Document Information

Date: 1905-03-31
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 10th Parl, 1st Sess, 1905 at 3591-3597.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

3591

….

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.

House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta, and the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden thereto.

Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia) If, Mr. Speaker, the Bills before the House to create the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan constitute to representatives from the other parts of Canada the most important measure that has been submitted to parliament since confederation, how much more should their importance be impressed upon one, who, like myself, is entrusted with the duty of representing in this House a very considerable section of the country which it is proposed to form into these new provinces. I may say, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity that I regret to a very much larger extent to-day than on any former occasion that I am not gifted with that felicity of expression which has distinguished so many of the speakers who have preceded me, and that consequently I shall not be able to embellish the remarks I shall have to present to the House with flowers of oratory such as have adorned many of the speeches we have had on this question.

Of the magnitude of the subject, of course, there can be no question. We are proposing to round out the confederation of half, and probably the richer half of the North American continent, affecting an enormous area of exceptional fertility and capable of sustaining millions, if not tens of millions of people. We are fulfilling the dream of those far-sighted men, the fathers of confederation. We are, once for all, placing upon the half million of people who, at present, constitute the population of these areas and upon the future millions that will constitute that population, the duties of self-government according to free British principles. And we are, at the same time, fixing for all time to come the financial status, setting apart the financial resources, upon which these people shall be enabled to carry on their duties of self-government. We are giving by charter to these new provinces many powers which the people there have been exercising up to the present time, as well as a number of powers, which, until now, have been exercised on their behalf by this parliament. We are proposing to make these people

3592

fully responsible for their own self-government in the important matters of education, public works and all affairs of internal development which, it may be said, are the most vital, the most constant, and the most intimate affairs affecting the life of the people of any country, and the management of which, it may be said, is so much more difficult in a sparsely-settled country such as these areas are at the present time, than in old communities. Upon the importance of the subject of education there is no occasion for comment here. In my opinion, the House has been, during the present debate, giving more attention to a matter which has developed into an extremely sentimental issue, than to the practical, substantial phase of the education question. I may say that I am more concerned, and I am satisfied that the people that I represent are more concerned, as to whether they are to be enabled by the powers which parliament proposes to confer upon them and the financial resources the House proposes to place at their disposal, for all time to come to keep up an efficient system of education than they are as to the extremely narrow issue which divides the proposition of the government from the proposition of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)—no, I beg the pardon of the opposition,—of the hon. member representing the county of Carleton. The matter of local public works, the matter of bridges, the matter of fire guards, the matter of drainage, and in some localities the matter of domestic water supply—these are all affairs of exceeding importance to the people now, and will be of importance to the millions of people who, we expect, will be in that territory in the years to come. And these matters now must be dealt with, and, for a considerable time to come, will have to be dealt with, by the provincial government more than is the case in older communities where these affairs are handled municipally. These are matters which lie at the very root of the existence of a people in a new country and upon these things depend whether the settler in these new provinces is to be encouraged to wage the battle of life under the conditions to be found in that country, or whether he shall labour under disadvantages too great to be borne—as unfortunately, has been the fate of some who went into those Territories in the past, though not, I am glad to say, in the very recent past. The condition of the settlers’ land as to drainage; the state of his range,—whether devastated by the prairie fire or properly protected—the existence of a bridge over the creek or river so that the settler may pass over with his team without risking his life at a crossing; the efficiency of his school—upon these matters, I say, depends to a very large extent the whole future of the new provinces which parliament by these

3593

measures proposes to create. The subject of transportation is one to which very great attention has been given by this parliament in recent years. The subject of railway transportation is a very important one; but I may point out that in these Territories at the present time, I think it is not going too far to say, the matter of wagon roads is of quite as great an importance as the matter of railway communication. Railways of course, are necessary. But the railway cannot be brought to every man’s door, and, to reach the railway, the wagon road is necessary. A computation has been made which goes to establish the fact that the settler or farmer who is fifteen miles from the railway shipping point is under as great a cost in getting his wheat to the shipping point—supposing that that point is Regina, where I live—as he is under for the carriage of that wheat from the shipping point to the head of the Lakes, nearly 800 miles.

Therefore, there can be no question of the importance and magnitude of the questions involved in the Bills. I have, on several occasions before, had the privilege of addressing this House; but on no previous occasion have I felt so greatly the responsibility resting upon me as upon this occasion. And, whether my tenure of office here as the representative of a constituency prove long or short, I do not think that at any future time it will be my duty to address the House upon a subject of such importance as I feel the subject now under discussion to be.

