March 4, 1912

?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Order, order.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STAPLES.

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member. I am making this statement, and I think that if he wishes to be fair

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Order, order.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER.

The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has the floor.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

If the House will permit,

I shall be very glad to have the hon. member (Mr. Staples) make his statement.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STAPLES.

I make the statement that everjr acre of that laud was inspected and valued; then a price was put on it, and any person desiring to purchase that land had only to look at the book, see the value placed on the parcel, and pay that price, and not an acre was sold in any other way.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

I think my statement is thoroughly established, that these lands were sold without competition.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

William D. Staples

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STAPLES.

No.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

The Dominion government has been administering certain lands in the western country in the interest of this same province-the school 'lands. And this parliament, in its wisdom, provided by statute that not an acre of that land should be sold except by public auction. That is the only true competition. It is by selling at auction that the value is certainly received. When the government of Manitoba sells the public property of the province, in this way, as they have admittedly done, to the extent of 880,000 acres for something over $3,000,000, they must be content to take the same criticism that would have been levelled at the Dominion government if it had undertaken to dispose of the public property in the same way. That, I think, is fair.

Now, just a word in regard to the valuation placed upon these lands. If this is to be a business arrangement let it be a business arrangement. And when we undertake to value a property that has been handed over to a province and to charge the province with that value, a reasonable valuation should be made. We find that

150,000 acres of land were handed over to the province for the benefit of higher education in the province-university lands, as they were called. They were to be farm lands and selected lands; they were not swamp lands by any means. And the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) and the

Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) blandly tell the House that these selected lands in the province of Manitoba are properly valued at $2 an acre-when the very swamp lands were sold, without competition, at over $3 an acre. It is a small affair; it does not matter materially; but it shows, that on the face of it, the calculations that have been made in connection with this matter are unfair calculations; on the face of the calculations there is not an attempt to do justice, but an attempt to do injustice as between the province and the Dominion.

I have said, and I think I have shown that so far as the land account is concerned, the province stands not to gain but to lose in actual hard money. But it stands to lose a great deal more than the difference in the money value between the cash subsidy and the value of the swamp lands. A great part, possibly the most valuable part, of the province of Manitoba is low and level land subject to overflow at times, but of the most valuable character both as to the quality of soil and of climate. All that is required is to get the water off and keep it off, and this acreage of land in Manitoba compares favourably, and more than favourably, with any similar acreage of land in any country in the world in actual ^productive value.

When the arrangement was made whereby the swamp lands were handed over to the provincial government, it was not so much to provide a source of direct revenue to the province as it was to secure the reclamation of these lands, to secure the establishment of settlement upon them, and to secure production from, them, and I say, Mr. Speaker, if there are 8,000,000 of acres of swamp lands in Manitoba, the bringing of that immense area into cultivation, into production, is ten times more important to that province and to the Dominion, than any paltry half million dollars a t-year, whether it goes one way or goes the other. Eight millions of acres constitute one-third of the total grant that it cost to build the Canadian Pacific railway, and within two-thirds of the total area under cultivation in the three prairie provinces to-day. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the question of bringing that stupenduous area of most valuable land into production is something of the highest and greatest importance not only to this Dominion, but to the province of Manitoba and to the people who are in that province. It matters not that the government of Manitoba has not risen to its duty in that regard, that it has treated this swamp lands area as a speculation rather than as a matter of development. Some other government will be formed in Manitoba that will deal with these lands as a matter of development and not as a matter of speculation, at least we will hope so. But the fact is that the lands are there. It

is the business of the province of Manitoba to relieve the conditions of too much moisture in regard to much of the land that is already settled upon, and in doing that they reclaim these 8,000,000 of acres of swamp lands or a large part of them. These swamp lands as they stand to-day are an inducement, nay they are the financial means whereby the government of Manitoba may bring into production and into development that stupendous area; but under the arrangement that is offered for the consideration of this House, the province of Manitoba has to forego the policy of drainage under which it could reclaim that enormous area of lands, and these are to he handed back to the Dominion to remain in that condition, because the Dominion has not the responsibility for carrying out drainage, or the jurisdiction, and the province gets less than half a million dollars a year in cash. Whatever may have been the case in regard to other features of the agreement, this feature is one in which both the province and the Dominion lose and lose heaviiy. .

