October 13, 1903

CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

For how long ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   GEO. H. V. BULYEA.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

For this year. In regard to the capital advance it is merely to enable the local government to borrow a quarter of a million dollars. The whole provincial autonomy demand is very largely the result of the feeling of the people of the Northwest Territories that they should not be deprived of the power of borrowing money. Xu Mr. 11aultnin's last budget speech this sentence occurs :

Throughout all the correspondence and argument concerning our financial and constitutional relations with Ottawa there has been a constant and strong reference to capital expenditure. We have said that not only have we been confined to a very slender income, but we have been compelled to make large expenditures which very properly might be charged to capital account.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   GEO. H. V. BULYEA.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. Mr. FIELDING.

I will quote a few words from Mr. Haul-tain's letter to the hon. Minister of Finance on the 20tli April, 1903.

It has been found necessary at times to point out that our limited and inadequate revenues were more restricted and rendered more inadequate by the necessity of making expenditures out of our current income which in themselves were more properly chargeable to capital account. That is to say we have occasionally found It necessary to incur heavy expenditures for construction of bridges, the cost of which have been a heavy drain upon our resources and which should have been spread over a series of years instead of being provided for out of the revenues of one year, to the exclusion of other and equally important works.

At this point I may read an extract from a letter which was sent to me a little more than a year ago by a gentleman closely connected with the North-west government. He said :

Let me illustrate by saying that at the present time there are on file in the Public Works Department, Regina, applications for works in the way of improvements for this year (1902), resulting from the rapid development which has taken place in the country, to complete which would involve an expenditure of $400,000. I know from my own personal knowledge that a very large proportion of the work asked for in certain districts is urgently needed in connection with the development of such districts, ahd from present indications the answer to all such applications is gong to be ' No funds, and impossible to undertake such work,' because the Dominion government have neither increased the subsidy nor put the territories in a position to incur debt, so that they can meet these demands resulting from the ' growing time ' which we are now realizing in the territories.

Tbe fact is tliat the lack of power to borrow money, to pledge the public credit, to undertake permanent works and spread the payment over a long period of years so as to permit the inhabitants ten or twenty years hence to assist in meeting the cost of works constructed now has been seriously complained of for years. This lack is one of tbe strong features of the gradual growth of public sentiment in tbe country in favour of provincial autonomy. As the hon. gentlemen from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) have shown, the grant made to the territorial government this year is a very much larger grant, taken proportionately or measured in any other way, than the grant given in any former year. Including the advance, it is actually more, than the North-west government stated in their estimates this year was necessary for their various purposes. The hon. the leader of the opposition will find in Mr. I-Iaultain's budget speech, that he asked for $1,130,000, and he has received in all, on current revenue account, $957,979, which is apart altogether from the $84,000 grant for bridge construction, and apart altogether from the capital advance. The amount granted therefore, is 85 per cent of the estimates Mr. OCTOBER 13, 1903

Haultain submitted here last 'winter and I may say that a grant amounting to 85 per cent of the North-west government estimate, is better treatment than the North-west Territories ever got in any former year. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden' Halifax) read extensively from letters, and communications and documents, and records, of one kind or another, to prove that the Prime Minister of the North-west Territories was very much dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to him by this government. I do not know whether it would be proper to say that this state of dissatisfaction is chronic with the Prime Minister of the territories, hut it is a fact that in former years and under other federal governments, his dissatisfaction was no less pronounced. Let me read to my hon. friend a letter which Mr. Haultain read in the assembly last spring, to prove that he has no more particular complaint to make against this government, than he had against, former governments. This is a letter which Mr. Haultain wrote on November S, 1895, to the government which was then in power in this Dominion :

I have the honour to make an additional statement on behalf of the executive committee of the territories with regard to the amount re-quird for the territories for the financial year 1896-7. The committee cannot refrain

It will be noticed that at the time the North-west government was called ' a committee.'

The committee cannot refrain from expressing a feeling of great dissatisfaction over the fact that there is no substantial increase in the amount proposed to be voted for expenses of government in the North-west Territories. The estimates show clearly that the government do not intend to pay any attention to our financial recommendations, which have been made for four years consecutively, both in our written statements and on our personal interviews.

