July 13, 1908

CON

John Waterhouse Daniel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DANIEL.

Would the minister allow me a question? He said that there was nothing in this measure to affect the representation. I would like Mm to say whether, in his opinion, it is possible to increase the area of the province of Quebec without affecting the representation of every province in the Dominion?

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Does not my hon. friend see that all this resolution does is simply to commit parliament to an expression of an opinion as to what would be the proper boundaries of the different provinces? It does not in any way determine the terms and conditions upon which the boundaries are to be enlarged. It expressly provides :

That, upon the legislature of the province of Quebec consenting thereto, it is expedient to extend the boundaries of the said province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature and by parliament.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

Oswald Smith Crocket

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROCKET.

And without any stipulation with respect to its effect upon the representation of the other provinces.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

It seems to me that my hon. friend does not wish to understand the meaning of this clause. It expressly reserves to parliament the right to stipulate as to the terms and conditions upon which

the boundaries shall be enlarged. I was going to say, speaking for myself individually, and as a representative of the maritime provinces, that I would hope that when these boundaries are extended, and when this proposition is crystallized by an Act of parliament, the larger provinces, including the province of Quebec, would be generous enough to agree that the representation of the smaller provinces shall be restored to what it was at the time of confederation.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAGGART.

Would you have power to do that without an alteration of the Imperial Act?

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

It is very clear that the British North America Act will have to be altered; but I presume that an expression of opinion from the various provinces through their legislatures, and the consent thereto by this parliament, would be all that would be necessary in order to have the imperial parliament make such an alteration. But of course that is only my individual view, which I put forward as a representative of one of the maritime provinces. But failing that, I would feel, while not pretending to any great knowledge of constitutional law, even if there were no provision made with regard to representation, that when we come to interpret the law- and that would arise when the next census was taken and the question of representation would again come up

Quebec, for the purposes of representation, would mean Quebec as it existed at the time of confederation. If Newfoundland were to come into the confederation as a part of the province of Quebec, how absurd it would be to contend that Quebec would then mean the added territory of Newfoundland.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

No, it has not been so decided. All that was decided in the representation case to which I have just referred was that under the terms of the British North America Act it was contemplated that Rupert's Land should be brought into the confederation, and that the word Canada, whenever we came to interpret its meaning, would be Canada as it might exist from time to time. But that is a very different question from the question of what would be the province of Quebec for the purposes of representation. Apart altogether from the legal view, I would hope that if the representation of the smaller provinces might not be restored when we come to consider definitely the terms of the extension of boundaries, it would be provided, so that there would be no doubt about it, that for the purposes of representation the province' of Quebec should mean that province, as it existed at the time of confederation, and that the added portion of the province should have its

additional representation based upon population just the same as in the case of the other provinces.

At one o'clock, House took recess.

House resumed at three o'clock.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).

At this late stage of the session I do not propose to claim the attention of the House, even on so important a resolution as this, for more than a few minutes. I think the government are certainly deserving of serious condemnation for their procrastination in bringing down even this resolution-to say nothing of the Bill that was promised-not only in the dying days of the session but in its very dying hours. When we look at the speech from the Throne delivered last November and see that amongst the Bills promised to be brought down this session is one for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, and yet we And that far on in the eighth month of the season, the Bill is not introduced but we have only a resolution declaring that certain boundaries shall be carried into effect. I think I put it mildly when I say that such procrastination on the part of the government in so important a matter is certainly deserving of censure. X do not think that the excuse given, or the reason assigned by the government, that the legislature of Manitoba, had, at its last session, varied its demands to a certain extent in regard to these boundaries is one that will appeal to the members of this House, or to the country, as being sufficient to justify this procrastination. We must take into consideration the fact that the latest memorial of the legislature of Manitoba I had the honour to present four or five months ago. And surely in that time, on a matter which, no doubt, has engaged the serious attention of the government in the past, there was no reason to postpone action until the very fast week of the session. I desire to give briefly the historical facts of this boundary question : Successive legislatures of Manitoba have dealt with this matter, and always in a non-partisan and nonpolitical way, so that resolutions passed relating to the boundaries of the province of Manitoba have been, almost without exception, passed unanimously. Manitoba entered confederation in 1870, with an estimated population .of 17.000 and having at that time an area of 13,500 square miles. It is true that we had some addition to our western boundaries which increased our territory to 73,700 square miles, a large proportion of which is water. That area was afterwards enlarged in the manner that I shall advert to in a few' moments. The first resolution passed in the legislature of Manitoba, subsequent to confederation asking for an extension of boundaries was passed in 1873, and an Act received the assent of the Lieutenant Governor in 1873 praying for the further extension of our boundaries. So far Mr. PUGSLEY.

