March 4, 1912


than $7,000,000, it was somewhere over $6,000,000, but in order to make the debt allowance of New Brunswick compare proportionately with the debt allowance of the other provinces of Canada, they agreed to assume the debt of the province to the extent of $7,000,000. They would pay the actual debt, which was something over $6,000,000, and they agreed to pay New Brunswick five per cent interest on the difference between the actual debt and the assumed debt of $7,000,000. Now there you had a principle, you had something which was perfectly fair and reasonable, as between the different provinces, and something to which no person could find any fault. When Manitoba came into the, union in 1870 it had no debt, and for some reason fox which I can find no explanation, and I must say that I have investigated matters pretty carefully, it was decided that Manitoba would 'be allowed a debt of $472,090 estimated on a population of 17,000. The basis I understand was, that it was to be $32 on an estimated population of 17,000. But I never could see the reason of that excepting that the Dominion government said: We ought to give Manitoba something with which to carry on her government and, therefore, we will say that she ought to have a debt of $472,000. Then I find that when Prince Edward Island came into the union they also assumed a debt of $4,701,000, but in the case of that province they followed the principle which had been laid down at the time of confederation, and allowed a certain debt according to the population of the island, and agreed to pay the difference between the actual debt and the assumed debt. Now things went along fairly well for a number of years. Finally Manitoba commenced to demand more money, and the Tesult was that in 1882 a change was made by which Manitoba was to receive $50,000 in place of $30,000 on account of government, and then they were to receive 80 cents a head on a population estimated at 150,000, which was probably two or three times in excess of the actual figures. But it was assumed to be 150,000 and that would make a payment on a per capita basis of $120,000. Now in 1882 we find the first reference to the allowance to be paid to the province of Manitoba in lieu of the lands, and in that..year it was provided that Manitoba was to receive .an annual allowance of $45,000, as it was put in the statute for the want oi lands. Because the lands were owned and controlled by the Dominion she received no revenue and had no control over them, and it was thought she ought to receive something for them. Well, Sir, with this last proposition I have no fault to find, I can readily understand that if the four older provinces owned their lands and were able to receive a revenue from them, the new


EDITION


provinces ought to be put in the same position as the older ones were in, and it was only fair to give them a grant for a certain amount on account of not receiving their 'lands. That was placed at $45,000 in 1882. In 1885 a change was made and they received from that time down to the present $100,000 annually. I find no fault with that, and I do not think that any person from any of the other provinces could find any fault if that amount had teen increased, because we must all understand that if the province did not own its land it was not on a parity with the four older provinces of Canada, and also with British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, which had since come into the union, and, therefore, they were entitled to something. It may be true that the Dominion cf Canada received no revenue from these lands, but the Dominion had the administration of them, they were able to hold them out as an inducement for settlers to come into that country, and we know that settlement did come in and not only did Manitoba prosper, but the whole of Canada prospered, by reason of having the lands to offer. Therefore, I say no objection can be found to giving Manitoba an allowance in lieu of her lands, and I do not think that very much fault can be found with that provision of the Bill at the present time. It may be a little exaggerated but that is only a matter of degree. The Federal government is allowing the province of Manitoba now, I figure cut, $413,270 annually, in lieu of the right to control her own lands, but it must be remembered that in 1885 the province of Manitoba received something else besides the $100,000 in lieu of her land. She received all the swamp lands from the province, or all lands which hereafter might be declared to be swamp lands. That feature has been pretty thoroughly discussed during this debate, and I will, therefore, only refer to it very shortly when I come to it in a few minutes. But Manitoba also received at that time 150,UOO acres of land for the university, and my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) has tried to show that those lands were not very valuable. But it is more remarkable that my hon. friend has not stated-at least I did not hear him state, nor did I hear anybody state in this debate-how much the* province of Manitoba actually received from the 150,000 acres. It will be interesting to know exactly what the provinces did receive. I am satisfied, however, that the Minister of Finance must be away below the actual amount received when he places it at the nominal sum of $2 per acre. If any of these lands are still in existence and owned by the province they must be worth $20 an acre rather than the small sum of $2.


LIB
CON

William Thomas White (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WHITE (Leeds).

