Fred Langdon DAVIS

DAVIS, Fred Langdon, Q.C., B.A., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
Neepawa (Manitoba)
Birth Date
August 6, 1867
Deceased Date
April 9, 1951
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Langdon_Davis
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=4cd26090-0a3c-45c8-8505-28f4c236f58d&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Neepawa (Manitoba)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 26 of 28)


April 9, 1918

Mr. DAVIS:

May I ask the minister whether the calculation he has made includes the necessary equipment for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway?

Topic:   RAILWAY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS.
Subtopic:   ACQUIREMENT BY MINISTER OF RAILWAYS FOR CANADA DURING THE PRESENT WAR.
Full View Permalink

March 26, 1918

Mr. F. L. DAVIS (Neepawa):

I would remind the House of a practice that was initiated by the city of Portage la Prairie which is of importance in this time of greater production. The business men of that place began closing their business places at four or four thirty, and motof parties were formed, who took the employees and the businessmen themselves to the fields where they stooked the grain. Thousands of acres of grain were put up in that way, which would not have been put up but for that assistance. They worked from the time they arrived in the fields until dark. The passage of this Bill will add one hour to that labour, because it is a class of labour that is right at the doors of the farmer, and in this time of shortage of labour which apparently threatens us for the coming year, it will add millions of hours to the assistance the farmer gets in the fields and will offset, at least in the West, any loss that the speakers who have put up a contention in favour of the farmer have referred .to.

Topic:   DAYLIGHT SAVING.
Full View Permalink

October 14, 1903

Mr. DAYIS.

I want to draw attention to the fact that if the hon. gentleman goes through 'Hansard' he will find that I have brought the subject up several times in this House.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FAST ATLANTIC SERVICE.
Subtopic:   SETTLERS' CLAIMS RE REBELLION OF 1885.
Full View Permalink

October 13, 1903

Mr. DAYIS.

We are not getting too much, but I think we have been fairly

*well treated. I want to point out one feature of the case, and it is this : The hon. leader of the opposition thinks that provincial autonomy is a new proposition in the territories. There was a meeting held in my own town 13 years ago, and a committee was appointed and money collected to agitate for provincial autonomy, but that agitation soon died out. It is, therefore, an old scheme. Four or five years ago, when Mr. Haultain started his agitation we had a population of 100,000 ; to-day we have a population of 330,000, we are told, and if we are entitled to have $33 per head placed to our credit on capital account, we are $7,590,000 better off to-day than we would have been if Mr. Haultain had succeeded when he first commenced. It is all very well to say that we could get a re-arrangement, but I notice that the other provinces have not been successful in their attempt in that respect. When we do form a province, we want it formed on such terms and conditions that we will not have to ask for better terms from year to year. We see the province of Manitoba loaded up with a big debt. We may call it a guarantee of bonds and say that the people will not have to pay the interest, but nevertheless it is a liability against the province which they may be called upon to pay. The North-west Territories is getting all that work done by the federal government, and I think they are better off as they are to-day. The leader of the opposition told us that he considered the question of the number of provinces into which we are to be divided as a secondary consideration. If he went to my district he would find out what a mistake he makes in that. The southern belt of the North-west Territories has had the advantages of a transcontinental railway for 22 years, but the northern belt has been without railways until the last few years. There were a couple of railways there, but they might as well have been built to the moon, for they were of no use whatever to colonization. It is only now that the northern portion of the district is getting immigration, and as a member of the district I will say that the people there are not prepared to go in with the people of the southern portion to form one province. We think there should be two provinces, and if my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) were leading the government he would not coerce us unless he wanted to have another rebellion on his hands like that which the Conservatives fomented in 1885. All that has to be taken into consideration. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) goes to Calgary, which is the centre of this agitation, he will find that the people there want three provinces, and some of them want four provinces. If he told the people of Calgary that he wanted one province, the first question they would put to him was : Would he have the capital in Calgary, and if he proposed to leave it to the legislative assetn-Mr. DAVIS.