as relates to the eastern territory, it asks practically the same amount of territory as in the recent resolution passed by the legislature and presented in the form of a memorial to this parliament. This request of 1873, had it been carried into effect, would have given us a port on Hudson bay and also a port on Lake Superior. So far as I can judge, the people west of the great lakes are, territorially in sympathy with and are united in interest with, the west. I believe that the people, in their ideas, are decidedly western. I had the honour to address a meeting in the city of Port Arthur four years ago and nothing that I said seemed to meet more the approbation of the electors than the declaration of my opinion that that part of the country, now in Ontario, was essentially western country and should have been left to the province of Manitoba. And I believe the feeling of the people thus indicated has not changed to the present day. The request of the legislature of Manitoba, if granted, would have given the province of Manitoba an area of 279,000 square miles. The second resolution passed by the legislature asking for an extension of boundaries was passed on April 26, 1875, and practically endorsed the resolution of two years previous. Then, on February 13, 1880, Mr. Greenway, leader of the opposition in the legislature, moved that a memorial be presented to the Dominion parliament asking for the extension of Manitoba's boundaries and that a deputation should proceed to Ottawa to lay the case of Manitoba before the members of the Dominion government. This resolution was passed unanimously and a deputation was sent east to interview the government. As a result, a Bill was introduced into Canada called the Campbell Bill. Sir Alexander Campbell was a minister in Sir John Macdonald's government. He introduced in the Senate a Bill providing for the extension of Manitoba's eastern boundary to harmonize with a line drawn due north from the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi river, which would run in the neighbourhood of Port Arthur and up to Hudson bay. This, had it passed, would have given Manitoba an additional 154,411 square miles. But this measure was taken exception to by the then Ontario government. Sir Oliver Mowat claimed that a portion of the territory- only a portion, however-was wrongly handed over to Manitoba and in reality belonged to Ontario. As a result, there was an appeal to the Privy Council of Great Britain. That was not decided till the year 1884. The result of that appeal was that there were some 39,000 square miles handed over to the province of Ontario. This was a part of the 154,411 square miles which was, by the Campbell Act, handed over to Manitoba. There was also 40,000 square miles in Keewatin recognized as undisputed territory, and lying north of what was then considered the northern boundary of On-

tario. The Ontario legislature agreed unanimously that it should go to the province of Manitoba. Now, I would point out that the Privy Council not only decided the western boundary of Ontario, but its northern boundary as well. I think that anybody who will read the resolution and the despatches that passed between the government of Ontario and the Secretary of State of the Dominion, and the Bill passed by the imperial government, will see that the northern boundary of Ontario was Lac Senl, Lake Joseph and the Albany river-all south of that line was to be in the province of Ontario. In 1901 a resolution was passed unanimously by the Manitoba legislature, moved by the present Judge Myers, then a representative of the constituency in which X reside, and seconded by the member for Dauphin. In 1902, the present leader of the Manitoba government moved a resolution seconded by the then member for Dauphin, the present member for Dauphin in this House (Mr. Burrows) that the boundaries of Manitoba shall be extended northward to Hudson bay and also to include a portion of Assiniboia. Polowing that there was action taken in the sessions of 1905, 1900 and 1907, all asking for much the same thing, at any rate asking for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. And up to this time, not one Inkling had the people of Manitoba or of Canada that the province of Ontario laid any claim to territory in Kee-watin not given them by the decision of the Privy Council in 1884. Up to the time of the introduction of the Autonomy Bills introduced in 1895, no claim was made by any public man or by the legislature of Ontario by any resolution upon one acre of land in what was known as the undisputed territory. On the contrary a resolution had been passed as I have said, by the legislature of Ontario, declaring that they welcomed the addition of this area In what was known as the undisputed territory to the province of Manitoba. It was only this 39.000 square miles adjudicated upon by the Privy Council and handed over to the province of ^Ontario that Ontario claimed, aud that province appeared to be perfectly satisfied. and stated in so many words that that boundary was established now and forever. I do not blame the premier of Ontario for the action he has taken. No public man occupying the position of premier of so important a province as Ontario could ignore the invitation practically extended to him by the Prime Minister of Canada to claim a portion of this territory which formerly the legislature of Ontario had declared to belong to the province of Manitoba.

