LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE NORTH-WEST
TERRITORIES.
House resumed consideration of the proposed motion of
Mr. Davin for an Address to His Excellency the Governor
General, praying for all memorials addressed to the Government by the Legislative
Assembly of the North-West
Territories which sat recently at Regina.
Mr. CHARLTON. I wish to say a few words on this
motion of my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin),
and I propose to review very briefly the leading points in
the policy of the Government with reference to the administration of North-West affairs
in connection with the sale
and management of public lands. It is a matter of the utmost importance to this country
that that vast stretch of
wilderness should be settled, and I presume, Sir, that all
parties of Canadians are ready to unite in recommending
and approving any policy calculated to produce that desirable result. I must further
say that I consider the policy
of the Government from the time its first regulation was
issued in July, 1879, down to the present moment, as having been a policy not calculated
to secure the development
of that great country. It has been a policy not conceived
and not carried out in the interests of the settlers who live
in that country or who may be induced to go there.
The Reform party of this Dominion—the Opposition in this House—challenged this policy
of the
Government as long ago as April, 1880, and for
nine years we have continued to protest against the
course that the Government have chosen to pursue with
regard to the administration of our great public domain in
the North-West. The regulation issued on the 9th July,
1879, provided for the setting apart of five belts upon each
side of the assumed line of the railway. The first belt was
to be five miles wide, the second belt was to be fifteen miles
wide, the third belt twenty miles wide, the fourth belt twenty
miles wide, and the fifth belt fifty miles wide. Lands in
the first belt were to be held at $6 per acre, in the second
belt at $5, in the third belt at $3.50, in the fourth belt at
$2, and in the fifth belt at $1 per acre. The lands not set
apart for homestead and pre-emption were to be sold upon
credit, requiring the payment of one-tenth down and the
balance in nine equal annual instalments, bearing interest
at 6 per cent. It was then held by the Opposition that the
opening for sale upon credit of a vast amount of land
at $1 per acre, requiring the payment of only 10 cents
per acre upon the land, the granting of easy terms
on the balance, and the sale of this land in unlimited quantities, was a policy calculated
to foster
and produce speculations in this land. These regulations
were modified on the 14th October, 1879. The lands under
the modified regulations in belt "A" were held at $5 per
acre, in belt "B" at $4, in belt "C" at $3, in belt "D" at
$2, and in belt "E" at $1 per acre, with the same policy
continued as to selling upon credit, and with the same
objectionable feature of the policy in encouraging speculation in the public lands
of the North-West. There was
one modification of those regulations in May, 1881, and on
the 1st January, 1882, regulations were issued which, I
believe, are still in force. These regulations provided two
schemes for colonisation, which were in point of fact, two
schemes calculated to still further promote the operations
of speculators in these public lands. Colonisation "plan No.
1" provided that lands in alternate sections could be purchased by colonisation companies
at $2 per acre, the price
at which they were held to settlers, with a provision that
upon compliance with some requirements as to settlement, a
rebate of one-half should be made; the effect of this being
to give the colonisation companies—organisations of
capitalists—an opportunity to buy lands at half-price,
and this led to a good deal of speculation. Plan
372 COMMONS DEBATES. FEBRUARY 28,
"No. 2" provided for the sale of the entire amount
of land in townships at $2 per acre for cash, with the
same provision as to rebate of one-half of the amount
paid, upon compliance with certain conditions. Here was
a policy which could not be said to have been conceived or
executed in the interests of the settlers; here was a policy
in both those instances, to sell the public lands in unlimited
quantities at a dollar per acre on credit, and a policy which
encouraged the organisation of those colonisation companies
that were practically calculated to promote speculation in
the lands of the North-West, and that were not conceived in
the interests of the settlers. The Opposition challenged
this policy as early as 1880. On the 6th April, 1880, the
following resolution was moved with regard to the Government's land policy:
"Mr. Charlton moved that the House do now go into Committee of
the Whole to consider the following resolutions :—
"1. Resolved, That in the Opinion of this House, the proper policy
with reference to the disposition of the public lands of Canada should be,
as far as practicable, to sell such lands to actual settlers only, on reasonable conditions
of settlement, and in lots or quantities limited to the
area which can be reasonably occupied by a settler and that the sale
of public lands to speculators, free from conditions of settlement, is impolitic and
calculated to injuriously affect the settlement of the country,
by keeping large quantities of land locked up for years, and by obliging
the settlers thereon ultimately to pay a price much larger than that
which is paid into the public Treasury for the same."
" 2. Resolved, That, as under the existing regulations respecting the
disposal of public lands, for the purposes of the Canadian Pacific Railway, large
quantities of fertile lands are being offered for sale, and sold
to speculators at one dollar per acre, for one-tenth cash down, and the
balance in nine equal annual instalments, with interest at 6 per cent.
per annum - terms which enable the speculator to obtain control of
lands for a cash outlay of ten cents per acre; thereby, not only in effect,
loaning to the speculator on the part of the Government, nine-tenths
of the capital required for speculative investments, but giving rise, as
experience shows, to great expense in the keeping of accounts, and to
indefinite delays in the realisation of the stipulated price; that, so long
as the system of selling public lands to speculators without conditions
of settlement or restrictions as to quantity is continued, the price at
which such lands are sold should be paid in full in cash, at the time of
sale.
It was moved in amendment by Mr. White, of Cardwell:
"That all the words after 'That' he left out, and the following inserted
instead thereof: 'the policy of the Government for the disposal of the
public lands in Manito a and the North-West, is well calculated to promote the rapid
settlement of that region, and to raise the moneys required for the construction of
the Canadian Pacific Railway, without
further burthening the people, and that it deserves the support and approval of this
House."
Well, Sir, that policy received the approval of the House
by a vote of 120 to 40, but the allegation of the amendment,
that the policy was one calculated to promote the rapid
settlement of the country and to raise the moneys necessary
to pay for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, has been belied by subsequent
events. So far from
its promoting the rapid settlement of that country, there
are to-day, according to the estimate made by the Government, but 132,000 settlers
in Manitoba and but l00,000, including lndians, or about 50,000 whites, in the North-West
Territories—a pepulation of from 170,000 to 180,000 settlers who have gone into the
whole of that vast region during the nine years that have elapsed since the question
was
discussed in this House; and so far from realising the $58,000,000, or any portion
of it, that we were told was to be
realised by 1891 from the sale of lands, we have realised
nothing. The sale of lands has not paid the expenses of
management; and in place of having any considerable sum to
apply to the liquidation of the expenses incurred by the
Government the construction of the railway, we are actually out
$70,000,000 in hard cash, the sum given to the railway in the
form of bonuses, the cost of the portion which was constructed
and handed over to the company, and the $10,000,000 given
to the company in exchange for a portion of its land grant.
Now, it is evident that the predictions made by the Government with reference to the
results that would follow the
inauguration of this policy in 1879 have not been fulfilled;
that, in point of fact, the whole thing has proved in a great
measure a flat failure; that we have not induced settlement
to the North-West; that the country has not prospered;
that something has been the matter; and I shall show, a
little further on, that in addition to its policy towards the
settlers, the Government has erred in other matters. The
Opposition steadily adhered to the policy it laid down in
1879. On the 16th of March, 1881, when the Dominion
Lands Act was under consideration in this House, amendments to that Act were moved
in the following directions.
The first was by
Mr. Mills, who moved:
"That the Bill be recommitted, with instructions to amend the fourth
clause by providing a limitation of the area of land which may be sold
by the Government to one person."
"That the Bill be recommitted, with instructions to amend the fourth
clause by enacting that except or otherwise provided by resolution of
this House, all lands shall be disposed of subject to conditions of actual
settlement."
Which, of course, was lost. It was moved by
Mr. Holton:
"That the Bill be recommitted, with instructions to amend the fourth
clause by providing that the unappropriated even-numbered sections in
each township shall be disposed of only upon conditions of actual settlement."