May I say to my hon. friend that the university lands never were owned by the province.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

I appreciate the fact that they went into a fund for the benefit of the university, but that university exists for the advantage of the province, so that really the proceeds come back to the province in that way.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

William Thomas White (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WHITE (Leeds).

Oh no.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

Then there is a difference of opinion between my hon. friend and myself. In 1884 there seemed to be an attempt made by the Federal parliament to rearrange the financial conditions of the different provinces and they there adhered to a certain matter of principle. They rearranged an increase of the debt allowance to each of the provinces on a proportionate basis according to the population. Now, that was a principle. They increased that debt, so far as the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec were concerned, by $5,397,000, Nova Scotia $793,368, New Brunswick $604,509, Manitoba $110,825, British Columbia $83,107, and Prince Edward Island $182,973. Now, the thing that I complain about particularly in this Bill, so far as the general financial arrangements are concerned, is the debt allowance. I contend, Sir, that it is unfair to the maritime provinces to a greater extent, probably, than auything else, and unfair to some extent to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. It is not so great an injustice to these provinces as it is to the maritime provinces because they have in the past received large additions to their territory which are very valuable, and under which the province of Ontario is to-day receiving, I think I am safe dn, saying, millions of dollars in royalties on lands, timber and mines, and upon which the province of Quebec must receive large sums each year in stumpage and royalties on lands and timber.

But now we ha ve a proposition-and I will not discuss it at length because there will be another opportunity during the session-to add to Quebec and Ontario; and you add a second time to the amount which they receive from the Dominion, whereas the maritime provinces received nothing; the maritime provinces cannot receive anything. Then, I want to point out the unfairness of this debt allowance to the province of Manitoba, a debt allowance of $8,000,000, upon which they will forever receive an estimated income of $381,584.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN.

Did I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carveil) to say that he never could see any reason for this allowance in lieu of debt? Do I understand him to argue that he never was able to see

reason for an allowance made to a province that came in without a debt?

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

That is my contention. If yon want to give a province sufficient funds to carry on its affairs as a province, you ought to give it in a straight way, not by a circuitous method like this.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN.

Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that a province that comes in and assumes a share of the debt of the whole Dominion, ought not to receive any compensation?

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB
CON

Arthur Meighen

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN.

Why was an allowance made in lieu of debt not to the old provinces of Canada but to New Brunswick?

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

In order to bring the debt allowance on the basis of population, to a parity with that of old Canada.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN.

And the same with Manitoba.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

When Manitoba came in she had not the population. According to the hon. gentleman's argument, the more people you get into a province the more you have to add to the debt allowance. But there is no suggestion that this should apply to New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. You may add a million people to those provinces, but they receive no increase in the debt allowance. New Brunswick, for example, is receiving and has been receiving for many years*, al-

most ever since confederation, interest on something like $500,000 at 5 per cent. The federal government assumed a debt which is something over $6,000,000. But then we handed over to the federal government assets to that $6,000,000. Except the amount on which we are receiving 5 per *cent, it is true that this debt was paid by the federal government, but we gave them assets with which they paid it. Some of the assets we handed over are among the best assets of the Dominion of Canada to-day. We gave the present Intercolonial railway practically constructed from St. John to Halifax; the only portion of the Intercolonial railway, I venture to say, which has paid its way, a portion which is paying more than twice as much as any other equal mileage on the whole system. Therefore, we paid the federal government for paying our debts, and we owe them nothing.

We would be delighted to take back the property which we gave them and pay our own debts. Then there are the customs and excise; but on the property alone my hon. friend would be delighted to take over the Intercolonial from St. John to Halifax and pay our own debts. Now, what did they do with Manitoba?

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN.

The hon. gentleman said that my explanation of the debt allowance was illegal and fallacious. If he will turn to page 1437 of ' Hansard,' of 1905, he will find exactly the same explanation given by the leader of the opposition.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

I wish to follow my argument on my own line, and I am going to show whether my argument is logical or not. Now, the result is that the province of New Brunswick to-day is receiving as a debt allowance probably half a million to three quarters of a million collars; the province of Nova Scotia is receiving a little more. The province of Manitoba, which has had a population equal to that of New Brunswick only within the last three or four years, and is only about equal to that of Nova Scotia, is receiving interest on $8,100,000 as a debt allowance. If my hon. friends can argue that this is fair and just to the maritime provinces, then I fail to see by what method of argument they can make it appear reasonable. I have already stated that so far as the allowance for land is concerned I think it is fair, the principle is good. I am not saying that the actual amount of figures is fair, but I think the principle is all right.