While the government are willing to take all credit for the growth and development of the territories, they do not consider that that growth and development mean a necessarily increased expenditure.

There was no very great development there in 1895, but the Conservative government failed to cope with even what there was.

Our local institutions and machinery have been created by parliament, but parliament does not supply the necessary money for working them.

A glance at the estimates of 1891-92, when our vote was itemized and administered by the lieutenant governor alone, will show that the government and parliament recognized the necessity of making provision for certain detailed services. These services recur annually and become more costly (for example, schools), yet the increase in our vote since that date does - not bear any proportion to the increased expenditure under these heads alone. In a growing country new obligations arise and new objects of expenditure make themselves felt. Yet this self-evident fact is quite ignored at Ottawa, and year after year the services and amounts provided for in 1891 are made the basis of the new votes.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   GEO. H. V. BULYEA.
Permalink

REVISED

LIB

Thomas Osborne Davis

Liberal

Mr. DAVIS.

Did Mr. Haultain write that when the Conservatives were in power ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   REVISED
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

He certainly did.

On the top of all this, demands for seed grain, for relief from starvation and other extraordinary and unforeseen contingencies, are referred to the local by the federal authorities with ah unmeaning reference to the fact that matters of this sort are dealt with by the provincial authorities in Manitoba.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   REVISED
Permalink
LIB

William Alfred Galliher

Liberal

Mr. GALLIHEK.

He didn't write that about starvation when the Conservative' government were in power.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   REVISED
Permalink
LIB

EDITION


/



which Mr. Haul tain made in the letter was listened to, and given practical effect to. I shall place upon the records of the House, a table of figures that will go to prove that if there is any cause to-day for the Northwest Territories being dissatisfied at the financial treatment meted out to them by this government; there was a great deal more cause in past years when another government was in power in this Dominion, and there was real reason then for the emphatic language put in the state papers by the Prime Minister of the territories. 1 shall give to the House, the 'demands made bv the territories for the past ten years for financial aid, and the proportion in which these demands have been acceded to each year : Pekcentaoe of Grant to Estimates presented. - Amount risked. Amount granted. Per- centage. $ $ 1892-93 ... 368,723 195,700 531893 368,723 199,200 541894 403,640 225,534 551895 375,640 267,534 711896 387,800 242,879 621897 400,000 2,82,879 701898 438,000 282,879 641899 535,000 282,879 53 (Yukon liquor licensess yielded $160,000 spread over two years.) 1898 i 1899 /



'/ Grants $565,758 \ (Yukon $160,000J =$725,758 or 74% 1900 600,000 424,879 701901. 600,000 407,879 081902. 600,000 457,979 751903 1,130,000 957,979 85 In the year 1899, the North-west government collected $160,000 on account of liquor licenses in the Yukon, and it was allowed to retain that money, which I believe it was entitled to. They spread the amount thus collected over two years, and the real sums available by the North-west government in 1898 and 1899 amounted to $725,758, being 74 per cent upon the amount which they asked in these two years, which was an aggregate of $973,000. 1 have made a comparison also for periods of five years. We will call the first period five Conservative years, because the Conservative government was in power during those years, from 1892 to 1896, inclusive. The total estimates submitted here by the North-west government during those five years aggregated $1,904,526, and they were granted $1,130,847, being 59 per cent of their estimates. The Liberal government have been in power for seven years. In those seven years the estimates of the North-west government have amounted to $4,303,000, and they have been granted directly in cash $3,097,353, to which must be added the $160,000 of Yukon liquor licenses, making a total of $3,257,353, being 75 per cent, as against 59 per cent during the last five years the Conservative government were in power. Take the first five years that the Liberal government were in power, from 1897 to 1901, inclusive, the total requisitions amounted to $2,573,000, and the total grants amounted to $1,841,495, being 71 per cent. Or, take the last five years of the present government, from 1899 to 1903, inclusive, the estimates presented amounted to $3,465,000, and upon these estimates they have been given $2,691,595, being 77 per cent of the amounts asked for in those five years, as against 59 per cent in the last five years of the pi*evious government. In view of these figures, I think we are fairly well justified in stating that on the whole we have very much less to complain of this year than there was to be complained of in any former year. While I say that, I would not care to take the position that the grants are being made too large, because it is my belief that twice the amount of money that is being voted could be profitably and advantageously expended in the North-west Territories, and to Canada's general advantage. I say that there is no part of any country in the world which offers to-day such a good field for investments, with such an assurance of speedy and large returns. Still, I am bound to say that I think the government are this year fairly well meeting the financial demand. The comparisons which I have made with former years can lead to no other conclusion. Sly own attitude in former years on the question of provincial autonomy lias been referred to, and I am free to state that if no new condition had arisen, if the conditions were exactly the same at the present time that they have been in former years, I would be expressing the same view that I expressed two years ago on the question. But a new condition has arisen-the condition of the Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption, to which I intend to refer a little later-which, in my opinion, furnishes a very strong reason why it is better to hesitate, why it is better not to have action taken at the present time. But, on the general question, apart from that condition, which I hope will be removed in a very short time, I would simply take the occasion to repeat the opinion which I have expressed in other years, that the people in the territories have the same right to full powers of local government as the people of any province. * Besides the question to which I have referred, that of the Canadian Pacific Railway land tax, there are one or two other factors which might suggest the advisability of a little delay. One of these is found in


LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

the joint request of the provincial premiers, made last fall, for a revision of the scheme of annual provincial subsidies. The details of their request involve questions which must and do form an important portion of the autonomy question as relates to the Northwest Territories, and I fail to see how the autonomy question can be satisfactorily settled without parliament previously or simultaneously deciding as to the merits of the provincial statement of claim. The other factor is what, to be perfectly frank, I must term the lack of fair comprehension of the autonomy matter by this parliament and by the people of the provinces whose representatives form so great a majority in this parliament. Of the fact of this lack of comprehension, I need go no further than quote the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition last year, when he said :

With regard to the details of Mr. Haultain's Bill, with which I am not at all familiar, as I have not had an opportunity of seeing it, I do not think that these details have much to do with the matter.

It is fair to say that when the leader of one of the political parties is not well seized pf a question-a live political question-it is (oo much to expect that the ordinary member or ordinary citizen is well informed regarding it. In my opinion, the admission was a confession of utter lack of comprehension of the matter. Mr. Haultain's draft Bill practically contains the whole question. The whole question is made up of details. Although there is a sentimental side to it, it is essentially a matter of business to the people of the North-west. When speaking of a province, we are not dealing with an empty name. When a province is formed, the people will assume serious and heavy responsibilities. Whereas at the present time this parliament is under the responsibility of meeting the cost of our local government, with a provincial establishment the people of the territories would themselves have to bear that responsibility ; and, as has been stated by the hon. member for Alberta, the measure of their duties and their ability to meet those responsibilities will uepend upon the terms granted by this parliament when the province or provinces will be established. If the people have not adequate sources of revenue, they will be unable to enjoy the advantages of good government in its full sense. Now, in stating that I am really repeating what the Prime Minister of the territories says almost every time he speaks on the question. In the speech of 1900, from which the hon. leader of the opposition quoted, Mr. Haultain said : 1 would like it to be understood very distinctly that when I have ever expressed an opinion in favour of the establishment of provincial institutions it was always coupled with a very strong proviso that the proper financial terms are attached. I would never consent for one moment, if my consent were necessary, to the establishment of a province or provinces even under the terms and conditions granted to

436}

the province of Manitoba. When I say that I believe the time has come for the establishment of provincial institutions it is always coupled with the statement that with these institutions there must be given means for carrying them on.