"That the Bill be recommitted, with instructions to amend the fourth
clause by providing that the price of Dominion lands, sold without conditions of settlement,
shall be payable in cash at the time of sale."
Which was lost. All these amendments were in the direction of the public interest.
There was not one of them that
did not contain a principle that ought to have been embodied in the Bill, without
the necessity of any amendment
being offered by the Opposition at all, and the passage of
these amendments in the negative was in every case detrimental to the interest of
the country. Then, following
these challenges of the Government's land policy, we have
other votes on record with regard to the same matter. On
the 27th of March, 1882, the leader of the Opposition in the
House challenged the policy of the Government with reference to the disposition of
coal lands and pasture lands, by
the following motion :—
"That the future of the vast Territories of the North-West is largely
dependent on the supply of fuel at a moderate rate;
"That the present information as to the country and the coal areas is
not sufficient to warrant Parliament in creating long-enduring interests
in large quantities of coal areas;
"That the regulations as to coal lands laid on the Table make no
provision for the application, as a general rule, of the just principle of
public competition to the acquisition of these valuable lands, and thus
leave open the door to disadvantageous cessions of the public domain
for the benefit of individuals;
"That the said regulations make no adequate provisions to check the
consolidation of large blocks of the coal lands in a few hands and the
consequent restriction of competition and enhancement of the price of
coal;
"That the said regulations make no adequate provision to secure any
working of the coal mines by the lessee;
"That the said regulations provide, by arrangement, for 21-year
leases, renewable, for the creation of interests of longer duration than
prudence at this time would, as a general rule, lay down;
"That they make no proper provision for the settlement of the terms
of renewal;
"That the said regulations do not become operative, if disapproved
of by this House; and the House is responsible for their coming into
operation;
"That this House disapproves of said regulations."
Which was lost on a division. Then
Mr. Blake moved:
"That in the opinion of this House the existing system of granting
timber limits is liable to result in gross abuse, and in the cession of
valuable interests in the public domain for inadequate considerations to
favoured individuals;
"That it is expedient to apply the just principle of public competition to the granting
of timber limits."
That liability to abuse was fully realised in the history
of the granting of timber limits since the year 1882. We
have still further an amendment moved to Bill No. 145,
relating to public lands of the Dominion. In 1883, on the
2nd of May,
Mr. Charlton then moved:
"That the said Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole
in order to amend the same by striking out all after the words
'Governor in Council' in line five, sub-section one, section twenty- four, and substituting
the following: 'provided that all sales of agricultural lands shall, unless under
exceptional circumstances, applicable to
particular lots, be made on condition of actual settlement by the purchaser, and in
quantities limited to the number of acres which can be
reasonably occupied by one settler.'"
Now, the line of the Opposition as developed was, first, and
that was the primary point in the principle they adopted,
that the sale of lands in the North-West should be made to
actual settlers only, subject to conditions of settlement.
That was a salutary and just provision which would have
effectually prevented the Operations of speculative companies
in that country, and in failing to adopt it the Government
are largely responsible for the evil consequences that have
followed in the settlement of the country and the dissatisfaction that has existed
there. Then, the Opposition took
ground distinctly in favor of the competitive principle with
regard to the placing of coal lands, pasture leases and timber limits. The Opposition
have always held that these
being the property of the public, it was the duty of the
Government to secure as large a return from them as possible. We held that the granting
of pasture leases at one
cent an acre, without inviting competition, that the granting of coal lands and of
timber limits upon the terms on
which the Government did grant them, without inviting
competition, was detrimental to the interests of the people,
and not comment with the principles of just and honest
government. What do we find with reference to timber
licenses? We find that at the time the last return was
made, over 25,000 square miles of timber limits had been
granted by Order in Council, at a uniform rate, without reference to the value of
the limits; and hon. gentlemen know
that in many cases these limits, which were granted for $5
per square mile, without inviting competition, were worth
vastly more in many cases than the small amount received
by the Government. It has been ascertained since that an
hon. member of this House was interested in a limit for
which $50,000 was received by those interested, but which
had been obtained from the Government for the sum of $250.
The whole system was rotten, and the Government failed
to secure for the country the large revenue that would have
been secured from the sale of timber lands, coal leases, or
the leasing of pasture ranches. The only restriction imposed with regard to pasture
ranches was, that no friend of
the Government could have a lease of more than 50,000
acres. The leases should have been put up at auction, and
the Government should have taken pains to secure for the
property the price it was worth, and that public competition alone could determine.
The system adapted of selling
timber licenses at a uniform rate of $5 per square mile when,
perhaps, in the one case they might be worth a hundred
times as much as in another, and of leasing pasture lands at
one cent per acre, and of granting coal leases on the terms
on which the Government granted them, has worked in the
interests of the friends of the Government, but not in the
interests of the people. We have had attempts made to
justify the conduct of the Government; we have had feeble
attempts made to show that the development of the North- West should be considered
on the whole as satisfactory. I
deny in toto that that is the case. I maintain, on the contrary, that the policy of the Government
has been uniformly in the interest of the speculator and the moneyed
man, and uniformly against the interest of the settler
and the poor man. By the system of credit sales of unlimited areas at one dollar an
acre, requiring but the
payment of ten cents per acre down, the policy of the
Government with regard to colonisation companies has
enabled the latter to obtain large areas of land at but
half the price which the settlers must pay, and by their
system of leasing of pasture lands, timber lands and coal
lands; by all these things they have militated against the
interest of the North-West. Then the Government have
steadily persisted in charging prices to the population of the
North-West much higher than those charged by the United
States. They have steadily persisted in homestead regulations less liberal and less
productive of settlement than those
of the United States. They have seemed to be unaware of
the fact that our public lands, as compared with these of the
United States, are remote; they seem to be unaware of the
fact that a settler going to the lands of Manitoba or the
North-West would necessarily pass almost through, or very
nearly by, a territory offering vast acres of public land at
great inducements to settlers, and that, other things being
equal, settlers would be more liable to take up land in
Dakota than in our North-West. Yet, in face of the fact
that in the Territory of Dakota public lands within the
limits of the railway grants are sold at $2.50, and outside
of the railway grants at $1.25 per acre, and that this
land is more eligibly situated, being nearer the railways,
nearer markets, where agricultural implements and other
goods can be more readily and cheaply obtained, and offering attractions to the settler
infinitely greater than those
offered in our North-West,—as if those inducements were
not enough, the Government, in order to shut out immigration more effectually, must
place our lands at a figure
higher than lands can be obtained in the United States, and
their policy in this respect has been very effective, as shown
by the immigration returns. Now, we have here a memorial
from the North-West Assembly, and these men upon the
spot, knowing the wants of the country, petition the
Government in exactly the line the Opposition has advocated for nine years past. They
ask the Government to
make the price of pre-emptions within twenty miles of the
railways at $2 per acre, and outside of that at $1 per
acre. If the Government were to do that they would
then be offering inducements to settlers somewhat better
than those offered by the United States Government, and
would have some show of securing that settlement we desire
and which it is necessary we should have, and which
we never can have with higher prices on our side
besides the other disadvantages to settlers. What
we want in the North-West is not that friends of the
Government may make money out of timber limits,
not that friends of the Government may acquire cattle
ranches and coal mine licenses and timber licenses
at low rates, but what we want is the entry of settlers who
will bring that country under cultivation; and to order to
secure settlers we have to consider their interests. That is
what we have not yet done. The policy of the Government
has been, practically, to leave out of view the interests of the
settler in the North-West. Now I hold, without detaining
the House much longer, that the true policy of this Government is to make the inducements
for settlement in the North- West greater than those offered by the United States.
Our
policy is to offer our lands cheaper than the American Government offer theirs. Our
policy is to give homestead regulations at least as attractive as those in the United
States.
