April 27, 1910

LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LATTRIER.

matter is still open and we are still waiting for the answer of the Manitoba government.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

Frederick William Borden (Minister of Militia and Defence)

Liberal

Mr. B. L. BORDEN.

Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister found some fault with the mode in which this matter has been introduced to the House by the hon. member for Winnipeg. Resolutions in amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply have frequently been accepted by the government. I have within my reach a dozen cases, within the last dozen years, in which the government has accepted such amendments, not only from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, but from hon. gentlemen on this side of the' House as well. Therefore, the only question is whether or not the proposal presented to this House by the hon. member for Winnipeg is a just and reasonable proposal, one which the government ought to accept, having regard to the just rights of1 the province of Manitoba. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has gone over a great deal of ancient history in the somewhat lengthy and discursive remarks which he has addressed to the House. I am not going over the question of the delimitation of the boundaries. It wa3 not necessary that the Prime Minister should go over that question at all. That question has been settled and determined. The government of Canada made a certain proposal by resolution presented to this parliament, and afterwards, if I remember correctly, embodied in an Act passed by this parliament. The province of Manitoba had madS its proposal to which the Prime Minister has alluded. The province of Manitoba, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of this question, which had been delayed by the inaction of this government for so many years, yielded a portion of its claims and accepted the limited extension of its boundaries proposed to this parliament by the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. In that Tegard, I would like to make one observation and ask one question of hon. gentlemen in this House. The Prime Minister has taken strong ground upon the position that it is not a proper course_ for the government to present the financial terms to parliament by resolution, and then forward them to the government of Manitoba for its acceptance or rejection. I would like to ask any man in this House possessing ordinarv reasoning faculties to tell me what the difference is between presenting the boundaries to parliament by resolution and then leaving them to be accepted or rejected bv the legislature of Manitoba, on the one hand, and_ on the other hand, presenting the financial terms to parliament by resolution, and then leaving them to be accepted or rejected by the legislature of Manitoba? If there is any reasonable difference of

principle between the two courses, I will be glad to take my seat and let the Prime Minister explain what it is.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

The difference is very obvious. There was a dispute between Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan as to what should be the limits. We had a conference on the subject, and we had to decide on our best judgment, since they could not agree.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

There it is in a'nutshell. Because there was a disagreement between this government and the government of Manitoba in respect of the boundaries, because the government of Manitoba insisted upon certain territory which this government thought should go to Ontario and to Saskatchewan, the government brought its proposals by resolution into parliament and passed it. There is an exactly similar difference of opinion between this government and the government of Manitoba with regard to the financial terms. Why, then, should not the government of Canada follow exactly the same course-bring in its proposals, have them embodied in a resolution of parliament, and then leave them to be accepted or -rejected? There is no difference between the two positions.

But I would like to submit two or three further considerations to my right hon. friend. As I understand him, he takes the ground that conference No. 1, having absolutely failed, that conference No. 2, having absolutely failed, the government of Manitoba, having made a distinct and plain, and as it seems to me a reasonable proposition to this government, a further conference should be had without this government making any reply whatever to the proposals of the government of Manitoba. Indeed, my right hon. friend was so carried away by his imagination at the close of his remarks as to say that he was waiting for a reply from the government of Manitoba, when only fifteen minutes before he had read a communication from the Prime Minister of Manitoba to which up to the present time this government has not, so far as I understand, made-any reply whatever. It is not the governs ment of Canada that is awaiting a reply from the government of Manitoba; it is 'he government of Manitoba that has been waiting for moTe than a year for a reply from the government of Canada to a most reasonable proposition made by the government of Manitoba to the right hon. gentleman at the conference alluded to. My right hon. friend has said that a certain report in the press of a Teport made by the delegates of the province of Manitoba to the government of Manitoba is so absolutely absurd that it cannot be taken seriously. In that criticism, my right hon.