Now the Prime Minister, when he was introducing his Automony Bill, stated that this territory was a very important portion of the Dominion of Canada, that Ontario had something to say, that Manitoba had [DOT] something to say, that even Saskatchewan should be consulted, nay, he even went further, and said that the province of Quebec was entitled to take part in the disposition of the territory of Iveewatin. Now what on earth has Quebec got to do with Keewatin? The hon. gentleman himself recognized the absurdity of calling in the province of Quebec as to the disposition of this portion of Keewatin, and he afterwards withdrew from that ground, properly taking into consideration that in the year 1898, not 1896 as stated by the Prime Minister, a Bill passed this parliament, agreed to by the province of Quebec, interfered with by no other province, giving a portion of Ungava to the province of Quebec. Manitoba was not asked to a conference with regard to the division of Ungava and an addition to Quebec, Ontario was not invited, and by an arrangement made between this parliament and the parliament of Quebec, an Act was passed by this government in the year 1898, giving Ungava to Quebec. The Prime Minister does not seem to agree with that.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

The resolution was passed on July 6, 1896.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).

But it was in 1898 that the Bill was passed introduced by the then Minister of the Interior. But the point I desired to make was that no person was invited to the conference, no other province at that time. Why should Quebec be asked as to the disposition of Keewatin, as the Prime Minister suggested in 1905? However, he retraced his steps so far as that province is concerned, aud he did call a conference of the premiers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Of the result of that conference and of the policy of the government, we have been left in entire ignorance up to this moment, up to the time the Prime Minister made his speech to-day, and he divulged but very little, even of the proceedings of that conference, in his speech to-day. I think it would have been an act of courtesy to the premiers of those provinces who came here and sat in solemn conclave with the Prime Minister and his colleagues, that the Prime Minister and his colleagues should have notified them what decision the government had come to as a result of that conference. The Prime Minister of Saskatchewan, I believe, has been interviewed, and has stated that he knew nothing of the result of that conference, that he had received no intimation. Certainly the Prime Minister of Manitoba has publicly stated the same, aud so has the Prime Minister of Ontario. But that conference was held, and as a result the Prime Minister comes down to-day with a resolution, not a Bill. We do not know when a Bill will be produced before this House. But in my opinion the government, seeing some embarrassment in store had a Bill been presented to parliament, desire to place themselves , in a position that they may make a double-faced appeal to the country! This resolution provides for no speci-

fic thing. A Bill would have had to provide for the granting of certain powers and privileges in regard to the people resident in the portion of the territory that will be added either to one province or the other. So the Prime Minister, in the dying days of the session, has introduced a resolution merely, and with the object no doubt of allowing his followers to go before the people and to explain what they are going to do after the elections-because this is a sure precursor, in my opinion, of an election between now and another session; and true to their old time policy, they will make one appeal to a certain class of people, for instance, as to educational matters, and another and entirely different appeal to another class of people of different views. This has been /an embarrassing question in the [DOT] way of bringing down a Bill, and therefore a resolution is substituted.

Now the Ontario government passed, in 1882, as I say, a resolution approving of the undisputed territory being added to the province of Manitoba. This resolution was passed on March 9, 1882:

That the extension of Manitoba by the federal Act of last session receives, so far as the territory added is undisputed, the hearty approbation of the inhabitants of Ontario.

The disputed part is that part that was won by Ontario in an appeal to the Privy Council; the undisputed part was that lying north of the Albany river, and the legislature of Ontario gave their hearty approval to that being given to the province of Manitoba. But on the invitation of the Prime Minister of Canada they have now put in a claim for this very same territory that the legislature of Ontario claimed should properly belong to Manitoba. It is true that the province of Manitoba, through their legislature, has made a somewhat different appeal in their latest memorial, to that submitted to this parliament in days gone by. But there has been a reason. The Prime Minister has quoted myself as saying that in giving any additional territory to Manitoba there should be a provision for handing over the public lands to that province, and that is very true. Our claim has always been that the public lands shall be handed over to the province. But we recognized, taking into consideration that the two new provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan. were refused the power, there was no possibility of Manitoba getting that power at the present time and it would be somewhat of an anomaly if the province of Manitoba had not jurisdiction over all the public lands, having a divided authority, one portion of the land being administered from Ottawa and the other portion from Winnipeg. We recognized that anomalous position. and we therefore asked for the same terms and conditions that were accorded to the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. In that I am in accord with the Mr. W. J. ROCHE.

legislature of Manitoba, and it is my desire, as a representative of that province, to back up her policy on the floor of parliament.