In the United States, the homestead settler can take up
public lands wherever he can find them. The chequer-board
system is not adopted there, that system which has created
the isolation of one settler from another, and has made it
difficult for the settlers to have schools, and roads, and other
advantages. But the homestead settlers in the United
States can take lands in bodies and in blocks wherever they
can find them. The United States will grant lands to homestead settlers without restriction
as to location, their policy
being to get settlers to take up the lands and have the
wilderness converted into a cultivated country. Let our
Government adopt that policy in our North-West. If a
homesteader wants a piece of land, let him take it
where ever it can be found belonging to the Government.
If he wants to buy land, sell him that land at a reasonable
price, $2 an acre within railway limits, and $1 an acre out
374 COMMONS DEBATES. FEBRUARY 28,
side. If the Government would adopt that policy, we
would see a larger movement of settlers to the North-West
than we have in the last nine years. We would not have
in the next nine years the beggarly showing which we have
for the last nine years, of an influx of 132,000 peeple to
Manitoba and 40,000 to the North-West. I believe that we
have not, by 25 per cent., as many native-born Canadians in
the North-West as there are in the Territory of Dakota in
the United States. The reason is that the settler in Dakota
has had greater inducements held out to him, while the
policy of this Government has been such as to repel him
from our North-West. It is time that a change should be
made, and I hope that the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of head of
the great Department of the
Interior, who has lived in the North-West and must necessarily know the wants of that
country and the feelings of
the settlers in that country, will administer the affairs of
that department in a different spirit, in a spirit favorable
to the settlers, and that, under his administration, we may
secure for that great country the influx of a great body of
settlers, and the development of its resources.
Mr. MACDOWALL. As this is a question which interests
particularly those members who come from the North-West,
I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes of the time
of the House in regard to it. The range which has been
opened before us is extremely wide, as the memorials of the
North-West Assembly embrace a great many subjects, but
these are all of great interest to the settlers in the North- West. The question of
the Dominion lands, to which the
member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has referred, is
one of great importance, because, of course, the settlers
come in there with the intention of settling on the land, and
making their living upon it as farmers. I do not think,
however, that we can find very great fault with the land
laws as they stand, or, at any rate, with the new regulations
which I understand the Minister of the Interior is likely to
introduce, in order that things be made so much easier and
better for the settler so that it would be difficult to improve
upon them. Of course, it is a matter of very great importance to have the land for
the settlers as cheap as possible,
but at the same time, we have to bear in mind that
a great deal of money is being spent on the develop
ment of the North-West, and that country must bear
to some extent, its share of the cost. The price of land at
$2 and $3.50 an acre is not too high. If land is worth 20
cents an acre, it is certainly worth $2, and I do not think
any settler who has occupied what he considers a good
location, when he has got his patent, would sacrifice it for
such a small sum as $2 an acre. In addition to this, the
only thing the members from the North-West would urge
upon the Government is this. As a rule, the people who come
in there are not very rich. They have hard times before
them for the first few years, and, if they are not able to pay
for their land within the stipulated three years, they should
be given a certain time within which to pay, and the interest should not be too high.
For my part, I should like
to see the interest thrown off altogether, but this cannot be
done, because the sale of land, whether it is by the Government, or by individuals,
is a business transaction, and must
be carried on in a business manner. While on this land
question, I must refer to the remarks made by the mover of
the resolution (Mr. Davin), in regard to second homesteading. He referred to a discussion
which took place in
this House on that subject in 1887, and he urged that the
granting of second homesteads should be extended for a
longer period to settlers now in the North-West.
I should be sorry to see this done. In 1887, when this
matter was before the House, I took the same stand, and,
when I returned to the district of Saskatchewan, I found
that my conduct was endorsed by the people there. What
we ought to consider is what is the proper spirit of the
Homestead Act. I understand it to be to encourage people
to settle upon the lands who will become actual settlers
and who mean to make their homes in the country, and to
reside there with their families, but, if you give a homestead
to one man and allow him to throw it up and to take another
homestead in another place, you are creating a class of speculators. When this was
before the House, I compared two
of the prominent cities of the North-West, Winnipeg on the
one hand and Prince Albert on the other—and I compared
the country which surrounded those cities. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Watson)
smiles at the idea of comparing Winnipeg with Prince Albert, but I think that I
compared the two cities which were most fit for comparison.
If you go out from Winnipeg for many miles around, you
will find a large proportion of the country unsettled. These
lands were scriped by speculators, and the land remains unsettled, but, in the country
surrounding Prince Albert, you
will find that it is occupied by men who are
making improvements on their farms, and I do
not think there is any comparison at all between
the country surrounding these two cities. I know
that the people of Winnipeg have endeavored, to the best
of their ability, to get the lands immediately surrounding
the city into the market. Winnipeg has to depend now, to
a great extent, on its wholesale business. The retail business is small, because there
are so few people surrounding
the city, and it is principally confined to those who live in
the town. I believe that, if you wish to have prosperous
towns, you must have the country settled close up to the
town, so as to give a retail business first and a wholesale
business afterwards. One of the memorials from the North- West Council, to which I
desire to call special attention, is
a memorial to the Dominion Government praying them to
make such arrangements as to ensure the immediate construction of a railway to the
settlements on the North Saskatchewan. I am in hearty sympathy and accord with that
memorial. In the preamble they first state that the building of the Canadian Pacific
Railway had cut off the markets
of those settlements, and that, in consequence of that, the
people were unable to find means of getting rid of the produce which they raised.
The consequence was that they
were being brought into a most undesirable state of poverty.
I do not want to enter into great details at this time on that
subject, because I am happy to state that arrangements are
being carried on by a certain railway company pointing
towards the construction of the road to Prince Albert and
Battleford, which I hope will be concluded next month, and
which will give the needed railway communication. If
these arrangements are not concluded at that time, I shall
have a motion to lay before the House, and shall then have an
opportunity to go further into details in regard to the subject.
I will simply say now that I cannot urge too strongly on
the Minister of Interior and his colleagues that there is a
great necessity, in fact an immediate necessity, that the
land grants for railways in that country should be located
at once, if any work is to be carried out. It is absolutely
necessary that those who invest their money in these undertakings should know exactly
what security they have got,
and it is impossible for them to tell what the security is
worth until they know where these lands are, the lands
being security for building the railways. Another question
to which I wish to refer is that of granting scrip to the
half-breeds of the North-West. This question has raised a
great deal of discussion in the House before. The half- breeds in the North-West
have petitioned to the North- West Assembly, and the North-West Assembly has
petitioned the hon. gentlemen who form the Government of
this country, that scrip should be granted to the children of
all half-breeds who were born before March, 1885.
They consider that they are justly entitled to it,
because an arrangement was not made with the half- breeds in the North-West until
1885, when scrip was issued
1889.
COMMONS DEBATES. 375
to them. We know that the half-breeds in Manitoba were settled with in 1870, but the
half-breeds in the North-West
were not settled with until 1885; and, as my hon. friend
from Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) very wisely and very well
pointed out, the half-breeds in the North-West were a different class, in a way, from
the half-breeds in Manitoba,
they were in the same position with regard to the half- breeds in Manitoba as the
Blackfeet Indians would hear to
the Cree Indians; consequently, when a settlement was
made with the half-breeds in Manitoba, it did not
follow that a settlement was made with the half- breeds in the North-West—in fact,
it rather follows
that a settlement was not made with them, as no
steps were taken to settle their claims. I should like,
therefore, to hear the hon. Minister express himself in a
manner that will enable me to say to my half-breed friends
in the North-West that they are likely to get scrip;
because no settlement has been made with them, they had
no word in making the treaty as to surrendering their
rights; they accepted what was given them, but with this
protest, they demanded that this scrip should be issued to
all children who were born at the time of settlement.
The next question I wish to come to is the liquor question.