But there is another feature of this arrangement and that is in regard to arrearages. The. province is to get a bulk sum of $2,380,271 as arrearages on debt on land and on building account. Now on this question of arrearages it seemed, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, that because the province of Manitoba wanted an extension of boundaries many years ago, therefore, the province receiving that extension is to-day entitled to $2,380,271 of the public money of this country. My hon. friend the Prime Minister did not seem to think that this was a rule that worked both ways. The province of Manitoba has been in possession of the swamp and university lands ever since 1885. It has been drawing interest on the disposition of those lands, and has been using the proceeds as revenue during ail that time, but it did not have to give any account of the money that has been spent before the present Bill goes into force. The province did not have to account for the arrearages, it is only the Dominion government tint has to account for them to the province. Is not such an argument as that too childish to put before an intelligent assembly? What is this proposal to pay the province of Manitoba a bulk sum of $2,238,000 on the passage of this Bill or shortly afterwards? There is no justification of right or reason, for this proposal as between the province and the Dominion, or as between the province of Manitoba and any of the other provinces. It is the declaration of a government in power, a government with a large and hopelessly subservient majority, the demonstration of that government to the various provinces of this Dominion that Mr. OLIVER.

whom they will they will make rich, and whom they will they will leave poor. It is a demonstration to all the provinces that if they do not come in line with this government, if they do not yoke up with the politics and the policy of the party now in power, they cannot expect to get hand-outs of this character; they must stand and se>e their neighbour fattened while they remain hungry. It is simply a declaration that this government pays no attention to the rights of the various provinces. What have rights to do with them? It is a declaration that the terms of confederation do not concern them. They have command of the public treasury, and they propose to use that command for partisan purposes in provincial matters whenever and however it pleases them to do so. Now I am not at present a resident of the province of Manitoba. I was at one time and I have some acquaintance with the people of that province. I have some knowledge of their attitude of mind towards public questions, and I say this to the government; That if it required an annual payment of five dollars a year to every Indian in the province -that payment to be made so long as grass grows and water runs-in order to induce that Indian to give up his rights, a payment of five dollars a piece in one year to the white people of the province of Manitoba will not have the effect of inducing them to give up their rights. Our hon. friends who hope to buy out the province of Manitoba with a bribe of $2,380,000 will find that they have deceived themselves. The people of Manitoba are not for sale at the price-

Mr. BRADBURY, Nor at any other price.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

My hon. friend has taken the word out of my mouth-they are not for sale at any price; and the government that undertakes to buy them, taking money out of the Dominion treasury-

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

George Henry Bradbury

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADBURY.

The hon. gentleman knows from experience that they are not to be bought.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

I do not know from experience. Does the hon. gentleman say

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

George Henry Bradbury

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADBURY.

Speaking of the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member. They know from experience, that Manitoba was not for sale.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

On what particular occasion? Perhaps the hon. gentleman would enlighten us. On no occasion, and under no circumstances, did the late government undertake to offer a bribe to the province of Manitoba or any other prov-

ince. This proposal, Mr. Speaker, if I am within parliamentary rules in so saying, to my mind, is a proposal to pay the province of Manitoba $2,238,000 to which that province is not entitled under the terms of confederation or under any consideration of fair-play as between province and province. It is neither more nor less than an attempt on the part of this government to square the provincial government of Manitoba with their people because of the remarkable and atrocious position of that province in regard . to their telephone transactions, whereby the province has incurred a capital expenditure of $12,000,000 on the promise to give the people reduced telephone rates, while it is proposed now to increase those rates to double, treble and quadruple what they were at the time when they took the telephone service over. It is an attempt to salve the people of the province of Manitoba over the shortcomings of their provincial government, and to salve them over because the farmers of that province have lost millions and millions of dollars by reason of the accession of this government to power.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

John Hampden Burnham

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BURNHAM.

How can you salve them over with such terms?

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

I do not think they will be salved over with such terms. I say that the attempt was made, but that it will fail. I think that I have demonstrated that the proposition now before the House is one in which the province of Manitoba does not stand to gain, in which the other provinces of the Dominion do not stand to gain and in which the Dominion does not stand to gain; and particularly one in which the government that brought forward such a proposition stands discredited before the people of this country.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

James Albert Manning Aikins

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. M. AIKINS (Brandon).