Thus as the hon. member for Alberta said, the details, the terms, are the essence of the whole question. On the trip which the hon. leader of the opposition made through the west last fall, a slight change of mind was worked on him with regard to the importance of matters of detail in relation to this question. On one very important detail then he expressed himself clearly in the North-west Territories, just as he has done here, and, on behalf of the Northwest Territories, I wish to take occasion to thank the hon. leader of the opposition for the expression of opinion which he gave in favour of the view which we in that country unanimously take, that When a province is formed it is only fair, just and proper that the lands, timber and mineral resources in that province should be handed over to the people dwelling there to be managed and owned by them. This should be done in the North-west Territories in the same way as in every other part of the Dominion, except in the province of Manitoba which was formed when the Conservative party was in power. But on several of the other items of detail my hon. friend carefully avoided giving any expression of opinion when he was in the west last fall, as he has done on this occasion. I was in hopes when my hon. friend gave notice of this motion that he had made up his mind to give a definite opinion upon some of the details which he had failed to give in the west. At Qu'Appelle he was asked if he supported our claim to compensation for the lands which had been alienated for federal purposes and I can assure my hon. friend that the people In the audience went away without really knowing what his answer meant, whether the reply was that he would support them in their demands for compensation or not. These were the words of his reply :

In regard to the alienation of the lands, of course the question why they have been alienated should be asked and I answer that Manitoba and the North-west should receive compensation for such lands as had been alienated for exclusively Dominion purposes.

At Regina also he answered a similar question by stating in regard to compensation for lands : ,

In regard to the compensation for lands which had been alienated it would of course be necessary to consider the purpose for which they had been alienated.

Now, I venture to say that that was uot a very clear statement and that in reality the people at Qu'Appelle and Regina went away without knowing exactly where the leader of the opposition stood on this exceedingly important item, this supremely important item in the demand made by the

people of the west for provincial autonomy. My hon. friend wants to know why these lands were alienated. Surely it is a little late for my lion friend to be asking that question. Some of the new settlers in the west might ask this question without creating any surprise, but surely it is a late date for the leader of the Conservative party, the party which alienated the lands contrary to the interests and well-Ibeing of the people of the west and of the whole of Canada, to be asking in this year of grace why these lands in the west were alienated and given away to railway companies. We may diff er as to the wisdom and policy pursued by the Conservative party, but the thing is done, there is no need (o ask any questions about the lands being alienated, and is not my hon. friend able to say now whether he thinks they were alienated for federal purposes or for some other purpose? Surely the building of railways is a federal undertaking ; these railways were authorized to be built by parliament and the aid was voted by parliament, so that surely they are federal undertakings. The people in the west had the idea that my hon. friend was simply evading the question by a quibble. Let me explain to my hon. friend how serious this question is and why it is viewed so seriously by the people of the west. The total areas of lands which were voted away by the Conservative party to railway companies was 56,082,072 acres. Now the roads constructed with this in the North-west amounted to 1,606 miles and in Manitoba 1,217 miles. Northwest land was taken to construct roads in Ontario and the mileage in Ontario is 650 miles and in British Columbia it is 253 miles. By these various items railway companies in the North-west Territories, Manitoba, Ontario and British Columbia have earned 29,986.826 acres of land mostly in the Northwest Territories. Part of this area of land is in Manitoba, but the North-west Territories furnish all the lands earned by the roads in the North-west Territories, British Columbia and Ontario and a portion of the land for the roads constructed in Manitoba. In Manitoba 2,699,230 acres are patented and perhaps another million of acres will be selected there, so that the Territories will have furnished more than 26,000,000 of the total 30,000,000 acres of land furnished by the public to these companies. The territories therefore furnish about 86 per cent of the land earned by railway companies, yet only 43 per cent of the land aided railways were built in the territories, 1,606 miles out of a total of 3,741 miles which were aided by land grants. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) at Begina said :

The policy to the west ought to be one of generosity, and such is the policy of the Conservative party.