Ever since representation was granted to the maple of the
North-West in the local assembly, this has been a question
of more or less interest. I was a member of that assembly
some years ago, in the earlier days of representative government in the North-West,
and memorials were forwarded to Ottawa every year on this question. I think it is
only natural that this should be the case, when you consider
the relative position of the people in the North West and
the people in the rest of Canada. On this question there
is an arbitrary Act which applies to the people of the North- West, and to them only,
affecting their comforts and their
every day life; and this arbitrary Act was passed by a
Parliament in which the people to whom alone it applies
had no voice. Consequently, I maintain that it became an
unconstitutional Act as soon as representation was
given to the North-West in this House. The hon. mem
here who, with me, have represented the North- West in
this House, for the last three Sessions, have always been
directing attention to this matter, and the North-West
Assembly has now placed itself on record with regard to
it. What they demand is that either this question be submitted to a popular vote,
so that the people themselves may
decide it, or that the North-West Territories be placed in
the same position as the older Provinces in respect to the
license question, and the admission of liquor into the Territories. I, myself, would
go even a little further, and say
that there is a third alternative which, I think, would be
better still, and that is, to refer the liquor question to the
North-West Assembly, and give them power to deal with
it. My reason is that I believe that the people of the
North-West are sufficiently intelligent to know themselves
a great deal better than anyoue else what would be best for
them in this respect. At the same time, if a license system
is established in the North- West, it would be necessary, I
presume, to follow the rule that applies to other Provinces,
and to grant the fees, &c., collected for licenses within the
Territory to the North-West Government; so, I think that,
perhaps the fairest way of settling this question would be
to give the North-West Assembly power to deal with the
liquor question. While I am on this subject I would point
out that there is a great difference between the way in
which the liquor question stands in the older Provinces, and
the way in which it stands in the North-West. In the older
Provinces the people themselves have been allowed to say
whether any restriction should be imposed; but when this restriction has been imposed
under the Canada Temperance Act,
although liquor is not allowed to be sold at the bars in those
counties which are under the operation of that Act, still liquor
can be manufactured in those counties, and exported from
them. In older Provinces you can manufacture liquor and
you can export it, but in the North-West you are allowed
by a permit from the Lieutenant Governor, to import it,
but you are not allowed to manufacture it, and that is a
very remarkable difference. Now, we who live in the
North-West think that we ought to be allowed to manufacture the liquor that we are
now allowed to import. We
think that long ago we might have been allowed to manufacture the beer that was imported
into the country, and I
believe that if we had been allowed to manufacture beer
and sell it, it would have been a very admirable thing, and
probably would have prevented, in a great measure, the
agitation that has now arisen throughout the North-West
for an alteration in the liquor laws. Now, I just want to
return to the question of the land board. My hon. friend
from West Assiniboia thought it would be better if the land
board were transferred further west, and located at Regina.
For my part, I think it would be a very admirable thing to
have the land board in a central place in the Territory,
but if we want to make it convenient to the people I am sure
that the present location of the land board in Winnipeg
is a great deal better, because at present Winnipeg is most
accessible to the people in all parts of the Territory. People coming from the northern
districts, such as Touchwood
Hills, Prince Albert, Batoche, and along the line of the
Manitoba and North-Western Railway, when they come
from their homes and reach a railway, would have to
go back to Regina. The usual tendency is to go east to do
their business, but in that case they would have to go west
to Regina, and then resume their journey again, retracing
the distance they had already travelled. The land board
is a great deal more accessible in Winnipeg, because it does
away with this extra travel. I also wish to say a few
words with reference to scrip being granted to the
North-West Mounted Police. During last Session of
Parliament this matter came up on a motion of my
hon. friend for West Assiniboia, and it was promised
at that time that this question should be reconsidered.
I urged at that time, very strongly, that this scrip should
be given to the police, because I believed they deserved it.
They are, as everybody knows, a very fine body of men.
They did their duty at the time of the rebellion, but before
the rebellion occurred they did a greater duty than they did
even then, for they did a great work for Canada. It is Well
known that before the Indian Department was organised
throughout the North West, the mounted police were stationed at posts throughout that
vast territory, and I believe
the credit, in a great measure, is due to the police for
having handled the Indians so well as to control the country
without shedding a single drop of blood. This is a matter of
very great importance, although notice has not often been
called to it, and therefore it may appear to be a very small
matter. I believe the mounted police, from the very first
day they entered the country up to the present time, have
done their duty thoroughly, and are as much entitled to
scrip for services rendered during the rebellion as were
the provisional corps sent up there from Kingston, Quebec,
Toronto and other places which received scrip. They are
all alike enrolled to serve the interests of the Dominion at
large, and whether they serve in the North-West or in the
older Provinces, still they are doing their duty by their
country, and if rewards are going I think it is only a matter
of justice that all the corps should be rewarded alike.
Mr. WATSON. I do not intend to occupy the time of
the House at any length on this occasion. We have listened with interest to the remarks
of the member for West
Assiniboia (Mr. Davin), and the other members who have
spoken today. I have simply to say that I must back up,
in a great measure, the sentiments of my hon. friend, the
member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), with regard to
the past policy of the Government in dealing with public
376 COMMONS DEBATES. FEBRUARY 28,
lands in the North-West. It has always been contended by
me since I have had a seat in this House, that the lands of
the Dominion should be administered in the interests of
tha Dominion at large. It is to be regretted that we have
not a larger population in the North-West and Manitoba
to-day, and I hold that the land regulations of the Government have had much to do
with the lack of population
there. The system pursued by the Government of granting large tracts to colonisation
companies, and of making
large reservations that were held exclusively for sale, has
had a great deal to do with the sparse settlement that
exists in the North-West today. I am pleased to be able
to state that the land regulations of to-day are better than
the regulations that prevailed a few years ago, and I
was also glad to learn from the Minister of Interior,
in an interview I had with him this morning. that
some changes will be introduced during the present Session
which will considerably improve the land regulations of
the North-West. In regard to the price of land referred
to by the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Macdowall), I
entirely differ with him in regard to that matter. It is a
bad policy to place the land at such prices that actual
settlers cannot afford to buy them and enter into the actual
work of farming. The price of $250 per acre to the actual
settler is too high for any man to pay for land in the North- West, to be devoted
exclusively to farming purposes. As I
have always contended, having some knowledge of the
early settlement of that country, I hold that all the lands,
odd and even sections, in the interest of Canada, should
have been administered for the actual settlers instead of
holding them for sale. I know that as regards a considerable portion of the country
I represent, the land sales of
1880-81 proved a curse to the settlers. The odd sections
were sold by public competition, and the average price
realised was about $2.60 per acre, the upset price being
$2.50 per acre. Speculators entered into a combination to
pay as little as possible over the upset price, and the lands
were sold at that figure. I know they have been held by
the speculators who purchased them and who hold them
today, and they are waiting in order to try and realise the
amount they paid at that sale.
Mr. WATSON. The hon. gentleman owns some of the
land himself. He purchased it at $2.60 per acre and has
never had an opportunity of realising that price for it
since. This has prevented settlement in regard to land
grants for railway companies, I believe it is necessary for
the Government to give large tracts to encourage railway
building, for the country can only be opened up by the
construction of railways, and it is necessary to give a portion of the public domain
for their assistance; but instead
of giving land grants as in the past, I would suggest to the
House and the Government that a different policy should
be pursued, and that instead of giving alternate sections
the Government should give alternate townships. This
would be in the interest of settlement. Out of a township
of thirty-six sections there are only sixteen sections available for homesteading;
two sections belong to the Hudson's
Bay Company, two sections are public school lands, and all
the remaining odd sections are reserved for sale or for railway grants. That being
the case, there are only sixteen sections in a township of six miles square
that are available for homesteaders. I submit, from
what knowledge I have in regard to settlement
in that country, that it would be much better,
in the interests of the settler and of settlement, to reserve
for railway purposes, or for sale, alternate townships
instead of alternate sections. I have stated that
I had been informed that some amendments were to
be introduced to improve the land regulations of
the North-West, and I will reserve anything further I have
to say until these amendments are before the House, and
until they have been acted on by the Minister of Interior.