bly to decide, as Mr. Haultain proposes, they would tell him that they would prefer waiting until something else turned up. The leader of the opposition has perhaps approached this subject in a fair spirit, and I am glad to know that he is prepared to lend his assistance at all times, and to sympathize with us. We would be much better satisfied if he would tell us that he is prepared to sympathize with us to the extent of demands made by Premier Haultain. They are modest demands in a way, and the people of the North-west would be glad to know that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) endorses them. If the hon. gentleman only gets up and states that it is a good thing to have provincial autonomy he might as well say that it would be a good thing if the sun would shine to-morrow, or that it would rain next summer, but the people of the territories want something more definite than that. They have been educated by-I was going to say my friend Mr. Haultain-they have been educated by the friend of the leader of the opposition up to considering that they were entitled to the conditions laid down in his proposition, and the leader of the opposition will find it hard to satisfy public opinion without going as far as Mr. Haultain proposes. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bor deni stated that in 1902 Mr. Haultain swept the country for provincial autonomy. Everybody knows that Mr. Haultain adopted the tactics of the wily politician, and that be took a snap verdict. I fancy that if sufficient time were given to have threshed out the question of political autonomy and other questions, Mr. Haul-, tain would not have a majority at all. But, when the people were putting their crops in, and could not get to the polls, he brought on the elections and got a snap verdict, and he claims it as a verdict in favour of provincial autonomy. I want to say that the people took no stock at all in that question. The leader of the opposition might as well say that when Mr. Roblin was returned to power the people of Manitoba pronounced in favour of a high tariff, because Mr. Roblin mentioned it on the platform. Mr. Haultain is in the same position. The people did not take any stock in the question of provincial autonomy, because they knew it had to come from Ottawa and not from him, and as a matter of fact Mr. Haultain got several in my district. I supported him myself, and I helped him to the best of my ability to carry some seats, and 1 never considered the question of provincial autonomy at all. I want to say as one of the representatives from that country, that the people whom I represent are opposed to provincial autonomy at present. I think we are well off as we are. We have been treated very; generously, and with the help of the leader of the opposition, we will be treated more generously in the future in getting sufficient subsidies to run the affairs of the country without going into debt, and without

putting taxation on the people. There is no part of Canada where a taxation is lighter at present than in the territories. I have had some intimation that Mr. Haultain intended to introduce the municipal system. If he does, he will grant the municipalities power to borrow money, because, although he cannot borrow money himself he has power to give the municipalities authority to borrow. I understand he intends to submit a Bill of that kind. I do not know how true it is, or how it will be received by the people, but I believe that taking everything into consideration, we are doing very well as we are and we had better adopt the old saying : Let well enough alone. I believe the people of the North-west Territories are of that opinion.

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

September 18, 1903

Mr. DAATS.

Before you left the Chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had not time to go over the list that was handed to me, but I have gone over it since, and I find that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is perfectly right, so far as Brandon is concerned. It was put at the bottom and has been overlooked by the parties who made up the list. However, as to the other constituency that I have mentioned, that is Roblin, I wish to show the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) that I was perfectly right about the matter. I have here the statute of Manitoba for 1902. I read :

The rural municipality of Roblin shall comprise townships 1 and 2 in ranges 13, 14 and 15, west of the principal meridian.

Now, I would point out that, according to their last plan, townships 1 and 2, in range 15, west of the principal meridian is in what they call Minto, while townships 1 and 2, in ranges 12,13 and 14 are in Lisgar. So, there is actually a division of the municipality of Roblin. Then, if the hon. gentleman will go back to the rural municipality of Louise, he will find that is all in Lisgar. On that point, I am perfectly correct. AVliile I was in error with reference to Brenda, I wish to draw the attention of the leader of the opposition to one fact on the other side. The riding of Macdonald, as he has laid it out in his plan, is intended to include Portage la Prairie, Portage la Prairie town. North and South Norfolk, North and South Cypress and Carberry. But there is in the riding of Macdonald a municipality called Victoria, which apparently, the hon. gentleman did not know anything about. It is possible that the population of Victoria may have been included with that of some of the other municipalities in their estimates. But that does not affect my argument, for the fact remains that these municipalities are changing so much that the leader of the opposition in getting up his schedule did not know what municipalities there were in this constituency of Macdonald.

Now, I do not think it is fair for hon. gentlemen on the other side to accuse the committee of gerrymandering the province of Manitoba. The facts show that there was no such design on the part of the committee. Let me draw the attention of the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Provencher (Air. LaRivierol that, had it been the intention of the committee to gerrymander Alanitoba, it would have been very easy for us to arrange to make two more seats safe for the Liberals. I think the hon. member for Provencher will bear me out that it would have been easy for us to cut out Letellier and another little corner called St. .Toe, and throw them into Minto or Souris. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that if this were done, his chances of election would be very slim indeed.

Air. LaRIATERE. My hon. friend (Mr. Davis) knows that what he did not try in the south he tried in the north. It is true, he withdrew it when I pointed out that it was unfair.

Topic:   REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Full View Permalink