Generosity to the railway companies, generosity to Ontario, to British Columbia, to Manitoba if you like ; our lands were taken

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

to build roads in all of these provinces, our lands were taken to make these railway corporations rich, but surely it is a little too much to ask the people of the North-west Territories to believe that the policy of the Conservative party in this respect has been one that can be properly classed as a generous policy towards the people of the Northwest Territories. If the Conservative party had remained in power another five years and had continued that policy of generosity there would be practically no public lands in the North-west Territories at the present time to have any dispute about. Even as it is of our lands that may be said to be ' fairly fit for settlement, but little remains outside of the even-numbered sections, as was proved by the case of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Company. The company were going to enter a suit in the Exchequer Court against the government to avoid being compelled to take the only land that was available for the purposes of their land grants which they said was not fit for settlement. Mr. Haultain says, and I say, and I think every man of the North-west will say, that these lands voted to railway companies were lands voted for federal purposes and that there is no possibility of any real dispute with regard to the purposes for which the lands were voted.

When a railway is aided with a cash vote by the federal government, every person in the Dominion contributes to that vote. But when the land of the North-west is taken for this purpose, only the people of the North-west contribute to the aid so given. I repeat, let the leader of the opposition, the leader of the Conservative party in the Dominion, state, so that the people of this country and especially the people of the North-west Territories can understand what he means, that the 26,000,000 acres of the North-west Territories land given to railway companies, alienated for federal purposes, are to be taken into account and that the North-west Territories are to be compensated for these lands-a statement that he failed to make when in the west, that he does not make here and that is not contained in his amendment to this motion for supply. He must recognize that his general statement in favour of autonomy is not worth very much to the people of the Northwest Territories unless he goes further, as lie was pressed to do by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and makes it known to the public just what he means by autonomy, and what position we shall occupy with regard to financial ability to carry on our local government, if we get the autonomy to which he thinks we are entitled. The hon. gentleman cannot this year claim ignorance of details, because he lias Mr. Haultain's draft Bill before him. I will ask the hon. gentleman as the hon. member for Alberta asked him.whether he is willing to support Mr. Haultain and the member for Alberta and myself in favour of the

propositions of this draft Bill, propositions that, I believe, are supported by all the people of the North-west. For I do not agree with all my colleagues from the Northwest on this point, but believe that Mr. Haultain's proposals are approved with practical unanimity by the people of the North-west. Until the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is willing to say that he will stand by these propositions, until he is prepared to say that if we are granted autonomy it will be by the assistance of his vote for these terms, he can hardly command the support of those of us from the North-west Territories, and he can hardly command the support of the voters of the North-west who approve the details of Mr. Haultain's draft Bill.

Now, I made reference a few minutes ago to a condition which had arisen and which made it wise, in my opinion to delay for this year, granting autonomy to the North-west. That new condition is the judgment given by the Supreme Court of Manitoba in March last upon the test case con-ceruing the Canadian Pacific Railway land tax exemption. And, in my view this is a very important consideration. Even in the view of the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories at least a very short time ago this was a very important consideration. In the explanatory part of his draft Bill prepared less than two years ago he says :

The effect of these exemptions is to prohibit any province which may be established, or any municipal corporation therein, from requiring the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to assist in the ' administration ' of the country or the maintenance of 'peace, order and good government ' within its bounds with respect to a part of its property for ever and with respect to another part for a limited period of time. This exemption falls hardly upon the people of the North-west Territories in a number of ways. The nature of the land grant to the company, in that it is spread over the whole country in small blocks of one mile square, alternating with those open for homesteads, causes every dollar spent by a settler in the improvement of his homestead, where it lies within the districts reserved for the selection of the land granted on account of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to enhance the value of the lands "held for the company in its neighbourhood. All public expenditures made in such districts for roads, bridges and other works of a similar description improve the value of the lands still held by the company under its main line grant, the company contributing nothing on account of such lands towards the cost of the works by reason of which they are benefited.

Further down in the same document be speaks of these exemptions as making an extraordinary burden on the people of the North-west Territories. Until six months ago, when this judgment of the Manitoba Supreme Court was given, nobody bad ever thought to question the right of the Canadian Pacific Railway to exemption from taxation in the territories, as respects its right of way and railway property, from

the time the road was built and for ever, nor the right of the company to exemption from taxation as respects its lands for a period of twenty years. The date of commencement of the twenty years period was disputed, but not the right of exemption for twenty years.