I must say, however, that I approve of the principle that
has been adopted by the Minister of Interior in consulting
the members for Manitoba and the North-West with respect
to the regulations in force in that part of the country, and
I am glad to know that some matters which I have brought
before this House and the department for years are now
being acted upon, particularly with respect to settlers
being allowed to procure dead timber for fuel, and some
other matters which I suppose will be explained by the
Minister of Interior.
It being Six o'clock, the Speaker left the Chair.
After Recess.
Mr. DALY. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I speak under
very unusual circumstances to-night. It is not often that
we have such a beggarly array on the other side of the
House. I do not know whether or not the announcement
that I was about to address the House after recess is the
occasion for my hon. friends of the opposite side of the
House staying away.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) They are more pleasantly engaged elsewhere.
Mr. DALY. Be that as it may, I am glad to see that
they have left the warhorse of Prince Edward Island here,
and he will probably know how to take care of me. I regret, however, that the member
for North Norfolk (Mr.
Charlton) is not here, because I would not have spoken on
this occasion had it not been that that hon. gentleman got
on his feet and made some remarks which I did not think
it right to pass without making some reference to, and correcting his statements.
During the three Sessions that I
have been in Parliament that hon. gentleman has taken occasion upon every opportunity
to discuss the affairs of the
North-West and Manitoba, and to make attacks upon
the land laws in force there. He has reiterated
here this afternoon what he stated last year and the
year previous, and I learn from gentlemen who sat in this
House before I did, that he repeated this afternoon what he
stated during Sessions before this present Parliament opened.
I do not see what is to be gained by the hon. gentleman (Mr.
Charlton) standing in this House and continually reiterating and making statements
which have been refuted, time
and time again, from the floor of Parliament. I have had
occasion during the past two years, as I have the occasion
now, to refute the statements made by the hon. gentleman,
and particularly the allegation which he made this afternoon that the land laws of
the United States were far
more liberal to the settlers than the land laws of Canada at
present in operation in Manitoba and the North-West. I
showed the hon. gentleman last year that this was not so.
I proved to him the year previous that it was not the fact,
and my hon. friend the member for Lisgar (Mr. Ross) did
the same, but, notwithstanding that, he gets up and makes a
general statement against the land laws without giving us
any particulars to support it. If, in the opinion of the
hon. gentleman, the land laws of the United States are more
liberal than the land laws of Canada, why does he not
make some specific statement to bear out the allegations he
makes? Are the land laws of the United States more
liberal than the same laws of Canada? I say that they
are not as liberal as our laws, and I will prove it.
All that we require is that if a young man
comes to Manitoba he should be 18 years of age,
and that he should have not homesteaded previously. That
young man goes to the land office, he says that he is eighteen years of age, that
he had not homesteaded previously,
and he is given his entry. He goes out to the land,
performs six months duty in each year for three years,
1889.
COMMONS DEBATES. 377
and at the end of that time he gives notice to the nearest land
agent that he wants to apply for his patent. He has not to
travel thirty, or forty, or fifty miles, as the case may be, to
the nearest land office, but on receipt of that notice, which
he sends, an inspector is sent out, and that inspector takes
the evidence of the settler and the evidence of his neighbors
to show that he has fulfilled the conditions. The consequence is that within a very
short time the report of the
inspector is made, and the settler receives a notification
from the land office to the effect that his land is recommended for patent. Now, Sir,
if the settler in the North-West
is a foreigner, we do not ask, when he goes to the land
office, that he should become a subject of Her Majesty
the Queen. We do not ask him to forswear allegiance from the country whence he came,
but if a
young man goes to a land office in the United States
they require that he should be twenty-one years
of age and in addition, if he is the subject of a foreign nation
he is required to take the oath of allegiance to the President
of the United States, and to forswear allegiance from the
country from which he came, and particularly the Queen of
Great Britain and Ireland. As I have stated before, the
young settler requires to put in three years homestead duty
in our lands in Manitoba or the North-West Territories.
But if a young man requires a homestead in Dakota or the
Territories of the United States, he has to put in five years.
We offer to settlers 160 acres of a homestead, and 160 acres
pre-emption, but they have no such regulation in the United
States. A man cannot pre-empt after he has homesteaded,
and his pre-emption means that he has gone to the land
office and sworn that he is 21 years of age, that he has put
in six months' residence on that pre-emption, and then he
buys it at $2.50 an acre. The best way I can describe the
matter, so far as this question of pre-empting lands in
Dakota is concerned, is to read an extract from the very
able pamphlet of W. A. Webster, which is now in the
hands of most of the members of this House. At page 5,
Mr. Webster says as follows :—
"The land laws here are greatly abused. To enter on land one must
be a citizen 21 years old, and must reside on the land five years before
he can get his patent; but the homesteader takes advantage of a clause
in the set, which allows him to commute, after six months' residence,
by paying $2.50 an acre, if, during these six months, he shall have built
a habitable house and cultivated ten acres of land. Now, this is the
practice: Four young men enter for the land at the land office. They
go to the place where the four corners of their sections meet, and there
build a sod cabin 12 feet square, as a joint house for all four. They dig
four holes a few feet deep and call them wells; borrow a yoke of steers
and plough a few furrows around the house, and call that forty acres;
sleep a few nights in the cabin and 'prove up;' mortgage their homesteads to the speculators
and get money to get their patents. If they
have a few dollars left they look on that as clear gain, put them in their
pockets, go off to some other county where they are not known and go
through the same operation again and again, while the speculator gets
the land and tries to sell it for $10 an acre. One man told me that he
had homesteaded nine times and was going to do so once more. The
remains of those cabins are to be met with all over the prairie, without
a sign of life about them. One of those deserted cabins, with a board
nailed across the door, had a notice on it, of which the following is a
verbatim copy:—
"Four miles from a nayber,
"Sixty miles from a post ofis,
"Twenty miles from a ralerode,
"A Hundred and Atey from timber,
"250 feet from water. God bless our Home.
"We have gone east to spend the winter with my wife's relations."
Now, Sir, it is not necessary for me to quote further from this
pamphlet. I have met men in Canada who have lived in
Dakota, and I have met men who are coming across again
from the States to Manitoba and the North-West, and they
curse the day that ever they set foot on American soil. I
heard the member for Marquette (Mr. Watson), the other
day, say that Canadians were returning from Dakota and
Minnesota. There is no question about that fact, for they
are making entries at our customs house every day.
When the hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Charlton)
stated this afternoon, that our land laws were not as liberal
as the land laws of the United States, that gentleman must
have known, from the reiterated statements of myself and
other members of the North-West, who probably know
more about these matters than he does, that he was stating
what was not correct. I cannot understand why, Session
after Session, he should make that statement, if it were not
for the fact that he is more interested in peopling the
American North-West, than he is in peopling the North- West of Canada. The hon. gentleman
says that we have
a very poor showing as regards the population in Manitoba
and the North-West. He stated to the House this afternoon, that the population of
Manitoba is 132,000. New,
Sir, according to the census of 1885, only three years ago,
the pepulation was 108,000. So we have increased 24,000
people in population in three years. I do not think that is
a bad showing, and if the hon. gentleman will examine the
ratio of increase according to the census returns of the
United States, he will find that our percentage of increase
is as large as the percentage of increase of any state in
the Union. Now, as regards immigration, I do
not think that the member for South Norfolk
will say that the Government is pursuing a wrong policy,
as I contend they are, in not voting a larger annual sum
for immigration. I think the hon. gentleman holds the same
ideas with the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard
Cartwright), in effect that the Government should not
be blamed for not making a larger appropriation for immigration. Let us consider where
the population of Dakota
and Minnesota come from. It comes from the people of
the Eastern States as well as from foreign countries. Immigration from foreign countries
has been flowing into Dakota
and Minnesota for the last thirty or forty years. I contend
that the best immigration agent for any country is a man
who comes to our country and prospers and who goes back
to the land from which he came and tells the friends
amongst whom he lived in his early days, of his success. Give
us the same length of time Dakota and Minnesota have had
to populate, and I maintain that in Manitoba and the North- West we will have a larger
population than they have to- day. I was told by an agent of the Local Government
of
Manitoba in Ontario, a month ago, that there were over 2,000
Manitobans in Quebec and Ontario. Those 2,000 men will
do more to populate our country—and possibly to depopulate your older Provinces down
here—than all the
immigration pamphlets you could have printed. If we
look at the Argentine Republic, which is seeking to
increase its population, we will find that it is spending five million dollars this
year on immigration.