It is pleasing to know that this Bill finds such favour in the sight of hon. gentleman on the other side. One ex-minister condemns it as giving too much to the proviuce of Manitoba; another ex-minister of that administration condemns it, because it does not give enough to that province. I am delighted with the universal advocacy of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He seems to have taken briefs for three provinces. He seems to have assumed that the province of British Columbia is not able to take care of itself, and, therefore, he takes the brief for that province. Are we to think that the administration of the hon, Mr. McBride has retained the hon member for Ed monton to advocate the interests of British Columbia in this House, or are we to assume that the hon. member for Edmonton has

been retained by the premier of the province of Manitoba to advocate the interests of that province? Are we to assume that Sir James Whitney himself, finding that there is such an able advocate, has given his brief to the hon. member? Or is the House to assume that the McBride administration of British Columbia is better able than the hon. member for Edmonton to look after the interests of that province? And that the administration of the hon. Mr. Roblin in Manitoba and of Sir James Whitney in Ontario know how to look after the interests of those provinces?

I do not intend to go at any length into what has been said by the hon. member for Edmonton, because I am thoroughly convinced that the government of Manitoba knows more about the swamp lands of that province than does the hon. member and that it understands better than_ he, the financial requirements of the province. But I do desire to speak for a short time in reply to certain arguments used a few days ago by hon. members opposite in the debate on the resolution. In 1881, it was supposed that the- boundaries of Manitoba were being extended eastwards as far as the line of longitude extending north from the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio. Therefore, the Act of 1881 was passed. In introducing the Bill, Sir Alexander Campbell, then leading the Senate, spoke of this territory as:

. . . covering an area u,p to a line due north from the forks of the Ohio and Mississippi, of 151,411 square miles, or something like eleven times its present area. It will be observed, by the map on the table, that on the east we do not lay down a line in the sense as we do on the south, west and north, but suggest a dotted-line, as what the boundary line between Ontario and Manitoba will be, as the present government of the Dominion believe the law establishes it. . .

Now, in extending these limits, it is, of course, a matter of interest to the House to know what population is within the proposed extension; and I had a statement prepared showing that the Indian population in such places as North West Angle, Shoal Lake, Rat Portage, Rainy Lake, Rainy River, Manitou Rapids and Lae des Millie Lace, and the white population of the township of Olver, Fort William and Neobing, Mat-tawan, Sibley and a number of people along the line of railway works.

He stated also t-hat immediately after the passing of the Act, Manitoba took control largely of that territory.

A dispute arose between Manitoba and Ontario concerning these boundaries. The matter was submitted to the Imperial Privy Council, and the decision was given in these words:

Their Lordships find the true boundary between the same two provinces to the north of Ontario and to the south of Manitoba, proceeding eastward from the point at which

the above mentioned line strikes the middle line of the course of the same river (whether c-alled by the name of the English river or as to the part below the confluence by the name of the river Winnipeg), up to lake Suel or the Lonely Lake, and thence along the middle lines of Lake Suel, of the Lonely lake to the head of that lake, and thence by a straight line tp the nearest point of the middle line of the waters of lake St. Joseph, and thence along the middle line until it reaches the foot or outlet of that lake, and thence along the middle line of the river by which the waters of lake St. Joseph discharge themselves, until it Teaches a line drawn due north from the confluence of the rivers Mississipi and Ohio, which form the boundary eastward of the province of Manitoba.

And the Privy Council ordered that its finding should be carried into execution. In 1889 the province of Ontario, desiring to have the limits as found by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council confirmed by an Imperial statute, made, through a joint address of these two Houses, an application for that purpose. The recital of the Imperial Act of 1889, which was thus passed reads:

And whereas such boundaries, as far as the province of Ontario adjoins the province of Manitoba, are identical with those found to be correct boundaries by a report of the Judieial Committee of the Privy Council, which Her Majesty the Queen in Council, on the 11th day of August, 1884, ordered to be carried into execution.