In replying to the admirable speech with which these Bills were introduced by the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. R. L. Borden) devoted a good deal of attention—more attention than I had expected him to give—to certain aspects of the case which had formed the subject matter of discussion up and down the township lines and in the school-houses of the Northwest up to the third of November last, but which did not seem to me to be quite in keeping with the kind of discussion which might be expected from the leader of the opposition speaking upon such an occasion, and dealing with such a measure as this, before a body as this House. The hon. gentleman sought to establish the proposition that the right hon. First Minister and his government had made a right-about-face since last session upon the question whether or not provincial autonomy should be granted to the people of the Northwest Territories. And, in his endeavour to sustain a very weak position, he sought to make use of a remark or rather an ejaculation of the Prime Minister on one occasion about two years ago. It was alleged that the Prime Minister had said ‘Hear, hear,’ when the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) had made some remark to impress the idea that the

3594

government was not favourable to provincial autonomy. I do not know whether my hon. friend—in fact I must take it for granted that my hon. friend was not aware that before the end of that session the First Minister had set himself right on that point, and I will read a passage which may be found in the ‘Hansard’ of 1903, page 13907:

Mr. ROCHE (Marquette). I stated that I was putting the Prime Minister’s sentiments correctly before the House to the effect that for many years to come the Territories need not expect autonomy at the hands of this government, and the Prime Minister said ‘hear, hear.’

The PRIME MINISTER. If I said ‘hear, hear’ it was not affirmation. On the contrary, it was negation.

Why, it is within the knowledge of everybody in Canada, and should be within the knowledge of every member of this House who was in the last parliament, that on several occasions responsible ministers of the Crown stated their opinion authoritatively that the time had nearly come when full provincial powers must be conferred on the people of the Northwest Territories. The hon. member for Brandon, then Minister of the Interior, as long ago as three years, stated in the House that he had arrived at the conclusion that provincial autonomy must very soon be meted out to the people of the Northwest Territories. During the session of 1903, the Minister of Finance, in the most explicit terms, stated two or three times that the government had arrived at the conclusion that the time was near at hand when full provincial powers must be conferred on these people.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the able address given to the House last evening by the hon. gentleman who represents the district of Qu’Appelle (Mr. Lake) in this House. If it would not be presumptuous on my part to say so, I would congratulate the House, I would congratulate the Northwest, and particularly I would congratulate our hon. friends opposite upon their acquisition of that hon. gentleman, who was elected last November to represent the district of Qu’Appelle. Of course, I do not quite agree with every one of the statements made by that hon. gentleman; but I will say this for him, that he made the class of speech that friends of the Northwest Territories desired to be made before this question of provincial autonomy was determined, before the details and terms were determined; it was the class of speech which the true friend of the Northwest felt it proper to make, and just the class of speech I have made myself the first session I came into this parliament. But I cannot agree with quite all the things which my hon. friend stated as facts. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that Mr. Haultain’s draft Bill, prepared, I think, in December, 1901, or January, 1902, was unanimously endorsed by the assembly of the Northwest Territories,

3595

with the exception of one point, that point relating to the number of provinces, whether there should be one province or more. I think I can convince my hon. friend that he was mistaken in that regard. One strong objection was raised, not by a Liberal in the assembly, but by one of the Conservative members, a gentleman who acts in conjunction with the member for Qu’Appelle, and who was a Conservative candidate in one of the districts of the Northwest Territories last fall, Dr. Patrick, of Yorkton, who took violent exception to the terms of the draft Bill, because, as he said, it was attempting to grab too much, the terms were extravagant and would do damage to the interests of the Territories by attempting to grab too much. Then, I understood my hon. friend to lay down the proposition that because that draft Bill had been endorsed by the assembly, and because it was before the people of the Northwest Territories last fall during the general election, therefore no member representing a district of the Northwest Territories had any mandate or right to do other than object to any kind of a Bill which was not framed entirely upon the lines of that draft Bill, voted upon by the Northwest legislature. If that was the position taken by my hon. friend, and I think it was, for I listened to him carefully, I may tell him that he is entirely out of accord with his mentor, Mr. Haultain. Mr. Haultain never took such a position. My hon. friend from Qu’Appelle, as well as myself, heard Mr. Haultain declare himself explicitly, in a meeting of the legislature towards the end of 1903, that he never expected to get all he asked for, they were simply laying down their proposition, and were asking everything that was possible, leaving to those on the other end of the bargain to say how much the terms had to be cut down.

However, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that in this discussion it is rather the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. R. L. Borden) which is engaging the attention of the House. That amendment reads:

All the words after the word ‘that’ to the end of the question be left out and the following substituted therefor: —

Upon the establishment of a province in the Northwest Territories of Canada as proposed by Bill (No. 69), the legislature of such province, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, is entitled to and should enjoy full powers of provincial self-government including power to exclusively make laws in relation to education.

That is a proposition, Mr. Speaker, that commands my warm approval in some respects, but I am sorry to say that my hon. friend’s speech did not quite fit in with his amendment. It is a proposition that, on the face of it, would be looked upon with favour by every resident of the Northwest Territories. But when we look at it a little more

3596

closely, it may not be such a favourable proposition. As the members of this House can readily believe, particularly when they listen to such representatives from the Northwest as the hon. member from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and the hon. member from Brandon (Mr. Sifton), the people of those western prairies like to have things placed before them definitely, and I may tell the hon. member for Carleton that before the residents of the Northwest Territories will be able to accept his proposition they will want to know what class of schools he means, whether he means absolute freedom to settle their school system or whether he means anything else; whether he means, for instance, the application of section 93 of the British North America Act, which would not leave the people of the Northwest absolute freedom to settle this question for themselves. And upon another phase of the question, that concerning the lands, I am sorry to say that my hon. friend’s speech entirely disagrees with his resolution. With reference to the matter of the retention of the lands by the federal power, to which proposition he takes exception, giving his opinion that the land should be transferred to the provincial authorities, he said:

May I not further suggest that even if there were any danger — and I do not think there is — it would be the task of good statesmanship to have inserted, if necessary, a provision in this Bill with regard to free homesteads and the prices of those lands.

We had a suggestion in the discussion that took place this afternoon and we had a more particular suggestion in the discussion that took place some days ago as to there being at the present moment no friend of the Northwest in the government. The friends of the Northwest must be looked for amongst hon. gentlemen opposite. Well, I am bound to say that I think the friendship of the hon. member for Carleton will bear a little analysis. If it has a sentimental feature, something that is not going to cost anything, something that is not going to bear on any other section of Canada, our hon. friends opposite are great friends of the Northwest, but, whenever we come down to a substantial matter like limiting the self governing powers of the people of the Northwest in regard to their actual and substantial resources the boot is on the other foot. That is an entirely different aspect of the case. There are hon. gentlemen behind my hon. friend from Carleton who are great friends of the people of the Territories too. It would be such an awful thing if any power of self government were denied to the people of the Northwest Territories, but they are anxious to take away about half the territory of the people of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. May I ask my hon. friend, without wishing to interrupt him

3597

unduly, at what page he quoted from my speech?

Mr. SCOTT. I have not the page here but I will ask one of my friends to hunt it up.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will quote it. The hon. gentleman began in the middle of a sentence and did not give the whole quotation.

Mr. SCOTT. Will the hon. gentleman quote the whole sentence?

Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I will. I had first stated that I believed in handing over the lands to the people of the Northwest absolutely and had pointed out the objection that the right hon. Prime Minister had made to that. Then, I said:

Are they not the people chiefly interested? May we not rightly conclude that if these lands are handed over to them, they will so deal with them as to best conserve their own interests by forwarding and assisting a vigorous policy of immigration? May I not further suggest that even if there were any danger—and I do not think there is—it would be the task of good statesmanship to have inserted, if necessary, a provision in this Bill with regard to free homesteads and the prices of those lands, and obtain to it the consent of the people of the Northwest Territories.

My hon. friend began in the middle of a sentence and closed his quotation before the end of it. That is all I desire to call attention to.

Mr. SCOTT. I fail to see what difference there is in the meaning between the portion that my hon. friend has quoted and the portion that I quoted, except the suggestion added that the consent of the Northwest might be asked. And let me tell him that he will very much more readily get the consent of the people of the Northwest Territories to leaving in perpetuation a system of schools which is absolutely satisfactory to Protestant and Catholic alike than he will get their consent to any such invasion of their rights as is involved in his suggestion. On the sentimental question of lands, on the sentimental side of the school question hon. gentlemen opposite or a section of them, headed by the leader of the opposition, are great friends of the Northwest Territories, but when it comes down to substantial things, as I said, the boot is entirely on the other foot. Talk about invading autonomy. Why, Sir, no such radical and substantial invasion of Northwest autonomy as this suggestion involves—as read and repeated again here now by himself—could be imagined by an avowed enemy of provincial rights.

At six o’clock, House took recess.