It is making every possible effort to take people there.
What I maintain is, that if our Government gave us a more
liberal immigration grant, our population would probably
increase at a greater ratio. But, however that may be, I
am perfectly satisfied that it is only a matter of time when
our population will be just as great as that of Dakota and the
other western territories of the United States. Any hon.
gentleman from that country will tell you today that we
have a contented, a happy and a prosperous people. When
I tell you that the little town I come from, although
scarcely seven years old, in 1887 shipped 8,000,000 pounds
of freight, you will come to the conclusion that we have
made great progress. We, last year, shipped 1,500,000 bushels
of wheat. All that ought to be required of the members of
this House, either those from our Province, or those from
the other Provinces, is to have faith in our great North- West—to believe that it
is only a matter of time when that
country will be peopled; and if the people who are to come
in should be of the same class as those there now, we shall
have the fairest Province in this great Confederation. The
hon. gentleman, by his remarks this afternoon, would give
those who are imperfectly informed to understand that it
is better for a man who wants to emigrate to go to Dakota,
or some other part of the United States, than to go to
378 COMMONS DEBATES. FEBRUARY 28,
Manitoba, or our own North-West. That must be the
natural conclusion to be drawn from his remarks, because
he made the general statement that Dakota and Minnesota
were more prosperous than the Canadian North-West, and
that their land laws were more liberal. Let any American newspaper man or railway
man take the speech of the
hon gentleman, and he could obtain half a dozen emigrants
with it. Now, what is the condition of the people of
Dakota, as compared with the condition of our own people?
Take the matter of taxation. Mr. Webster states in his
pamphlet, among other things, at page 14:
"And I further affirm that there is no emigration from Manitoba to
Dakota, for the above and other reasons; and, further, the near future
of Dakota, financially, is not of the kind to inspire confidence in the
mind of a thoughtful immigrant farmer. On the 1st of June, 1887, the
farm mortgage debt of Dakota was $45,000,000. That sum, if equally
divided, would be a mortgage of $400 on every family in Dakota. But
all are not farmers; so much the worse for those that are. At the same
date the average six mortgages on six sections of 160 acres was $800,
drawing an interest of 10 per cent. Add to this the county debts, averaging $30,000,
and the thoughtful farmer can see why taxes are high,
and why it is hard to make wheat growing profitable in Dakota."
He says with regard to Manitoba:
"I know of no country in which municipal taxes are as low as in Manitoba. Nature made
the roads, leaving only the bridges for the municipalities to build."
In this connection, I may say that our municipal taxes in
Manitoba in the last few years have been very much reduced,
and there are several municipalities in the county of Brandon that have balances in
the bank. The city of Brandon,
on the 1st of January, after providing for the interest on its
coupons and for every other demand, had $3,500 to its
credit in the bank; the municipality of Elton had $4 000;
and the municipality of Cornwallis had $1,500. The municipality of Oak Lake and the
municipality of Blanchard, in
the county of Marquette, had also large balances in the bank.
If the municipalities are prosperous, I think that is good
evidence that the people must be prosperous. Now, I say
in answer to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr.
Charlton), that our land laws are far more liberal than
those prevailing in Dakota and the western States; and it
does not behoove him, or any other member of this House, to
make the general statement he has made. Our land laws
have not been all that we could have wished them to be;
but if any hon. gentleman imagines that the land laws of the
United States are perfect, all he has to do is to go to the
library to find volume after volume of the decisions of the
land officers at Washington, and to find that they have had
more trouble with their land laws than we have had. There
are certain matters that we would like to have changed, but
we are glad to have as Minister of the Interior a gentleman
who has spent eight or ten years of his life in the North- West, and is conversant
with our wants and requirements;
and as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Watson) said
this afternoon, from the interview that we had with the hon.
Minister to-day, we are satisfied that he is desirous of giving
the settlers of that country all that is required to make the
land laws of this Parliament satisfactory to them. I do
not wish to state anything of what occurred at that interview; but as the representative
of one of the constituencies
of Manitoba, I am well satisfied with what the hon. Minister
promised. When the new land regulations are laid before
the House, we shall have a full discussion of the question,
and I will reserve any further remarks I have to make
until that occasion.
Mr. McMULLEN. I am very glad indeed to hear the
glowing accounts given by the hon. gentleman of the prosperity of the North-West.
I am sure it is a matter of
great satisfaction to us all to learn that the prospects of the
country are so bright. We shall indeed be pleased to see
a large influx of population into that country. I also
listened with great interest to the remarks made by the
hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin). He put
the case of the settlers in very plain and pointed terms, and
endeavored to show what changes were, in his opinion,
necessary in the land regulations. I think it will not be
denied that things occurred in that country which we have
to regret, and that mistakes have been made in connection
with the land regulations. It was a very unfortunate arrangement by which the Government
permitted large sections of that country to be taken up by colonisation companies
and withheld from actual settlers for years, so that
many persons who went in there were prevented from settling where they wanted to.
If the arrangements had been
such that the actual settler could have gone in and taken
up land wherever he wished to locate, I believe a larger
population would be there than there is at present. These
are matters that we have to deplore, and I earnestly
hope, along with the gentlemen who have spoken,
that the Minister now in charge of that department
will make such changes as will give the actual settler
greater advantages than he has enjoyed in that country hitherto. But while we are
prepared to lend our hearty
encouragement to every movement that will tend to fill that
country with population and promote its development,
that would tend to bring it up to the standard where I
would like to see it, a great populous and wealthy country.
There is another side of the question that has not been
touched by any hon. gentleman opposite, the question of
expense. I hold that in their arrangements the Government have expended enormous sums
of money for the purpose of meeting the wishes of political friends and finding
soft and easy resting places for those who were pressing
upon them for lucrative positions. When we come to consider the condition of things
as we find them by the Auditor
General's Report, we have to deplore the fact that an enormous amount of money has
been expended compared with
the amount received in return. I find that we expended
altogether last year, including the expenses of the Winnipeg board, and the expenses
west of Winnipeg, as follows:
Dominion lands, outside service, $149,536.61. We expended
on the Half breed Commission $6,714.39, and we expended
on the registrars, of whom we have seven, $13,386.32.