friend involves more than the delegates of Manitoba. He involves in that criticism the able and intelligent correspondents of many Liberal newspapers in Canada, who took that report so seriously that they telegraphed it to all the great Liberal journals throughout this country, and did not regard the proposals as so supremely absurd as the right hon. gentleman would have us believe.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

It did not come from me.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I am not suggesting that it came from the right hon. gentleman. I accept his word unequivocally, but I would like to ask one queistion._ There was a question about the boundaries of Manitoba, and Manitoba gave way. It accepted the boundaries as proposed by this government. There was then I presume a discussion as to financial terms. We know that the government of Manitoba: made a proposal. Did the government of Canada make any proposal? Has it at any time up to the present made any proposal or offered any financial terms. I think that is a fair and reasonable question. My right hon. friend of course has a right to decline to answer it if he prefers.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

What is your question?

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr R. L. BORDEN.

My right hon. friend declares that he made no isuch proposal as that, namely, $10,000. Did he offer any sum whatever or make any proposal? .

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

We made no offer whatever. *

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Has my right hon. friend arrived at any conclusion up to the present time as to what he is willing to offer?

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

No.

Mr! R. L. BORDEN. Would it not be well, then, instead of imputing any blame to the government of Manitoba or passing any criticism upon the course it has taken to make up his mind as to the financial terms which he is willing to offer to the province of Manitoba? There is no need of any further conference. When he has made up his mind and consulted his colleagues and obtained their approval as to the financial terms which he is willing to offer to the province of Manitoba, all that he has to do is to go to his office and write a letter to the Prime Minister of Manitoba and say to him: These are the terms which the government of Canada are willing to offer to the province of Manitoba and we propose to submit them to the parliament of Canada for its approval. That is what the government of Manitoba is waiting for 1 in these negotiations at the present mo-

ment. The government of Manitoba has made up its mind as to the boundaries and has accepted the proposal of this government. It has made up its mind as to the financial terms. It has said: We -will

take either one thing or the other. We will take either the treatment you have accorded to Saskatchewan and Alberta, or the treatment which has been accorded to Ontario and Quebec. We will take either the one or the other. The right hon. gentleman did not at the conference isay what he would do. He did not at the first conference say what he would do. He did not at the second conference say what he would do, and up to the present time he has not come to a conclusion as to what he will do, and up to the present time he has given no answer whatever to the proposal of Manitoba made to his government through him more than a year ago. That is the 'situation. This question has been hanging in the balance for years Why does not my right hon. friend arrive at a conclusion? The first essential step he must take for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion is to make up his mind as to what he is willing to recommend to this parliament as fair and reasonable and just treatment to the province of Manitoba. My right hon. friend has spoken of the giving up of the lands of Alberta or Saskatchewan or Manitoba to provincial administration as if it were some unheard of and terrible thing which would bring about calamity not only to the provinces in question, but to the Dominion as a whole. What is the position *of affairs? There are nine provinces in Canada to-day. * In six of those provinces the lands of the Crown are disposed of by the Crown according to the advice of the provincial ministers and under the authority of the provincial parliaments. In three of those provinces the lands of the Crown are disposed of upon the advice of the ministers of His Excellency the Governor Gem eral and upon the laws and by the author-lty of the laws enacted in this parliament, they are lands of the Crown in the one case as much as in the other, the onlv distinction being that in the disposal of those lands the Crown in the three cases 1 mentioned acts by the advice of

the government of Canada, the members of the cabinet of Canada, and in the six other cases the Crown acts by the advice of the provincial ministers. Is there any reason why the government of Manitoba snotnd not exercise the same wisdom and the same prudence and the same discretion in disposing of its public lands as the government of Ontario or the government' of Quebec? My right hon. friend says we' are asked to give up those lands. They are lands of the Crown in either the one case or the other,_ and the only question for consideration is as to the advice by which Mr. E. L. BORDEN.

those lands may be disposed of in the one case or the other. For my part as I have said in this parliament over and over again and on the public platforms of this country. I see no reason why the public lands of Alberta should not be dealt with by the provincial legislature of Alberta, I do not see why that course should not be taken in respect of Saskatchewan, and I see no reason why it sould not be pursued in respect of Manitoba.