There is one thing which I cannot understand, and that is why tne government of Prince Edward Island has not been making a demand for an increased allowance in lieu of land when Manitoba is being treated so generously, as Prince Edward Mr. CARVELL.

Island had no public lands any more than Manitoba. When Prince Edward Island came into the union in 1873 they were allowed an annual amount of $45,000 a year, or $800,000 if they wished to borrow *that for the purpose of purchasing land from the landed proprietors and selling it to the people again. If tney borrowed the money and bought the land they had the property; if they did not borrow the money they got the $45,000 a year. So, therefore, for the purpose of argument, we are safe in saying that the province of Prince Edward Island receives $45,000 in lieu of lands. Prince Edward Island came into the union about the same time that Manitoba did. When Manitoba came into the union she received1 nothing in lieu of lands. In 1882, she was given $45,000 a year in lieu of lands, and in 1885 she was given the swamp lands, which we have been told here to-night aggregate 8,000,000 acres, and she was given $100,000 annually in lieu of her lands, and she has gone on receiving $100,000 annually ever since. But now the government come down and propose to give the province of Manitoba for all time to come, after making ail allowances for interest on what she has received for some of her swamp lands, the magnificent sum of $413,270 annually. Why on earth has not Prince Edward Island been considered, when Manitoba has been treated so magnanimously? It seems remarkable that Prince Eaward Island has been entirely forgotten in this arrangement. I merely throw this suggestion out to the hon. members representing. Prince Edward Island in this House. I hope hon. gentlemen from Prince Edward Island supporting this government will wake up to the enormity of the situation, to the manner in which they have been treated byr the present government in granting this allowance to the province of Manitoba in lieu of her lands.

Now I come to discuss the third branch of the case, and that is the arrearages. While the second branch of the case, or the financial, arrangements, are possibly unfair to the rest of Canada, yet they have followed to some extent previous legislation, and in some instances they are justified as a matter of principle. But I cannot for the life of me see where you can justify these arrearages from any standpoint whatever. My hon. friends from Manitoba say, Well, we have had a grievance. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) said that a great many years ago they wanted to extend their boundaries eastward and the Privy Council said they were wrong. Though the highest court in the Empire says they are wrong, yet they insist that they have a grievance. Then they said, We want to go westward to Regina. But the people of Regina said No, and the province of Sas-

katchewan would have nothing to do with them. Then they say, We have another grievance, we want to get northward. And Because they could not get northward they have another grievance, and because they have all these grievances the Minister of Finance said the other night:

I think this matter goes very much deeper than that. The province of Manitoba has been dissatisfied for years, and where you have such a province as Manitoba dissatisfied, and expressing that dissatisfaction irritably, there must be, as my hon. friend once said, something wrong in the political situation

And because Manitoba has had a grievance for all these years the Minister of Finance says: Well, you may have been unreasonable, I think probably you have, but you have a grievance, there is an irritation going on, and it won't do to have the province of Manitoba with a grievance; therefore we will give you something which you are not entitled to, and which we are not giving to any other province in Canada. Will any one say that I am drawing the parallel unfairly? I say the proposition cannot be justified on any logical argument or with any logical reason. The Minister of Finance has not tried to justify it-except, and I will do him this credit, that ten times in the short speech that he made on the resolution, he said: We are going to give her what you gave Alberta and Saskatchewan. That is the Minister of Finance's justification for it-because you did this for Alberta and Saskatchewan we are going to do it for Manitoba. I want my hon. friends to consider the application of this reason to the rest of Canada. Now let us see where it will land us. As I said before, they have a grievance, they are irritated, and it won't do to have Manitoba irritated, therefore we must give them what they want. What do you think will happen next? Manitoba will say: Well, we have a sentimental side to this question. We were called the postage stamp province, and we wanted that remedied. Now we have reason to believe that there is some land round the North Pole, and we want land at the North Pole, and all we have to do is to keep at it long enough, and if the Minister of Finance is in power long enough, he will come back and say, Manitoba has got a grievance, she is dissatisfied, she is irritated, she wants land round the North Pole, it won't do to have Manitoba dissatisfied1, and therefore we must either give her land at the North Pole or another donation of a few millions. That is the logical conclusion. I would advise every province in Canada to get busy and work up a grievance. I think you will find that the next thing will be that my friend Sii James Whitney will be coming up here and he will say, I have a grievance, I wanted