The trial of the test case has brought to light an exceedingly important and entirely new contention in behalf of the North-west Territories, namely that so long as that area remains in its present position the company is entitled by law and under its contract with parliament to no exemption either as to its roadbed or lands, and that in reality it has never had a right to exemption from taxation in the territories, and never will until that area is given the status of a province.

And as concerns schools, the Supreme Court of Manitoba upheld the contention, and this year all the land and all other property of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the North-west Territories are held liable for school taxation.

The court did not express an opinon as to whether the company is equally liable to municipal or direct government taxation- the North-west Territories case before the court was the case of a school district only- but the judgment given on the school case leaves little room for doubt that the court would give the same judgment as regards municipal and government taxation.

Now, upon a legal question of this kind I speak with some hesitation, not being a lawyer, and I have been careful to put on paper just what I wish to say so that I may make no error. But, I followed closely the press reports of the argument at the trial in Winnipeg. I have also seen the judgment. And before judgment was given I met Mr. Howell, counsel for the government and for the North-west people, who kindly took the trouble to explain to me the contentions he advanced in behalf of the North west Territories. I believe I have grasped the main features, which are as I have described.

He contended that with .respect of school taxation, before the Canadian Pacific Railway contract and Act were passed in 1881, granting exemption from taxation ' by the Dominion or by any province thereafter to be established, or by any municipal corporation therein,' an Act (North-west Territories Act, 43 Victoria, chapter 25) was in force, and under section 10 power to assess and collect school rates was conferred. Therefore, the Dominion government had already delegated taxing power to at least this extent, and, the Canadian Pacific Railway contract not providing for the abrogation of such .power on the part of the North-west Territories the power and right to levy taxes was not cancelled by the Canadian Pacific Railway Act, which Act therefore must be considered, as far as exemption is concerned, as subject to the right already conferred upon the North-west Territories in this respect. The

court upheld the contention, and the judgment means that the company enjoys no exemption from school taxation.

The feature that concerns this autonomy question is this-that upon the creation of a province parliament would become liable, under the contract, to secure and safeguard the company in the exemptions granted in the contract. The language of the contract means plainly that the Dominion government or parliament will not tax for twenty years the lands and for ever will not tax the other property of the company, nor permit such taxation to be levied in any province whenever such is created ; in other words, parliament contracted with the company to restrict the taxing powers of any new province.

When new territory was added to Manitoba this provision of the contract was observed, and the company was safeguarded against taxation as agreed. The added portion was brought under provincial status, and specifically made subject to the exemption provision of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract.

It is true that the North-west Territories urge that when they made a province it shall not be subject to the Canadian Pacific Railway exemptions.

This feature of the autonomy problem tends to prove the wisdom of the words used by the Minister of the Interior last year respecting the advisability of taking time to develop a full, general and popular understanding of the question. If the settlement with the North-west Territories had been made last year I very much fear, in view of the lack of full comprehension by parliament of the details of the whole matter, that the Canadian! Pacific Railway would have been left in enjoyment of its contract rights, no matter how unfair as against the people of the new province, and that the new province would have been in the same position as the added portion of Manitoba, which, by the Manitoba Supreme Court judgment, is left under the exemption handicap for twenty years as to lands and for ever as to roadbed. It is for this reason that I think it is extremely fortunate that autonomy was not granted us last year.

I have ink the slightest hesitation in declaring that it is vastly better for us to await autonomy two or three years, and finally obtain it free from these exemptions than to obtain it immediately with the heavy handicap of the exemptions.

I have already occupied so much time, and the hour is so late, at this late stage of the session, that I do not feel justified in going as fully into the question as otherwise I would feel it incumbent upon me to do. Let me say, in conclusion, that in face of the position of this Canadian Pacific Railway tax matter, in view of the millions of acres of land that ar,e involved, of the millions of value in railway property of the company that are involved, if appears to me that the people of the North-west would be Mr. SCOTT.

simply crazy at present to accept autonomy unless driven to it as a last resort-and we are not driven to the last resort this year because our immediate financial needs are fairly well met; the lack of the borrowing power remedied by the capital advance method ; and little room for complaint is left us as regards railways. Such being the case, I- certainly approve of delay until all doubts as to the Canadian Pacific Railway tax question is removed. I hope this doubt will not exist very long, I hope the case will soon be settled by a judgment of the Privy Council. Possibly it may be too much to hope that it may be settled before next year, because the law courts move slowly. But the position I take is that the government should obtain from the Privy Council a final decision upon this Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption, and that as soon as it is obtained the people of the North-west should be granted provincial autonomy.