I further say that the attitude of the provincial government of Manitoba in this matter seems eminently reasonable, because they say: Do either the one thing

or the other, accord us the same treatment that you have accorded to Alberta or Saskatchewan on the one hand, put us in that class, or accord us the same treatment that you have accorded to the two other provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and put us in that class; but bring this to a conclusion, and bring it to a conclusion according in either one or the other way.

My right hon. friend has spoken of the antiquity of the arrangement under which the government of Canada administers the public lands of Manitoba, and Alberta, and Saskatchewan. It is perfectly true that in 1869 under the administeration of Sir John A. Macdonald, this arrangement was in the first instance made, but I have not the slightest doubt that if Sir John A. Macdonald had been alive and in com trol of the destinies of Canada during the past 12 or 14 years, the public lands of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan would have been handed over to the admin-stration of the provincial legislatures. Conditions to-day are not as they were in 1869. My right hon. friend knows we have made some advance and when he speaks of this matter having been settled in 1869, more than 40 years ago, I want him to remember that according to the very precedent which he stated only a little while ago, the financial terms which were settled at confederation between the government of Canada and the various provinces were entirely changed at the instance of his own government and after a conference with the provincial governments. Well, if that arrangement made at the time of confederation could be altered no longer ago than 1905 or 1906, what is there in the action of a Canadian government in 1869, that justifies my right hon. friend in regarding that as a law of the Medes and Persians one that is absolutely unalterable and final? He alludes to the fact that in the Act of the imperial parliament passed three or four years ago, by which that alteration in the subsidies was confirmed it was declared to be final and unalterable. But, he knows equally well that these words are vain and meaningless words. It would be an absolute absurdity for any parliament to say that an enactment passed by that parlia-

mant is final and unalterable. The same power that makes the enactment can repeal it. The imperial parliament to-morrow, if in session, could repeal the enactment which the right hon. gentleman has declared to be final and unalterable. 1 have assumed that the words alluded to are in the statute as finally passed, but my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) reminds me that these words were struck out of the body of the statute, but are, in

presented this matter to the House. I may venture also, I think, to say that his treatment of it was characterized by the utmost fairness and courtesy to the right, hon. Prime Minister and to every hon. gentleman who sits upon the government side.

House divided on amendment (Mr. A. Haggart).

the schedule.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

They never were introduced into the Bill. Our petition has been added as a schedule to th.->

Bill.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

That is what 1 say-they are not in the body of the statute, but they are in the schedule. As I understand it. the Bill as originally prepared included these words, but I think that Mr. Churchill, in presenting the Bill to the House of Commons, stated that they had been struck out for the very reason I have suggested.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) is in 'error. They were not in the Bill as presented to the House, but, at our request, they were put into the schedule.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has misunderstood me, if he understood me as saying that they were in the Bill as presented to the Imperial House of Commons. I say they were not in the Bill

I have nothing more to say. I think that the amendment of my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. A. Haggart) points out a just and reasonable course to be pursued by this government and this parliament in dealing with the province of Manitoba in this respect. I think that the amendment ought to be supported. And, in concluding, I desire to congratulate my hon. friend from Winnipeg, on the remarkably clear and forceful way in which he has

Messieurs.