Now Ontario has been increased in area since confederation from 109,480 square miles to 260,862 square miles, not taking into consideration what is proposed to be added at the present time, which, as the Prime Minister says, is in the neighbourhood of 140,000 square miles, which would make Ontario in the neighbourhood of 400,000 square miles. The province of Quebec has been increased since confederation from 193,355 square miles to 351,873 square miles, the second largest* in area at the present time in the Dominion of Canada.' By this resolution there will be added to it, in round numbers, 466,000 square miles which will make the province of Quebec of the enormous area of 817,873 square miles. It is an enormous area, out of all proportion to the other provinces, and I think that some greater respect should have been shown to approximate uniformity in the area of the provinces. But as a result of this proposition, while Ontario and Quebec have these large additions, Manitoba has 80,679 square miles less than she had in 1891. Now that is a very serious condition for the province of Manitoba to be in. She has that much less than in 1881 was acorded her by the Campbell Act. The two new provinces have in the neighbourhood of 250,000 square miles, with a population less than the province of Manitoba to-day. In 1881, when this addition of territory by the Campbell Act was given to Manitoba, and which was taken away afterwards by the decision of the Privy Council, Manitoba's area was 62,260 square miles. But Manitoba has increased since confederation from 13,500 square miles to its present area of 73,732, an increase of only 60,232 square miles, while her population has increased from 17,000 to close on 400,000. So I think she has been very unfairly treated, and deserves better consideration at the hands of this parliament.

I am not going to discuss the financial question at all. Apparently, however,' the government have made up their mind not to accede to the request of the memorial presented to this parliament by the legislature this session, otherwise they would have brought down a Bill giving the same terms as had been accorded by the Autonomy Bill to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. But, inasmuch as it is to be left to negotiations to be carried on between representatives of the Dominion government and representatives of the provincial government and as I have every confidence that our provincial interests will be safeguarded in that respect by those in authority at the present time in the province of Manitoba, I am not going to enter into a discussion of the financial aspects of the matter farther than to enter my protest that the province-has not been fairly dealt with in not hav-

ing the memorial acceded to and in not being given the same terms as those that are accorded to the sister provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

As far as the lands are concerned, I have already referred to that feature of the case. The new provinces were refused their lands, Ontario getting this additional territory, will get the land and everything else. On the other hand, Manitoba, not being handed over the land, the financial aspect of the case will have to be taken into account to compensate the province for the retention of this land by the Dominion government, and I trust that when the representatives of the provinces and the Dominion meet once more the Dominion government will see its way clear to do justice to the province of Manitoba on the question of finance.

I desire to say a word with reference to the fact that no Bill has been presented. There is absolutely no excuse, no justification why we should not have had a Bill presented to this House so as to submit It to the next legislature of Manitoba for consideration.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Onésiphore Ernest Talbot

Liberal

Mr. TALBOT.

Why did you waste so much time on the Manitoba Election Act?

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).

* If the hon. gentleman will consult his leader he will know that the time'was not wasted. The time was utilized to very good purpose, because we succeeded in convincing the Prime Minister, the hon. gentleman's leader, if we did not convince the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot), that he was on the wrong tack and he had the wisdom to accede to the request made by members of the opposition from the province of Manitoba. When the new Northwest Territories Bill was being passed in 1905 a strange thing happened that I have referred to before in this parliament, and it was this: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, then Minister of Justice, in forming the new Northwest Territories, specially omitted the district of Keewatin from the new territories, and he gave us his reason for so doing. It had been under the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba for upwards of twenty-five years and it was known that there was no necessity for adding that to the territories which he was forming by the Act then before the House. They were allowed still to remain under the jurisdiction of Manitoba. That Bill passed parliament in the session of 1905, but a strange thing happened. Within four days after the closing of parliament, by a proclamation, Keewatin was added to the new Northwest Territories. What for? No satisfactory explanation has been given to the people of the country up to the present time why this was done. But, the people of Manitoba know why it was done, and that