. The Privy Council found the boundary for Manitoba extended as far east as the line of longitude which ran noTth from the confluence of the rivers Mississippi and Ohio. Speaking in reference to that, the Hon. Mr. Mills, in 1889, said: '

What both the representative of Manitoba and the representative of the Dominion maintained was that this meridian line was the eastern boundary of Manitoba, and beino- the eastern boundary of Manitoba so much of Manitoba as lay north of the Albany river remained in Manitoba under that decision It was never argued before the Judicial Committee that if Manitoba could not claim any portion of the territory south of the Albany river, she would not be entitled to any portion north of that river. That Question was not Taised, and I do not see how the Judicial Committee could do anything than as it did, leave to Manitoba that portion which was uncontested, and assign to Ontario that portion west of this meridian line which they believed belonged to the province of Ontario. I am pleased that the hon gentleman has brought forward this resolution, and I trust thalt this will be the last time we will have to discuss the boundaries of Ontario in the parliament of Canada.

Now, Sir, as the judgment of the Privy Council determined the easterly boundary of Manitoba, which extended as far east as the line of longitude running north Mr. AIKINS.

from the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi, if that line was carried immediately north it would come almost to the northeast corner of the boundary of the proposed province. One wondeTS why was it, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that part belonged to the province of Manitoba, it was not given to the province of Manitoba? The late administration refused it. The province of Manitoba long ago demanded that in connection with the extension of her boundary north, and if that had been given to Manitoba when" it should have been given by the late administration, then no question would have arisen such as that raised by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), that the ports of Churchill and Nelson should belong to Ontario. Although the government of Manitoba made application to the late administration time and again to have their boundaries properly extended, it was refused, and that has been one of the causes whch has led to the disturbed feeling which prevails to some extent in the west of Canada. In 1903 the right hon. the leader of the opposition said:

I a-m aware that the boundary we have laid down has been disappointing perhaps to both parties. Judging by what I have seen of statements made by the premier of Manitoba he expresses disappointment although I do not believe it would be possible for the government or parliament to concede in full the claims of Manitoba. I have seen some flaming articles in some newspapers stating that the rights of Ontario have been sacrificed inasmuch as the two harbours of Churchhill and Nelson have been given to-Manitoba. Well, Sir, I think that tfhe province of Ontario has enough of wealth and of territory and of glory to enable her to willingly concede to the sister province what little advantages there may be in that. Moreover, the traditions of history would seem to indicate that the Churchill and Nelson rivers should belong to Manitoba. They were the avenue of the fur trade in the olden times when the fur trade was all the trade there was, and if we were to take away from Manitoba what advantage there may he in this, I think Manitoba would be entitled to complain on sentimental grounds. At all events I submit these reasons to the fair consideration of the House and I think they will impress themselves on all those who will give this matter impartial consideration.

One would assume, when the judicial decision of the Privy Council was placed before the late administration, that they would have given effect to it. But instead of doing so they decided to give that part of the territory to the province of Ontario. You may ask now: Why is it not now demanded by the province of Manitoba? Simply because, for a dozen years the province of Manitoba was demanding it, and1 all that was offered them was the easterly boundary

which is offered now, and as further effort was useless with that administration they were almost obliged to accept it subject to a proper financial settlement, which they have been unable from that time until this administration came into power, to secure. Having once accepted that eastern boundary from the late admin:stration, they could do nothing else than accept it now. Although it was thus settled by the late administration, we find the hon. member for Softth Wellington trying to stir up the feelings of Ontario against the west concerning it. We find only recently, on the 21st of February last, the leader of the opposition in the Ontario house moving a resolution insisting that the boundaries should be extended north to the Churchill river. Just a little previous to that the same hon. gentleman declared that it was desirable there should be no antagonism between the west and east of Canada, still he moved that resolution which would disturb the whole of western Canada. Why should that old trade route by York factory and Nelson river be given to the province of Ontario? We find hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, for instance, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley), trying to stir up the other provinces against this settlement with Manitoba. We find the hon. gentleman who has just spoken trying to set one province against another province in the west. The policy of hon. gentlemen opposite thus appears to be to sow discord and create strife, and disharmony, in order that out of the resulting confusion they may in some way or other derive party advantage. However, I am sure that as the province of Ontario and the province of Manitoba have agreed with the Dominion on a settlement, all the efforts of hon. gentlemen to cause a cleavage between the east and the west will prove futile, because these provinces and the Dominion have agreed to settle their differences in order that peace and harmony may prevail between the east and the west.