Armstrong,

Arthurs,

Barker,

Beattie,

Best,

Blain,

Borden (Halifax), Boyce,

Bradbury,

Broder,

Burrell,

Campbell,

Chisholm (Huron), Cowan,

Crosby,

Crocket,

Crothers,

Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,

Doherty,

Donnelly,

Edwards,

Elson,

Fraser,

Goodeve,

Haggart (Lanark), Hjaggart (Winnipeg) Henderson,

Herron,

Hughes,

Jameson,

ICidd,

Lake,

Lalor,

Lancaster,

Lennox,

Macdonnell,

McCall,

McCarthy,

Magrath,

Meighen,

Middlebro,

Nantel,

Northrup,

Owen,

Per ley,

Rhodes,

Roche,

Sehaffner,

Sexsmith,

Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sproule,

Stanfield,

Staples,

Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thornton,

Wallace,

White (Renfrew), Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington, Wright.-63.

Messieurs.

Allard,

Allen,

Aylesworth, Beauparlant,

Beland,

Bickerdike,

Borden (Sir Frederick),

Boyer,

Brown,

Carrier,

Cash,

Champagne,

Chew,

Chisholm

(Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness) Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,

Delisle,

Demers,

Douglas,

Dubeau,

MacNutt,

McAllister,

MeCoig,

McColl,

MeCraney,

McGiverin,

McIntyre,

McKenzie,

McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Regina), Martin '(Wellington),

Mayrand,

Meig9,

Michaud,

.Miljer,

Molloy,

Murphy,

Nesbitt,

Neely,

Oliver,

Papineau,

Pardee,

Emmerson,

Ethier,

Fielding,

Fortier,

Fowke,

Gauvreau,

Geoffrion,

German,

Girard,

Graham,

Guthrie,

Harris,

Harty,

Hodgins,

Hunt,

King,

Kyte,

Lachance,

Lafortune,

Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville), Lanctot (Richelieu), Laurier (Sir Wilfrii Lavergne,

Law,

LeBlanc,

Lemieux,

Lovell,

Macdonald,

Parent,

Paterson,

Pickup,

Proulx,

Prowse,

Pugsley,

Rankin,

Reid (Restigouche), Smith (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski),

Roy (Dorchester), Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,

Schell,

Sealey,

Seguin,

Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Sperry,

Talbot,

Tobin,

Todd,

, Tolmie,

Turcotte (Quebec County),

Verville,

War burton,

White (Victoria), Wilson (Laval).-102.

Messieurs.

Ministerial.

Fisher,

Brodeur,

Bureau,

Templeman,

Stratton,

Low,

Sinclair,

Gordon (Kent), Currie (Prince Edward),

Gervais,

Richards,

Robb,

Martin (St. Mary's), Car veil,

Black,

Conmee,

Devlin,

Loggie,

Smith (Stormont), Turriff,

McMillan,

Rivet,

Knowles,

Savoie.

Opposition.

Bristol,

Foster,

Forget,

Thoburn,

Gordon (Nipissing), Smyth,

Monk,

Osier,

Maddin,

Barnard,

Marshall,

Stewart,

Lortie,

Ames,

Clare,

Lewis,

Blondin,

Maclean,

Reid (Grenville), Porter,

Wilcox,

Price,

Russell,

I'o.quet.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
CON

Joseph Arthur Lortie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. LORTIE (Soulanges).

(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that I was paired with Mr. M. Martin, the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary.- Were it not for that, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.

voted. He did not hear the question put. I am informed that the hon. member for Queen's, P.E.I., did the same thing.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

Jacques Bureau (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. BUREAU.

I have heard and read the question.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

Bourinot says:

A member who has indistinctly heard the motion read may ask it to be read again, but the rule is that he should be in his place all the time, the question is being put in either French or English and he can only require it to be read again in case he did not hear it clearly on the first occasion in either language. If a question is raised after a division as to the right of a member to vote under the condition stated, the speaker will inquire if the honourable member was present in the House and heard the question put.

If the hon. member can answer to that question, yes, his vote is good.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

Jacques Bureau (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. BUREAU.

I stated that I heard and read the question.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink
LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

The question is simply: Did the hon. member hear the question put?

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE BOUNDARIES OP MANITOBA.
Subtopic:   R. P. ROBLIN.
Permalink

April 27, 1910