lands clear to the Nelson river, and you have only given me the right of way. And if he persists long enough, and shouts'loud enough, and argues strenuously enough, and the bion. gentlemen opposite remain in power long enough, they will say: It won't do to have Ontario dissatisfied, therefore we have got to give them a couple of million dollars. .

That is the only logical position but, there is another way of getting at it. Let us analyse it. My hon. friend says that they should have gotten this land in 1905, but as they did not get it, and as this parliament only passed that resolution saying that they should have it in 1908, therefore, we will date the arrearages back to 1908 and these arrearages are based on two considerations. First, on the debt account. The debt account has been discussed a good deal. I have discussed it myself, i have read every word uttered by the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister on the discussion on the resolutions, I have listened to everything that has been said here to-day and I would like to know, and I hope the Minister of Finance or some other member on the other side of the House, will enlighten us, as to the ground on which the province of Manitoba is being given $202,637 for four years, or a total sum of $810,648. What can be the reason unless it be that Manitoba has a public grievance, and we do not want to have Manitoba irritated, and therefore, we must give her this money. It is not on the ground that if this added territory had been given to her four years ago, she would have more population so that rhe could have drawn a per capita allowance. It cannot be on that ground as a simple statement of the population would show. The right hon. leader of the government told us this afternoon that there are now 5,571 people in that territory cf whom 4.822 are Indians. The federal government looks after the Indians; therefore. you would be reduced down to about 900 people which the Manitoba government would have been compelled to look after during these four years. You are giving them $800,000 because they were not called upon to look after these 900 white people in the last four years. I cannot see any other reason. But if that be illogical and'unreasonable, it pales into insignificance when compared with the reasons given for the allowance in lieu of land. I hope that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will follow me on this point, Decause he at least, I presume, would like to be able to justify it. It is a well-known principle that we are giving money to the prairie provinces, because they do not have the control of their lands, they have not a chance to sell them, they have not the right to make money out of them, they do not get the minerals, they get nothing out of them whatever, and they are compelled to spend

money in carrying on the ordinary affairs of the government within their territory, let it be large or small. The theory is. that the province of Manitoba must expend money in building roads and bridges, to some extent, providing for school accommodation, looking after the adminstration of justice, and doing all the other things that go to make up the cost of the administration of affairs of government in that portion of the province. We are giving them $413,270 for all time in the future to provide for the administration of the affairs of the government in this added territory. You have only got at the present time 900 people to look after, because the Indians will still be looked after by the federal government. Let us take the last four years. Manitoba has not owned these lands in the last four years, it has not spent a dollar on schools, it has not spent a dollar on roads, it has not spent a dollar on bridges or on any other governmental affairs within that territory for the last four years. It has not incurred either directly or indirectly, one cent of liability in the last four years, and there is no possibility of it being called upon to pay a cent, by reason of the administration of this territory.in the last four years. Yet the people of Canada, the people of the maritime provinces, are to pay their proportion of this magnificent sum of $1,363,000 to the province of Manitoba for doing that which they have not done, that which . they never will do. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance wants the people of this country to feel that this is a justifiable transaction. I think that he will -have to look up some arguments that have mot yet been produced in order to justify to his own mind, let alone the people of this country, the grant of this sum to the province of Manitoba. If my hon. friend said: Well, we want to make a present to the province of Manitoba, and then, af he would make a present to the other provinces of Canada in proportion to their population and just demands, there could not be so much objection to it because there you have a principle. But Iiere,. without rhyme or reason, without any justification apparent on its face, you are presenting the province of Manitoba with $1,368,000 for doing nothing and for not pretending to do anything. Is there a reason for this? There must be a reason for it. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) told the reason why. I am not going into that to any great extent. But, before I take up that branch, I want to take another glance into the unfairness of this arrangement to the people of the rest of Canada. While in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-I take these two as an illustration-we have our lands,, our minerals and whatever we Mr. OARVELI.