Therefore, Ontario has no right to complain. Both political parties in Manitoba, practically accepted the eastern boundary, as laid down by the late administration and this administration. The only question for settlement was the question of financial terms, to which I wish to refer for a moment. In 1878 the University of the province of Manitoba realized that in consequence of the small income that the province was deriving it could not give much assistance to it. Therefore, the university applied to the Dominion government for a grant of land to assist it in its educational work. In 1881 another application was made to the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, and in 1884, prior to the passing of this Act

of 1885, he wrote to the University of Manitoba stating that the government would make the grant. We, nevertheless, find that it is incorporated in one of the clauses in the Better Terms Act of 1885. Section 2 of that Act provides that:

An allotment of land, not exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand acres, of fair average quality, shall be selected by the Dominion government and granted as an endowment to the University of Manitoba for its maintenance as a university capable of giving proper training in the higher branches of education, and to be held in trust for that purpose upon some basis or scheme to be framed by the university and approved by the Dominion government.

Approved not by the provincial but by the Dominion government. Before coming to this question of the basis of trust let me say that, although the grant of land was to be of fair average quality and saleeted by the Dominion government, no step was taken by the Dominion government to make that selection and most of the fair average land had been taken up as homesteads, given in grants or otherwise disposed of. Up to 1886 or 1887 no arrangement had been made for the selection of the land. The University of Manitoba pressed strongly that the selection should be made. They were practically told that they would have to make it themselves. Accordingly, they spent money and the province gave them some assistance to make the selection, but as the best land had been alienated, they were not able to select the first quality of land. In consequence of the delay and difficulty in making their selection of land, application was made to the Dominion government to commute the grant for a money payment. In January, 1888, a committee appointed by the university reported an interview with the Minister of the Interior which stated that with respect to the land which had come back to the government by the non-fulfilment of homestead conditions, the minister was unwilling to withdraw it from homesteading and would prefer the grant of a sum of money in commutation of said land. In February, 1888, the Minister of the Interior made a recommendation to the Governor in Council that he had been waited on by representatives of the university council and favoured a commutation as a way of settling the difficulty in procuring lands and he thought that the commutation would be an advantage, both to the interest of settlement and of higher education in the province, and, therefore, recommended the commutation and suggested legislation. But commutation was not carried out because, as was stated afterwards, the revenue of the Dominion was not in a buoyant condition. The only

Not merely a subsidy, but:

-costs incurred in the government of the disputed territory or the reference of the boundary question to the judicial committee of the Privy Council and all other questions and claims discussed between the Dominion, and the provincial government up to January 10, 1885.

Therefore, when' you come to consider either commuting the value of the university land or the restoration of the other lands to the Dominion you must consider tlie fact that they were not given solely for the purpose of subsidies but partially to defray the expenses of the government of that disputed territory, for that disputed territory was governed for a time bv the province of Manitoba; it was formed info an electoral district which sent a representative to the local legislature, until 1884 or practically 1885, when the judicial decision was given that it did not properly belong to the province of Manitoba. It is, therefore, improper to argue this question solely on the ground that the swamp lands and the university lands were given only as a subsidy to the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, you cannot compare things which are utterly dissimilar; you cannot contrast one condition with another condition in no way identical, and, consequently you cannot contrast the position of the western provinces with that of the east-

ern provinces, their conditions are altogether dissimilar. It cannot be justly said that the conditions in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are at all similar to the conditions in the eastern provinces, or even to the conditions in the province of Ontario. Neither are the prairie provipces similar to British Columbia, and, therefore, what is done by the Dominion for one of these eastern provinces, or for the province of British Columbia, cannot be taken as a fair standard of what should be done for the prairie provinces which are not similarly situated and do not own their own natural resources or their lands. In what respect are the three prairie provinces similar. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver), has assumed that they did not come into confederation at the same time, but he ought to know better, for the fact is that the Northwest Territories and the province of Manitoba came into confederation on July 15, 1870. There was, no doubt, this difference: that full provincial autonomy was given to the province of Manitoba, whereas there was a limited government given to the territories, the Dominion government retaining certain control. In 1905, when Alberta and Saskatchewan were given their autonomy, thie conditions then prevailing in these two provinces were similar to those which prevailed in Manitoba. True, Manitoba had a larger population and a little more settlement, but settlement was going on in Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905. as I say, the conditions were generally identical, save that there was a greater burden of government on the province of Manitoba than on either Alberta or Saskatchewan. That being so, why was it that the Liberal government treated Manitoba in a different way from that in which they treated Alberta and Saskatchewan? Why? Because Alberta and Saskatchewan were practically the creations of the Liberal adtninistration, subject to its will, and the province of Manitoba was not. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley), has said: why do you not get all the members of confederation together in a family council and discuss the terms that are now to be given to the province of Manitoba? Let me ask the hon. gentleman why in 1905 the Liberal government did not call the family of confederation together to discuss the financial terms which were to be given to Alberta and Saskatchewan? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver), has asked why British Columbia should not be called into council now, why did not the Liberal government, 'in 1905, call British Columbia into conference when they were settling the financial terms for Alberta and Saskatchewan? Why is it that these gentlemen opposite now suggest that a different course should be pursued