is tue reason why there has been no Bill introduced to extend the boundaries of Manitoba at this session. The Prime Minister pointed out that the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan must have their educational systems continued as they existed in the Northwest Territories under the old Northwest Territories Act. He made his whole plea on constitutional grounds. In order to have the same educational powers conferred upon the district of Keewatin, after parliament closed in 1905, by proclamation of the Governor in Council, he added the Keewatin district which had been especially exempted in the Northwest Territories Act so as to fasten that same system of education upon that added territory. He is now face to face with another school question that he has not the courage to grapple with prior to an election, and he is going to allow his supporters to go out amongst the people and tell those who are in favour of separate schools: It is all right; Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in a very embarrassing position, it was immediately prior to an election, but after the election he is going to give separate schools to the people of the Territories; whilst his other supporters who are not in accord with that view, such as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Jackson), will tell a different story. The hon. member for Selkirk for the last four or five years has been telling the people of Manitoba that the boundaries were to be extended. On two different occasions he gave public expression, if reported correctly in the Winnipeg Liberal paper, to the idea that the boundary' of Manitoba was to be extended northward and eastward. It is because of that very same action of this government in issuing that proclamation and bringing into effect the old Northwest educational clauses in connection with the school difficulty that the government have been procrastinating, dilly-dallying with this question and postponing it. They are going to the country with every pledge of their party unfulfilled, face to face with this question that they dare not grapple with, and they are going to try to hoodwink the people by telling two different stories according to the views of the people with whom they are dealing. That is in my opinion an objection that I wish to give expression to on the floor of parliament. I am not going to occupy any more of the time of the House. This is a very important resolution, and I would have liked more time to go into the details, but I recognize that in the dying days of the session it is not wise to monopolize too much time with any one question. But, as a final appeal I may say that my province, even under the present resolution, is not receiving the justice that it should receive, that the Prime Minister has not dealt fairly with

the province, that he has not dealt coin1- [DOT] ageously with this whole question, that it should not be treated in the double-faced manner in which it has been treated, that, sooner or later, he, or some one following him, will have to face the difficulty, and if it has to be faced it might as well be faced and fought out-in the first place as in the last, and that the people of Manitoba will not be satisfied before they can see the provisions of a Bill submitted to parliament and passed upon by the representatives of the people in this House.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald).

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House will join with me in extending their heartiest congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) upon the rapid strides that he has made towards extending the boundaries of Manitoba. Just think of it; he has led the government for twelve years and in the twelfth year and in the eighth month of a long and tedious session, he has had the courage to introduce a harmless resolution for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. During these twelve years the right hon. gentleman has been besieged by delegations, resolutions and memorials from the province of Manitoba urging him to take some action. Here are we to-day with a resolution which practically provides for nothing in my opinion. There was a time when the boundaries of Manitoba should have been dealt with, should have been extended and that time was on the 21st February, 1905, when the right hon. gentleman introduced the Bill for the creation of the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. That was the time when action should have been taken for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. The same reason prevails to-day for action not being taken as that which prevailed in 1905. Where did you find the Liberal contingent from Manitoba on that day? If the hon. gentlemen who sit behind the right hon. Prime Minister had done their duty in 1905 when the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were being created, the boundaries of Manitoba would have been extended, not only eastward and northward, but westward as well. If the hon. members for LIsgar (Mr. Greenway), Dauphin (Mr. Burrows), Selkirk (Mr. Jackson), and Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford), all supporters of the old Greenway government, gentlemen who sat in the local legislature for years and were parties to the petitions and resolutions that were sent down here asking for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, had taken action at that time, had stood out for the rights of Manitoba, we would have had our boundaries extended and have had all the consideration that the province of Manitoba is entitled to.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. J. ROCHE.

It is true that at that time the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) thumped his uesk and flurried around for a while, but he soon came back to the Liberal fold quite satisfied that things should go on as they were. I trust the Liberal members fi'om the province of Manitoba will now rise in their seats in this House and protest against the procrastination displayed by the government towards the province of Manitoba. It is their duty to insist on the Prime Minister, even at this late hour, bringing down a Bill. It is true that we have been here for eight months, and it has been a long and tedious session, but as one of the representatives of Manitoba, I am prepared to stay here in the interests of the people until we crystalize into legislation that which the people of Manitoba are entitled to. I say to the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister : Bring on your Bill. If that Bill proposes to give us our lands, well and good ; if it proposes to give us a monetary consideration in lieu of lands, let us know it.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Theodore Arthur Burrows

Liberal

Mr. BURROWS.

Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) want the government to submit to parliament an arbitrary measure and force it on the governments of the different provinces without consulting them?

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STAPLES.