can make out of them, yet we have to look after all the affairs of our country in the way of roads, bridges, public buildings, schools and everything else connected with the affairs of the government. The right hon. leader of the government gave. some figures as to what the provinces had received during the last year as territorial revenue from their lands and he gave the province of New Brunswick as receiving $494,000 and Nova Scotia $662,000 in the year 1910. We will say that in New Brunswick we received last year $494,000 from our public domain. I may say here that we have never received that much before. I do not believe that since confederation we have averaged $200,000 from our public domain; we certainly never averaged $250,000. While I am not going to go into local matters, I make this statement that if we continue milking $494,000 a year out of our public domain in New Brunswick, in twenty years we will not have any public domain because, while they are supposed to be cutting lumber in New Brunswick, they are practically cutting pulp-wood. They are getting twice the revenue that they ever got before, but they are doing it at a terrible sacrifice and they are paying the awful penalty in the depreciation of our capital, the only source which we have in New Brunswick from which to raise money except that which we raise from direct taxation. But, that is only by the way. My right hon. friend, however, failed to take into consideration the fact that Manitoba last year received from her proportion of the school lands alone $200,000, as I find by the sessional papers of Manitoba for 1911, or half as much money was paid to Manitoba last year for education alone out of the sale of Dominion lands as was received in New Brunswick altogether from our territorial revenue.

That has not been taken into consideration. The more you compare the financial terms you are giving to Manitoba with the terms given to the other provinces of the Dominion, the more unreasonable do they appear to any fair-minded person. I agree in the opinion of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that this is an unfair trade even from the standpoint of Manitoba and, I know I may be charged as being illogical when I say it is unfair to everybody. It is unfair to Manitoba for this reason: You are taking from Manitoba swamp lands which are of very great value, and, there is of course a difference of opinion as to what that value is. But, from the sessional papers of the Manitoba legislature for 1900 I find that in that year the province sold 37,096 acres of land for $115,295, the price ranging from two dollars to five dollars per acre, and the average price be-

ing $3.14. The sessional papers of the Manitoba legislature for 1911 show that last year the provinces sold 142,535 for Which was received $737,395, or an average price of $5.17 per acre, so that in these eleven years the average price of these swamp lands has increased by two dollars per acre. Of course, the value of these lands depends on your building roads into them and inducing settlement, and assuming that this is done it is fair to say that the remaining lands are worth more than five dollars per acre. Then, if you take the seven million acres and say they are worth five dollars an acre, the result is that the Dominion is taking from the province of Manitoba an asset worth thirty-five million dollars. These lands are, of course, increasing rapidly in value and the report of the Manitoba government, stated last year that they were selling all the way from three dollars to nineteen dollars per- acre, and at the present time they were selling at from six to twelve dollars per acre. It may be said that the province of Manitoba would have to spend a great deal of money in draining these lands in order to make them valuable, but as I understand it the province does not spend out of the ordinary revenue account any money whatsoever to drain these lands. The province is divided into nineteen different drainage districts, and these drainage districts have issued debentures which at present amount to $1,897,853. As I understand it these debentures are a lien upon the land, and the man who buys the swamp lands buys them subject to this lien so that he and his associates in the end not only pay the cost of the drainage, but the interest as well. That is my understanding of it, and the Minister of the Interior can correct me if I am wrong. It is, therefore, the case that these lands were worth last year $5.17 an acre in the province of Manitoba irrespective of drainage, and the money expended for drainage simply appreciates their value because it is paid by the owners of the land and is not practically chargeable to the province. It is argued by gentlemen on the other side that it is only fair when we are taking these lands, to compensate the province for them, but, these hon. gentlemen must remember that the government of Canada does not sell land and will not sell land. The hon. gentleman from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) told us that it was the duty of the Dominion government to drain these lands and make them valuable, but that being done he will no doubt tell us that it is the duty of the Dominion government to give them away to homesteaders. Then, when these lands are developed, settlers will 'be brought in and every man, woman and child that is brought into Manitoba yields a Dominion subsidy Tevenue of eighty cents per head to the province, so that from the Dominion