Now this is in all an expenditure for officials in the
North-West, including the Land Board at Winnipeg, and
all west of that, of $169,637.32. Now, what were our
receipts? Our entire income last year from the sales of
lands, mainly coal lands, ranching grants, and all other
sources was $267,973.51, leaving a balance to our credit
of $98,336.18. That virtually means that for all the money
received in the North-West, we have actually paid out 60
per cent. for hired service, agents, inspectors, travellers,
and the like. I want to give a resume of the account, as it
now stands, for the last year. As I stated before, we have
expended $149,534.61 under the head of Dominion lands
account. That includes contingencies. Then we have
expended in the Department of the Interior, inside service,
salaries here at Ottawa, $35,011.43; on surveys, $136,009.02;
salaries at Ottawa, Dominion lands, $76,604,67; contingencies at Ottawa belonging
to Department of Interior,
$22,137.02. In all we have expended in the Department of
Interior, including the expenses in Ottawa, and the expenses
in the North-West, and the surveys, $420,744.76. Now, let
us look at the receipts. We have received from Dominion
lands and ranching leases, &c., $217,688.01; from ordnance
lands, $36,239.88; from the registry office, 87,212.02; fines
and forfeitures, $7,065.76; and other fines $372.79; in all
we have collected $267,973.50. Deducting that from our
expenditure, we are actually at a positive less in the Operation of the Department,
including the surveys for last year,
of $166,172.22, but allowing that the surveys performed
last year, which cost $106,000, should be charged to capital
account, we are actually at a loss of $60,172.22, on last
year's operations. Now, to give the House a little idea of
the manner in-which this condition of things is brought
1889.
COMMONS DEBATES. 379
about I will just give you the list of the different receipts
and expenditures of the Dominion land agencies in the
North-West:
|
Receipts. |
Expenditure. |
| Battleford......... . ............. |
$ 245 38 |
$ 4,899 32 |
| Birtle ................................... |
9,088 14 |
2,402 16 |
| Calgary ....... .. ................ |
18,538 99 |
10,447 53 |
| Coteau ...... . ...... ... .......... |
1,277 95 |
1,651 58 |
| Dufferin ............................ ... |
12,368 60 |
2,456 40 |
| Edmonton ..... ......... .......... |
8,603 58 |
6,270 88 |
| Lethbridge ........................... |
1,288 80 |
1,553 95 |
| Little Saskatchewan .............. |
5,655 43 |
2,590 90 |
| New Westminster ......... . ........ |
36,154 20 |
10,032 31 |
| Prince Albert .................. ....... |
4,389 90 |
7,219 48 |
| Regina, Qu'Appelle..... . ..... |
5,852 19 |
8,149 92 |
| Rocky Mountains Park.. ........ |
2,951 58 |
1,203 01 |
| Souris....................... ................ |
14,574 66 |
5,675 96 |
| Touchwood..... ....... ................ |
403 65 |
536 11 |
| Turtle Mountain ..................... |
12,042 68 |
3,404 39 |
| Winnipeg ............ ....... . .......... |
59,204 74 |
85,206 34 |
In all the North-West, we collected during the last year
for lands, ranching grants, coal dues, and for all purposes
that come within the range of Dominion lands, $193,640.43,
and we actually expended for the services of registrars,
inspectors, agents and others, $153,740.24, leaving a net
balance to our credit of $38,900.15. I will give you a
little idea of the expenses at Winnipeg. They are really
surprising. To begin with, Mr. William Pearce, superintendent of mines, has a salary
of $3,200; Mr. H. H. Smith,
commissioner, has a salary of 85,000 a year; Mr. Rufus
Stephenson, inspector of color isation companies, gets $3,000;
and I venture to say that there are people in the Province
of Ontario who will make a declaration before any judge
or jury that Mr. Stephenson was not in the North- West altogether four months, and
was in his comfortable home in Ontario at least eight months of
the gear for which he drew $3,000 as inspector,
and over $3,000 for expenses. Then we come to Mr. D. J.
Macdonnell. He is employed in the Land Office at Winnipeg,
and gets $3 a day. Mr. J. M. Gordon, inspector of agencies,
receives $2,000 a year. Mr. Dolbear receives $3 a day. Mr.
Burpé receives $1,800 a year; and so it goes on. The total
expense of the Land Board at Winnipeg is $30,745.57. But
we have seven agencies in the North-West, and to give an
idea of the expenses of these agencies, I will read some of
the items. Mr. E. T. Smith, the agent at Brandon, has a
salary of $1,200 a year. Mr. W. H. Hiam has a salary of
$1,200 a year. Mr. A. W. Reynold s, in the same agency,
receives $3 a day. Mr. O. D. Rickards has about the same
salary, and there are a lot of other men. At Calgary, we
have Mr. Amos Rowe receiving $1,200. Mr. Meyer receiving over $1,000 a year. Mr. Michael
Harris the same, and
Mr. McQuilken receiving about the same. In addition to
that, there is Mr. T. A. McLean, registrar, receiving $1,200
a year, and Mr. Rochester receiving $3 a day, and many
others. The sums paid in that agency run up in the same
ratio. I cannot understand how hon. gentlemen opposite
can expect that the people will put up with the extravagance which exists in the North
West. It appears to be filled
up by officials who never did anything and, since they
have been sent there, do nothing. At Prince Albert,
I find that Mr. J. McTaggart, agent, receives $1,200; Mr.
Schmidt, clerk, is employed at $3 a day; Mr. Sproat, registrar, receives $1,200; and
Mr. Waggoner, crown timber
agent, receives the same amount. In addition to that, $240
is paid to Mrs. E. W. Sproat for rent for the registry
office, and there are a number of other officials who receive
smaller salaries. At Regina, Mr. W. H. Stevenson, agent,
receives $1,200; A. J. Fraser, clerk, $1,095. There is also
there a Mr. P. M. Barker, instructor of registrars. This is
a most peculiar thing. We have only seven registrars in
the North-West, and, in order to give these men information as to how they should
do their duty, we have to send
up an instructor. I do not know for a certainty who this
Mr. Barker is, but I think he once lived in Orangeville, and
I think he is related to the hon. member for Simcoe. If I
am wrong, I can be corrected. However, Mr. Barker is
there, and for instructing the registrars in these seven
offices he receives $1,600 a year and travelling expenses.
I say it is an outrage on the people of this country to ask
them to put up with this condition of things. The Government have inaugurated a most
extravagant course in the
North-West. The average salary paid at the different
offices, leaving out Winnipeg, where the cost is over
$30,000 a year, is $7,700 for each of the 16 agencies.
I think it is time that a host of these unnecessary officers
were discharged from the service, and that the Government
should cut down the expenses within reasonable and decent
limits. When we consider the glowing statements that
were made in this House from year to year, as to what
would likely be the result in the North-West, we cannot
forget what Sir Charles Tupper stated we might expect.
The Premier, when he was trying to induce the House to
pass the vote of $30,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, said he had
made a careful calculation
based on his extended experience and also on information
received from other sources, and that he was in a position
to assure the House that we might reasonably anticipate
that by the year 1890 we would have gathered out of that
country $71,305,000. Instead of that, in 1889, we find that
we are $160,000 short of expenses. Then Sir Leonard
Tilley in his Budget Speech delivered shortly before he left
us, gave a very glowing account of what he looked forward
to as the result of our enterprise in the North-West. He
told us that he had carefully made out his figures, and he
was a little more careful than the First Minister, but he
said he believed that by the year l891 we would have a
net balance from the North-West of $53,693,251. If
it had not been for these statements, if it had
not been for the assurance given by men of experience
and possessing, as they did largely, the confidence
of the people of the country, I say that the people would
never at the last election have endorsed the course which
hon. gentlemen took in connection with the construction of
the Canadian Pacific Railway. We are perfectly willing to
acknowledge that it was a necessity, that it was desirable
that it should be built, but the course of extravagance
which was followed in building it, and in the way in which
money was dealt out in order to keep members of this
House in line, was nothing short of a disgrace, and the
people were deceived in regard to the prospect of the result
of the building of that road. Instead of our getting
seventy-one millions as we were promised in 1890,
or fifty-three millions as we were promised in 1891, we find
a large balance chargeable to that country for managing
expenses alone, and we do not take into account the immense amount of money which
was spent on the unfortunate
war there, in which about $8,000,000 were spent unnecessarily, because, if the proper
steps had been taken, that war
would not have occurred. We do not take into account
the cost of the Mounted Police, the number of which was
raised from 500 to 1,000. The expense of that force last
year was $860,000, and $876,000 was expended for feeding
Indians. Putting these sums with the amount on the
debit side for the administration of the land office alone,
we find that we are over $2,000,000 short on the transactions of last year. When these
men from Manitoba and
the North-West are urging extended and liberal action
towards that country, I think it behoves the people to cry
a halt in the expenditures there. There are a number of
useless officials in the North-West who are enjoying a good
time at the expense of the country, and the sooner they
are removed, and the staff cut down to the number required
for the necessities of the service, the better for the people.