House divided on amendment (Mr. Borden, Plalifax) :

TEAS : Messieurs

Alcorn, Gourley,

Avery, Hackett,

Ball, Haggart,

Barker, Henderson,

Blain, Kaulbach,

Borden (Halifax), Lancaster,

Boyd, MacLaren (Perth),

Broder, McGowan,

Bruce, Morin,

Carseallen, Pope,

Casgrain, Roche (Marquette),

Clancy, Sproule,

Clare, Wilmot,

Clarke, Cochrane, Wilson-29.

NAYS : Messieurs

Bazinet, Mackie,

Beith, Macpherson,

Bernier, McCool,

Bourassa, McCreary,,

Brown, McGugan,

Bruneau, Mclsaac,

Bureau, Madore,

Campbell, Marci'l (Bagot),

Champagne, Marcil (Bonaventure)

Christie, Matheson,

Davis, Mayrand,

Delisle, Mignault,

Demers (Ldvis), Morrison,

Desjardins, Oliver,

Dugas, Parmelee,

Erb, Paterson,

Fielding, Prefontaine,

Fisher, P-roulx,

Fitzpatrick, Reid (Restigouche),

Fortier, Roche (Halifax),

Galliher, Ross (Ontario),

Gauvreau, Ross (Rimouski),

Geoffrion, Rousseau,

Gibson, Schell,

Grant, Scott,

Holmes, Sutherland (Oxford),

Kendall, Tobin.

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Turcot,

Lavergne, Turgeon,

Leblanc, Wallace,

Lemieux, Loy, Wright.-63.

PAIRS :

Ministerial. Opposition.

Calvert, Taylor,

Logan, Lefurgey,

Hyman, Gilmour,

Johnston (Lambton), Simmons,

McColl, Ward,

Fraser, Bell,

Guthrie, Porter,

Cowan, Pringle,

Costigan, Hale,

Gould, Thomson (Grey),

Heyd, Tolton,

Mulock, Brock,

Talbot, LaRiviSre,

Ross (Victoria), Bennett,

Copp, Calvin,

Girard, Leonard,

Monk, Meigs,

Thompson (Haldimand), Ingram,

Cartwright, Tupper,

Dyment, McCormick,

Emmerson, Fowler,

Charlton, Tisdale, [DOT]

Sutherland (Esex), Northrup,

Harty, Reid (Grenville),

Wade, Smith (Wentworth),

Riley, Earle,

Maclaren (Huntingdon), Rosamond,

Stephens, Seagram,

Belcourt, McIntosh,

Stewart, Halliday,

Blair, Roddick,

Borden (Sir F.), Birkett,

Johnston (Cape Breton). Culbert,

McCarthy, Maclean,

Power, Osier,

Amendment negatived ; motion agreed to, and House went into. Committee of Supply.

Progress reported.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink

ADJOURNMENT-INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.


The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.


CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Perhaps my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid La urier) will not forget the correspondence which he promised to lay on the Table in connection with the agreement between the Department of the Interior and the North Atlantic Transportation Company.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   ADJOURNMENT-INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

I will keep it in mind. I have some correspondence here which may be a little late in regard to the autonomy of the provinces. I have had it recast and will now put it on the Table of the House, and perhaps it may be printed again. .

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   ADJOURNMENT-INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Perhaps it would be better with this belated additional material to repeat the debate to-morrow. I would like to ask my right hon. friend what business will be taken up to-morrow ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   ADJOURNMENT-INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

Supply.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Subtopic:   ADJOURNMENT-INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Permalink

October 13, 1903