standpoint we are receiving nothing and from the standpoint of the province, we are taking that from the province which can be made of very great value to it. It may be asked, why the province of Manitoba accepted such an unreasonable bargain. Well, the only reason I can see is that the province is a little hard up at the present time for ready cash. If the Minister of the Interior would tell us the real facts he would have to admit that the dividends from his telephone scheme are not as great as he anticipated and that in consequence the province of Manitoba is in an unenviable position financially. The fact is, I believe, that Manitoba is so financially hard up that the Conservatives there are willing to sacrifice the immense potential value of these lands in order to get some

ready cash in hand to pay their liabilities and to get themselves out of their difficulties. There cannot be any other reason that I can see for it. It is fair to assume that if other and better methods were adopted in selling these lands they would bring in more than $5.17 an acre, and, therefore, from the standpoint of Manitoba the province is getting $2,000,000 cash and is giving away a heritage which will be of enormous value in time to come. The provincial accounts of Manitoba show that last year the province received from lands alone $648,848, thus they are giving to the Dominion lands which will yield them that sum each year in return for a lump sum of $2,178,000. I think my *Conservative friends from Manitoba will have to admit that that is not a good business proposition.

For these reasons the Bill is ill-advised and ought not to be passed. I think that the government are not treating the rest of Canada fairly in not giving the rest of the provinces that to which they are entitled. It is true they are putting them off with a promise and saying: When we give back all lands to the three prairie provinces we will take into consideration the rest of the maritime provinces-but it may be a long time before they give the lands back to the prairie provinces. We all know our hon. friends opposite and we can conceive of a condition of affairs in the three provinces when they might be willing to give them back their lands, but we know a condition of affairs when they will not be willing to give them back their lands, and I make the prophecy now that if the political conditions in the prairie provinces remain as they are to-day it will be many years before those provinces get back their lands, and if that be true it will be many years before the maritime provinces get any change in their financial arrangements or receive justice to which they are entitled under this arrangement. Therefore it would be well for the government to consider even at this late

date, the unfair treatment 'accorded to the rest of Canada, to revise the conditions, to change the Bill or hold it over until an arrangement can, be made with all the provinces, thins arriving at 'Something which will be fairly definite, and above all tilings, based on some principle. When you have arrived at -a conclusion based on that principle then you will have that splendid condition which my hon.. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) so desires, when we shall have peace and harmony between all the provinces of Canada.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers (Minister of Labour)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour).

-and the lower provinces made no claim thereto.

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOWLER.

so oq. At the time of confederation there were four classes of subsidies recognized and only four, and there has been one added since. There was, in the first class, a sum allotted to each province for government and legislation, secondly, there was provision for allowing 80 cents per head of the population, thirdly, there was provision ior paying the several provinces certain *sums growing out of the allowance for debt, and in the fourth class, there were special grants. Now I have been unable from the statutes, to ascertain any very definite principle upon which any of these allowances were made. If you look at the Act *of 1867, you will find in the first place, that ihe debt allowed the old province of Canada, which was composed of Ontario and QueDec, was $62,500,000, to the province of Nova Scotia, $8,000,000 and to the province [DOT]of New Brunswick $7,000,000. There is a special grant allowed in the British North America Act for New Brunswick. That Act provides that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec should be allowed 80 cents per head of their population, based upon the population of 1861. Now that was not made applicable under the British North America Act to the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, for you will find in section 118 of the British North America Act. these words:

The following sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the several provinces for the support of their governments and legislatures

The amounts are guaranteed and the section continues:

-and an annual grant in aid of each province shall be made equal to eighty cents per head of the population as ascertained by the census of one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the case of Nova Scotia and Xmv Brunswick the 80 cents per head was to be based on the decennial census.

They had not adhered to the same principle which was applied to Ontario and Quebec.

-by each subsequent decennial census until the population of each of those two provinces amounts to four hundred thousand souls, at which rate such grant shall thereafter remain.

Now there is a special provision in the Act of 1867 which is applicable to Nova ocotia and New Brunswick and not made applicable to Quebec'and Ontario. Then you have a special grant made to New Brunswick by this very Act in the very next section:

New Brunswick shall receive by half-yearly payments in advance from Canada for a period of ten years from the Union an additional allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars per annum

On what principle? There is nothing in the Act to indicate. *

Topic:   SUPPLY OF CEMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Permalink

March 4, 1912