by the present administration Irom that which they themselves pursued under exactly similar circumstances? Their former action and their present argument are utterly inconsistent. The Dominion government was supplying the funds for the Northwest Territories from July, 1870, to the year 1905, while during that period Manitoba was allowed to look after herself and to struggle as best she could with an insufficient subsidy. During that period the Dominion government was erecting in the Northwest Territories public buildings out of Dominion funds, while Manitoba was paying for her own buildings. I therefore claim, and I do not think it can be disputed, that the conditions in Manitoba were quite similar to the conditions in Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 when these two provinces were created and therefore the government cif to-day should have treated the province of Manitoba with the same consideration and given it the same subsidies as Alberta and Saskatchewan. And now, these gentlemen opposite complain because the increased amount of the subsidy is dated back to 1908. Well Sir, if full justice were rendered to Manitoba it might well be contended that it should date back to 1905 when the late administration should have treated Manitoba the same as they treated Alberta and Saskatchewan. But, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) has told us that the cost of administration was greater in the two new provinces than it was in Manitoba and in support of his idea he pointed to Manitoba with its large capital city containing almost one-third of the entire population of the province. I would remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) and his friends that the cost of governmental administration in a large city, with a new incoming population, is as great or greater than the cost of administration in rural districts, and whatever argument may be founded on that ground is altogether in favour of Manitoba. I would like to know how the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) makes out that with a smaller population in Saskatchewan than in Manitoba and with a still smaller population in Alberta, there was more settled country in these two provinces and a 'larger district to govern than was the case in Manitoba. I therefore contend that it was at least fair as a compromise for the government when making this arrangement with Manitoba, to have dated it back to 1908. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) tells us that the money subsidy we are giving to Manitoba is too large and in the same breath he tells us that the province of Manitoba is giving too much to the Dominion government when it surrenders these lands. I would like to know how that equation works out. If they are giving such valuable

lands back to the Dominion, surely the Dominion can give them financial compensation in lieu of that land. Well, Sir, considering the terms on the whole it seems to me that they are just and fair both to the province of Manitoba and to the Dominion of Canada.

A moment on the financial terms or subsidy. Hon. gentlemen opposite are evidently not at all agreed about them. When you hear some hon. gentlemen opposite say on behalf of the province of Manitoba that the government have not made terms sufficiently good for that province and others saying that the terms are too good for it, we may come to the safe conclusion that the government did the just and proper thing in making the terms they did. Therefore, this Bill should pass without very much more contestation.

It has further been suggested that it was wrong to give the province of Ontario a strip of land five miles wide running from the eastern boundary of the proposed boundary to the Nelson river. The property within the borders of Manitoba, the public domain, belongs to the Dominion government, and the Dominion government can do with it what it thinks proper, can give those lands as a subsidy if it likes for the construction of a railway across it or a port on Hudson bay. I am sure the province of Manitoba will be delighted if Ontario will join with it in creating such a port as there ought to be created for the whole of western Canada at the mouth of the Nelson river. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken has been complaining that we have not enough outlets for the surplus annual products of the west, and that therefore everything possible should be done to give facilities for the transportation of that surplus. Is there then any objection to Ontario building a railway through their own province to the eastern boundary of Manitoba and there being joined by a line, if you like, constructed by Manitoba, and thus forming another national line to carry out the surplus products of the west to the markets of the world? The west will be glad to have such a rkilway, will be glad to join Ontario in having a joint railway from a common point on such railway up to the port on Hudson bay, will be glad if on one side of the river the province of Ontario creates a splendid port there, as there should be. Let me say to hon. gentlemen and to the people of the west that assurances are given that there will be created either at Churchill or at the mouth of the Nelson river, by the Dominion government, a port which will help them to ship the western surplus products by a speedy route-through Hudson bay and Hudson Strait to the final market of Liverpool, to the great benefit of the west.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
CON

James Albert Manning Aikins

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. AIKINS.

