we suggested the one province idea,
we have precipitated annexation to
Manitoba. Who suggested the one
province idea? I do not claim to be
the discoverer of it. I have not very
strongly expressed the opinion, but the
opinion of the same men, the sensible
men is largely in favor of one province.
There are other views, but the sane
view is in favor of one province, and
always was.
Mr. Haultain. That gentleman (Mr.
Cross) holds different views than I do;
but if there is one argument against
the insanity of the proposal of the Opposition, it is the fact that they think
they are unanimous in favor of it.
(Laughter.)
ANNEXATION TO MANITOBA.
It is easy for hon. gentlemen to take
advantage of the feeling against annexation in Assiniboia, and cry
"wolf" to frighten the people there:
but a mere expression of opinion on
their part, no matter how insane or
inconsiderate that opinion may be, will
not help the final settlement of the
question at Ottawa. Because we consider one province to be the best, is not
going to precipitate annexation to
Manitoba. More than that, I say that
the suggestion of two provinces is very
much more likely to lead to annexation, and for this reason: We have
heard a great deal about the broad
Canadian spirit which should mark
our discussions of the subject. Very
well, I think I am a broad enough
Canadian to discuss most questions
fairly, but when it comes to discussing
what almost exclusively concerns the
present welfare and the future prosperity, the future fate of this great country,
I am disposed to be a little more
of a westerner than anything else.
MULTIPLICATION OF PROVINCES.
It seemed to him from the broad
Canadian standpoint, however, that
the argument of the eastern people
would be against a multiplication of
provinces in the west. The
people of the east would say they
were not going to make more
than two provinces in the west, and
some looked on Manitoba as the west.
He thought the Dominion Government
and Parliament would deal with the
matter from a broad Canadian view
and that there would be two provinces
in Western Canada. He did not believe in the annexation of any portion
to Manitoba under any terms or circumstances. They would not likely
be successful in opposing annexation
if they were divided up into a number
of camps and refused to join together
on the general question. As to the
argument of the western portion of the
Territories having one market and the
eastern portion another, he thought
this would be a desirable feature in the
one province. For his own part, he
believed that a Hudson's Bay railway,
whether built by the people of the
Territories or under whatever name
they might be known, would solve a
great many difficulties, and afford the
shortest passage to England. The
idea of two provinces, northern and
southern, that each might have its
own transcontinental line, would be a
disadvantage, not a benefit, for the
province would be at the mercy of a
road with which it alone could deal,
compared with one large province able
to play one railway against the other.
The argument was on the side of one
province
CONTROLLING ALL ITS LINES.
The Opposition spoke of co-operaton
between several provinces, but he
asked, did the provinces do so? The
railway companies would rather deal
with two or three comparatively small
provinces than with the Government
of one big, strong province. He denied
that a large province in proportion to
area cost more than a small one. The
reverse was true, not only in business
matters but in government. He ridiculed the idea that by having two
provinces they would thus obtain an
additional fifty thousand dollars from
the Federal Government for purposes
of legislation. All the legislative
machinery would be doubled. Adapt
ing the phrase "Little Englanders,"
he characterised the members of the
Opposition as "Little Westerners."
They were not acting in a broad western
spirit, let alone a good broad Canadian
spirit. Only a few days ago he read
articles in Maritime Province papers
favoring the union of those provinces
into one. There were enough people
in the east advocating a narrow policy
without them doing so and enough
people in Manitoba favoring annexation without members of the Territorial House acting
as their advocates.
The Opposition confessed their inibility to deal with the subject, by refusing
to take a stand on the all-important
point. The Government had been
accused, like the boy and the jug of
nuts of trying to get too much at once,
but they only asked what the people
had a right to.
The Opposition would go crawling
and begging a nut at a time. Gentlemen opposite occupied the position of
narrow and partisan men not trying to
work together for the desire of the
people but like men trying to work to
thwart the Government in their efforts,
not for the benefit of the country but
for their own selfish ends. The House
and country could not agree as to areas,
and never would. The Opposition
could not agree. The Government
supporters could not, but they had
sunk all their differences and united on
broad terms and would leave the matter to the Ottawa authorities who had
full knowledge of these differences.
What they wanted was some solution.
Mr. Haultain resumed his seat amid
cheers, having spoken for an hour and
forty minutes.
THE VOTE.
The House then divided on Mr.
Haultain's motion expressing regret
that the Dominion Government had
not introduced legislation at the present session of Parliament granting
provincial autonomy to the Territories.
The motion was carried by twenty- one to seven. the vote being:
Yeas—Messrs. Haultain, Sifton, Bulyea, DeVeber, Brown, Fisher, McIntyre, Meyers, Elliott,
Cross, Rosenroll,
Lake, Smith, Shera, Prince, Connell,
McCauley, Simpson, Wallace, Gillis
and Hawkes.
Nay—Messrs. McDonald, Bennett,
Patrick, Villeneuve, McKay, McLeod,
Annable. Messrs. Greeley and McDiarmid were not present when the
vote was taken. The House then
adjourned.
Cet individu a participé aux :