The Prime Minister knows right well what the people of Manitoba want, for he has it before him by memorial and resolution. I can tell this House that nothing will be gained by delay, because neither the present government of Manitoba, nor any Liberal government that may succeed it, wall be satisfied unless justice is done the province, and delay will not remove the points of contention. We might just as well deal with the question now as in the future. But what the right hon. gentleman wants is to have this resolution dangled before the eyes of the people as a subterfuge until after the next election, and I presume his followers from Manitoba are satisfied with that. The right hon. gentleman has told us that the province of Manitoba has changed its point of view, and that while formerly they insisted on having their lands now they do not so insist. The right hon. gentleman knows very well that the province of Manitoba has taken this action because he has time after time announced that he could not give the lands to the province, and so they ask, for the present, at all events, that they shall be treated as the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have been treated. As to what may be the attitude of Manitoba when there is a government in power at Ottawa disposed to do justice to that province I am not prepared to say now. For the present we ask that we shall be treated at least as favourably as Alberta and Saskatchewan. And, even though the Prime Minister has announced

that we are within five days of the end of the session, surely he has courage enough to bring in a Bill which will deal with this question from the viewpoint of a statesman. I see the Prime Minister shakes his head. I protest against the delay ; I say this resolution is nothing more than a fake intended to stand off the people until after the election. I want to tell the right hon. gentleman and those who sit behind him that the people of Manitoba will not stand for any such treatment as that, and he will find at the next election they will enter their protest at the polls as I have entered my protest in this House. The right hon. gentleman has tne British North America Act before him ; he knows the wishes of the people of Manitoba, and all they ask is that they be dealt "with under the terms of the constitution. I repeat, in conclusion, that this resolution is merely intended to give the Manitoba liberals something to go on the stump with, and in that light it is a subterfuge and nothing more.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

John Stanfield

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. JOHN STANFIELD (Colchester).

In view of the fact that this proposal of the government is to give additional territory to the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, I think it is a fitting time for the people of the maritime provinces to ask that some safeguards be provided against the ruthless cutting down of their representation in this House of Commons. I am strongly of opinion that no justice can be done the people of the maritime provinces until their representation in this House is restored to tiiat which it was before 1896. I do not think any member of this parliament will deny that the people of the maritime provinces are entitled to the representation which they understood they would have when they entered confederation, and with that end in view I move :

That the proposed resolution be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:

Be it further resolved that the extension of the boundaries provided for by this resolution should be accompanied by such conditions as will prevent such extensions prejudicially affecting the representation of any province in parliament.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

Angus Alexander McLean

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.).

I have great pleasure in seconding the resolution moved by the hon. member for Colchester. The House will observe that the resolution proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister opens with this paragraph :

That it is expedient that the prayer of the said petitions should be acceded to, and that upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislative assembly and by parliament, the boundaries of Manitoba be extended as follows:

The northern boundary to be the sixtieth parallel of latitude; the western boundary to be the present eastern boundary line of the province of Saskatchewan to the said sixtieth parallel; the eastern boundary to be the present eastern boundary as far north as the northeast corner of the province, thence on a straight line to the most eastern point of Island lake, and thence on a straight line to the point where the eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the shore line of Hudson bay.

And then with reference to the terms

And be it further resolved:

That, upon the legislature of the province of Quebec consenting thereto, it is expedient to extend the boundaries of the said province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature and by parliament, so as to include all the territory to the north of the said province now known as Ungava, and extending to the waters of James bay and Hudson bay and the entrance thereto from the sea.

The provisions of the resolution respecting Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are practically the same, with the exception that the lands to be granted to Ontario and Quebec are to be given absolutely to these provinces without condition, whereas the lands added to Manitoba are to be retained in the possession of the Dominion government and disposed of by them as may be thought proper, while the province has simply the power to administer the civil government in the territory. However, in lieu of the lands Manitoba is' to receive a monetary consideration. The wording of these resolutions is copied in effect from the first lines of section 3 of the amendment of the British North America Act of 1871, which reads as follows:

The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature.

These are the exact words of the resolution as introduced by the Prime Minister. There is another clause in this section of the Act which has been omitted from the resolution, and I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that this clause is permissive. It is permissible to this government to extend the limits of any province ; it is not imperative. Neither is the second part of this section imperative ; it is simply permissive ; and if this resolution should pass without the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) I believe that the condition which is incorporated in it could not be considered by this parliament or by the legislatures of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec in the final settlement of this matter. That condition reads as follows :

And may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.