There are difficulties in the west. I hope for the consolidation of Canada, I deprecate every statement that is made by hon. gentlemen opposite or elsewhere which will have a tendency to separate the provinces or to create disunion. What we want is union, and if the present administration does what, for 15 years the late administration neglected to do, and cares for western interests, the west of Canada will not only be prosperous but will be contented. The troublesome conditions which now prevail in the west are largely the natural result and consequence of the neglect of western interest and western affairs by the late administration during the years of their power.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink
?

Mr. F. B.@

CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.) Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) has discussed this subject entirely from the standpoint of its effect upon Manitoba, and has carefully avoided alluding to any other aspect of the case, or to that aspect which would appeal to any other portion of Canada, and therefore, I hope he will not consider me discourteous if I leave the track which he has trodden so carefully and try to call the attention of the House back to this proposed agreement to some extent as it bears relation to the other provinces of Canada and try to see if it is a reasonable agreement taking Canada as a whole. My hon. friend from Brandon has made a very strong appeal for peace and harmony and the union of Canada, and I heartily concur in that sentiment, but I doubt if the policy which the government is following in this case will be the best means of attaining the very much desired end to which my hon. friend has alluded. We can have no peace and harmony in this country so long as there are incongruities and unfairness existing as to the manner in which one section of the Dominion is treated as compared with others and as I view this case there is a manifest unfairness in the manner in which Manitoba has been dealt with as compared with the treatment of eastern Canada, and I think I might say of every province in Canada, but the greatest distinction probably would be between Manitoba and the eastern portions of Canada. There are perhaps three general principles upon which the Bill now before the House might be discussed. The first is the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba or its territorial expansion. To that I shall not devote much time because it is, I believe, pretty well settled that Manitoba is entitled to the amount of land she is receiving, and in fact that principle was adopted before this House four years ago. If Manitoba is willing that Ontario should have a right of way five miles wide and one-half of what may be the principal port in the Hudson bay, I have no quarrel with that, and if

Ontario is satisfied with it again I have no quarrel.

The next question provided for in this Bill is the financial arrangement which will be applicable to Manitoba in the future, and the third subdivision would be the arrearages which we are paying to Manitoba on account of what has taken place or has not taken place during the past four years. My hon. friends seem to treat the province of Manitoba as though it was a new province just entering the union, as though it had not 40 years of history and experience, as though it had not worked out its existence along the line of other provinces and as though it should be placed on an entirely different basis from other provinces that came into the union only 45 years ago. You must remember that this province became a separate entity with a legislature and government of its own in 1870, or between 41 and 42 years ago, and the other four provinces in Canada only came into the union in 1867. When the four provinces formed the union I submit that the financial arrangements, both as to the per capita allowance, as to the debt allowance, and as to all financial matters were worked out on a thoroughly fair and honest basis. There was a principle involved in all these things, and it is on account of departing from the principle that I chiefly find fault with the government for the terms of this Bill. I shall not quarrel with the amount of money Manitoba is receiving, but I do quarrel most seriously with the arrearages.

I think the principle objection is the departure from the principle established in 1867.

Now we know that when the different provinces united in 1867 they received their public lands, with the minerals and all that would go in connection with them, and therefore, so far as those provinces were concerned there was nothing to adjust. The next question that came was the amount of money that would be paid to each province for government and local purposes, and that was apportioned on a population basis and divided up fairly and evenly, and each province received the amount that it was entitled to. There again you had a principle which was followed in arriving at this conclusion. We come next to the debt account. Now the debt account was not so easy of adjustment, but yet the principle was followed as my hon. "friends opposite know. The debt of the old province of Canada was found to be about, I think, $67,000,000-I am speaking now in round numbers-and it was decided that the government would assume of that debt $62,000,000. Then it was found that the debt of Nova Scotia was somewhere about $8,000,000, and the government agreed to assume that debt. The debt of the province of New Brunswick was a little less 138

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES- MANITOBA.
Permalink

REVISED

March 4, 1912