Wliy did not tlie Prime Minister, in drafting this resolution, include that portion of section 3 of the Act of 1871 ? There is no doubt that such a clause should be incorporated in this resolution, if the increase of territory does affect in any way the status of the other provinces of this Dominion. Here we have an addition of territory given to the province of Manitoba of 180,000 square miles, to the province of Ontario of 140,000 square miles, and to the province of Quebec of 406,000 square miles. Whose property is this ? Has it amy value ? Where is it ? As has been stated by the leader of the opposition, we have had. no maps placed on the table of this House to show the members where this land Is. We know in a general way that there Is a lot of land lying to the north of the province of Quebec, but we have no evidence of the value of that land. We have no evidence of the value of the land to be conceded to the province of Ontario. Before this resolution passes, I think the Prime Minister or some member of his government should inform the members of this House, in order that they may vote Intelligently on this matter, what the value of this property is. Is it worth $1,000,000? Some years ago the United States of America bought some territory in Alaska from the Russian government, paying a very [DOT] small sum of money for It; it was not considered of very great value. Since then that territory has developed rich mines, worth, it is stated, a billion dollars of money. What may be the effect of the exploration of this great country to the north ? I understand that Ungava and ICeewatin have never been explored; and it may be that when these lands have been explored within the next twenty or twenty-five years, they may become of incalculable value to the provinces to which they are granted by this parliament. These lands are owned by the whole Dominion of Canada ; and if they have a value at the present time, the government which is introducing this measure should be able to tell parliament what their value is and to some extent what their prospective value is. Without that information this resolution should not pass. If the other provinces are affected by this resolution, they are affected not only in a monetary way, but also in their representation in this parliament. Quebec, the pivotal province on which the representation is based, will receive this large addition of 466,000 square miles to its territory. This land may within the next few years be teeming with population. You know that years ago it was stated that Manitoba and the Northwest would never be inhabited ; yet I believe that within a very few years the greater part of the population of this country will be living in those western provinces. It may be that a million will be added to the population of Ungava and Mr. A. A. HcLEAH.

ICeewatin within the next twenty or twenty-five years. The effect of that will be that the representation in this House of the maritime provinces, whose territories cajmot be increased, will be greatly diminished. As was stated by the Minister of Finance, the possibility is that within twenty or twenty-five years, as a result of the increase of population in these new territories, the representation of the province of Pyince Edward Island will be diminished to only one. In view of these considerations, we should have conceded to us the representation which we had when we joined the union. I would say further that if these lands, which are to be added to the territories of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, are of any value, all the other provinces which are in any way interested in them, or which are in any way affected by these additions, should receive a proportionate share of the money value of the lands. That should be conceded to them in the final settlement of this matter, when the Bill comes up in parliament at the next or some future session, in accordance with the resolution and the amendment which are before the House.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GEORGE W. FOWLER (Kings and Albert).

Mr. Speaker, while I am in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield), I think that it does not go quite far enough in the direction of meting out justice to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, better known as the maritime provinces. These provinces had a certain representation at the time of confederation. The fathers of confederation in their wisdom thought that there was no danger of our population not keeping pace with the population of Quebec, or falling so far below it that a portion of our federal representation would be lost. Unfortunately that has not proved to be the case ; and but for the fathers of confederation resting upon that idea, some such provision would have been inserted in the British North America Act with reference to those provinces as was afterwards inserted with reference to British Columbia when that province came into confederation, namely, that the representation of British Columbia in the federal House was not to fall below what it was at the time the union was consummated. A similar provision should have been inserted with regard to the maritime provinces; but unfortunately it was not. The principle reason why in the last census the maritime provinces did not show an increase proportionate to that of the province of Quebec is that many people from the maritime provinces, perhaps more largely in proportion than from any other part of Canada, have gone to the Northwest and are helping to build up that country..

When we contribute to the west, as we are

doing, the bone and sinew of our country, our best and most enterprising young men- " because it is the enterprising who leave home to seek their fortunes in the west-and when we thereby find our representation diminished in this parliament, it seems unfair that we should suffer both the loss of these young men and the consequent decrease in our representation, and be given nothing in return. I would have been in favour of a resolution which would provide that when the boundaries of these provinces -I am not confining my remarks to the province of Quebec-but when the boundaries of any province are enlarged, provision should be made that to the maritime provinces should be restored the same federal representation which they had at the time of confederation. That would put us on a fair basis. I want the House to distinctly understand that I have no desire to discriminate against the province of Quebec in any shape or form; my sole desire is that the equilibrium established at confederation should be maintained. That is an important question which is bound to be agitated in tlie future. It is important to the eastern provinces that the present representation of the east at least should not be disturbed.

I understand from what the right lion, gentleman has said that while Manitoba Is to have its territory extended it shall not receive the new lands in fee. They are not to be Crown lands of the province but are to remain subject to the control of the Dominion parliament, whereas in the case of Quebec and Ontario the lands given them are to become Crown lands of the province and be administered by these provinces. And in order to make up to the province of Manitoba for the loss of authority over these new lands, and put it on an equal footing with Ontario and Quebec, it is to receive a money grant. Evidently the First Minister regards these lands as belonging, in the first instance, not to the Dominion but to the several provinces which they adjoin. But surely they belong to the Dominion as a whole. They were purchased by the Dominion. They form part of the purchase by the Dominion at the same time We bought out the Hudson Bay Company. If that be recognized, how is it that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia are to receive no compensation ? Suppose the government were to bring down a resolution to incretise the money subsidies now given Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec, and that the province of British Columbia and the maritime provinces were to be left entirely out of the reckoning, would that be considered just and equitable to these other provinces ? Well, what is the difference between a money and a land subsidy ? Surely these lands are worth something. Surely this territory of Ungava, some 460,000 miles in extent, is of some value. As was pointed out by my hon. friend from Queens, P.E.I.. (Mr. McLean), the territory purchased by 407

the United States from Russia, known as Alaska, was not considered of much value at the time of its purchase. The United States paid only $5,000,000 for it, but it would take a great many times that amount to purchase it back from the United States to-day-not on account of the desire of the Americans not to lose any territory but because of the very great money value of Alaska itself. What reason have we to expect that Ungava shall be less rich in mineral wealth? If it should turn out to be as rich in this respect you are by one stroke of the pen adding to the province of Quebec a tremendous extent of valuable territory and leaving the poor little provinces down by the sea without any compensation at all for the loss they suffer as part of the Dominion. I am surprised that the members of the government from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia did not oppose this thing in council. Perhaps they did; but if they did, I am still more surprised that they did not carry their opposition into effect and refuse to accept such a proposition at all and resign from the government rather than see the provinces they7 represent suffer such an injustice. We form a part of confederation, we are assisting in bearing the burdens of Canada-why then should we be singled out? The two leading povinces of Canada, Quebec and Ontario, are to be given this additional territory. Manitoba has been spoken of as the postage stamp of confederation. But let me remind you that that province is considerably larger than the three maritime provinces taken together. It is larger by one-fourth at least. It comprises 47,000,000 acres as against 32,000,000 acres for the maritime provinces. Yet those three provinces, each much greater in extent and resources than the maritime provinces, are to have all this given them and we are to get nothing. Nothing for the maritime provinces; nothing for British Columbia- though this is not so hard on British Col umbia because that province is very large in extent, and until this addition was made to Quebec, it was the largest in Canada. But the three little provinces down by the sea are to get nothing. Yet they have always cheerfully borne the burdens of confederation, they have always stood for the policy that would build up Canada, they have not been narrow or provincial or ' little Englanders ' in any respect. And it does seem to me, in view of what they have done in the past, that their claims should in justice and equity be considered. If you are going to take from the Dominion territory whicn belongs to the Dominion and give it to these other provinces, you ought to give us compensation. And as there is no way in which you can enlarge our territory, that compensation must take the form of a money grant. I am surprised that the representatives in the government from the province of British Columbia, and more

particularly from the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have not stood up and demanded that their provinces should be given equal justice at the hands of this government.

In point of fact, I do not see the particular necessity of a step of this kind. I do not see why there is any particular need, in the first place, for the Dominion of Canada divesting itself of this territory. I do not see any particular need for adding this territory 'to the already overgrown provinces of Quebec and Ontario ; but since the government have determined to do so, then let the other provinces have fair play and equal justice. Do not do something which will affect the representation from these provinces as it must be affected by the addition of this additional territory to the province of Quebec. That our representation must be affected is a proposition which needs only to be stated to be admitted. This territory of Ungava will no doubt in the near future become inhabited. There is, 1 believe, vast mineral wealth lying undiscovered in that territory.

I believe there is a vast mineral wealth lying still undiscovered in that great territory. There are great fisheries on the coast to be developed. Taking all these thiugs into consideration you are adding very largely to the province of Quebec territory which will be inhabited and so will affect the unit of representation as applied to the small provinces. As I said, I have no wish to discriminate in any way against the province of Quebec. It is unfortunate that when members from other provinces speak on behalf of their provinces some supersensitive members from Quebec think that their province is affected. It will be seen that I am looking at this matter from the eastern standpoint. I am looking forward to the time when, by reason of the great growth of the west the representation from that section will have largely increased ; and. in order to preserve the equilibrium between east and west, it will be important that the representation of the maritime provinces should not fall below the figure of to-day. To recapitulate ; I am in favour of this resolution for the reasons I have stated ; but I say to the government that they are not acting justly by the maritime provinces in not giving to them some compensation to weigh against the large increase in material wealth which they are adding to the three great provinces I have named.

Topic:   BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Permalink

July 13, 1908