When a short time ago the leader of the House, who is not
at present in his seat, characterised it as being a "happy
hunting ground for political hacks," he called it really what
380 COMMONS DEBATES. FEBRUARY 28,
it had been made by hon. gentlemen opposite, and it is time
we should put a stop to it. Why, Sir, hon. gentlemen should
feel ashamed that a man like Rufus Stephenson should be
foisted upon this country, both he and his son, he himself
drawing $3,000 a year and travelling expenses, and a son
in an office in Winnipeg drawing $2,000; and I do not
know how many more relations he has living upon the
country, I believe that every relation he has will be provided for at the public expense
if this Government continues much longer in power. Now, Sir, I say it is time
that we called a halt; it is time the Government were
in a position to announce to this House that they intend
to step the extravagance that exists in the North- West. We shall be glad to encourage
them in the
direction of securing an increase of settlement. We do not
deny that it is absolutely necessary in the interest of this
Dominion that the country should be settled. We will
offer then every encouragement, we will say every word
we can in its favor. I believe myself it is going to be a
great country, I believe it is the best unsettled country on
the continent of America to-day. But I am sorry to say
that by the blunders of this Government, by the manner in
which that country has been handled and operated in the
interests of political friends, by the manner in which her
resources have been squandered, timber limits, land grants,
and one thing and another having been used for political
purposes, to serve political ends, that country in the past
has been cursed, and I hope that curse will now be removed,
and that in the future every inducement possible will be
held out to the people of the old world to come there and
make comfortable homes for themselves, and that the restrictions that have weighed
upon settlement there, and
have driven people across the border, will be removed. I
say, that so far as the older sections of the country is concerned, we cannot afford
to go on and spend recklessly, in
the way we have been doing, the money of the people of
this country in a manner that is altogether unnecessary.
I claim that it is quite unnecessary. I claim that no man
who will go through that country, as I went through it,
and see on every hand fellows in official position, fellows
occupying easy quarters and drawing large salaries, but
will come to the conclusion that that country has been
cursed. I hope the Minister, now in charge will put in the
pruning hook at once, and that whatever the evils of the
past may have been in regard to officials there, these evils
will now be put a stop to. Why, Sir, there are evils in
other directions. I am sorry to say, that my hon. friend
from West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) is no exception, because
I see that the organ of which undoubtedly be is chief—or
used to be, and I suppose he is still—is getting $5,000 a
year for printing. It appears that every one who supports
the Government thinks he must get some little picking,
some little advantage for himself. New, I say we have
had enough of this thing, it has just gone far enough,
in the interests of the people of this country, and I
hope that the members of this House will stand shoulder
to shoulder, and persistently sit upon this thing, and not
permit it to exist any longer, cut off these unnecessary
and extravagant officials, and come down to a common
sense position. The course that we have been pursuing
in the past in the North West, has been a curse to
the country; we have cursed it by our land regulations;
we have cursed it by our mining regulations, by our railway regulations and in other
ways; now let us remove all
the restrictions and give the people an opportunity to rise,
let us take off the unnecessary burden put upon them in the
way of officials that are now roaming around that country,
and cut down the expenditure to what is actually necessary.
Then I believe that the country will prosper and will go on
prospering. ButI believe if you do not do that, if you
allow this horde of Officials and these monopolies to continue
to exist as they have in the past, the same curse will con
tinue to rest upon that country. Now, I consider it my
duty, in the interest of the constituency I represent, and
the Province from which I come, to make these remarks.
I do not offer any objection to one word that has been
said by the representatives of that country; I give them
credit for advocating the cause of their country; they
would not be doing their duty if they did not advocate it,
but I also hold that it is our duty to keep control of these
things. We, in the older Provinces, have an interest in that
country, because we have to help to bear the burden, we
have got to pay the taxes, we have to contribute towards
the enormous sums that will annually fall upon the shoulders
of the people of this country to meet the annual expense
and the enormously increased interest on our public debt,
to pay for the improvements that have been made up there;
and I say it is our duty to raise our voice in the interests
of the people and to declare that we object to see the taxes
increased from year to year, that we object to see imposed
upon them new burdens which cannot be rolled away for
many years to come. I hope the course of this House will
show the Minister of Interior that we desire him to put in
the pruning hook, and let us begin at once to do what we
ought to have done long ago.
Mr. DAVIS (Alberta). In Speaking upon these resolutions passed by the Legislative Assembly
of the North-West
last November, and that have been laid upon the Table
by my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin),
I wish to say he has echoed my sentiments exactly.
In the first part of his speech he also gave us a glowing description of the agricultural
capacity of the North- West. There was one industry, however, which he
did not speak of, and that is the ranching industry. We
have in the district of Alberta, as you all know, a large
expanse of open prairies, where we can graze cattle the
year round. We have in the northern portion of the territory some of the finest, if
not the very finest, farming land
that lies out of doors. All we require is a railway in the
North Saskatchewan country in order to develop that immense wheat country. Speaking
of the ranching country,
I may say that in the southern portion of Alberta you will
see herds of cattle which have been put into that country
during the last five years. There are at present, I suppose,
about 130,000 horned cattle in the district of Alberta. The
first year we had to import cattle, but last year I suppose
the district of Alberta exported 5,000 head of steers, and
probably as many more were consumed for home consumption, making 10,000 head of steers,
while, five years ago,
we had to import all the beef that was used in the country
from the United States. Now these 10,000 head of steers,
at $40 a piece—which they would bring at least, while
many of them brought $50— would make $400,000 for that
new industry that has been established in the North-West.
Then we have another industry that has just been established in that country, and
that is the raising of horses.
We have at present, I presume, at least 20,000 in the district
of Alberta, and I wish to remind the Minister of Agriculture
that in his quarantine list he has left out horses. I see he
has discriminated against all other animals except horses,
I wish he would include horses on the list in his quarantine
regulations. They are raising a great many horses in the
vast country to the south of us, and we know at the present
time there is some disease amongst horses on the south
side of the line; therefore I think the Minister ought to
put horses on the list, but I would not advise him to
give as many days as he does in the case of cattle.
Then within the last few years in the district of Alberta
there have been large tracts of land held by speculators
from the east who never intended to put stock on them.
The present Minister of Interior, since he assumed Office,
has thrown open at least 1,500,000 acres which, otherwise,
would not have been opened to settlers, and this has
1889.
COMMONS DEBATES. 381
brought a great many people to our section of the country
with a view to settling there, while previously no one
thought of going there as it was considered that if the land
was leased a man could not settle on it. This action of the
Government has removed all cause of complaint in that
direction. There is now sufficient land of the very finest
class thrown open to which settlers can go and have the
advantage of being near towns where they can carry on
mixed farming and enjoy the best advantages. The first
resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly reads as
follows:—
"That this Assembly regards the question as of first importance and
urges the Dominion Government to take immediate action in giving an
outlet by railway to the pioneer settlements of the North Saskatchewan."
Edmonton, Prince Albert and St. Albert are old settlements,
I suppose Fort Edmonton was established 100 years ago,
and all that these towns and the outlying country require
is railway communication to make them, as I have said,the
Garden of Eden. The next resolution is with respect to the
half-breeds resident in the electoral districts bordering on
the North Saskatchewan. The North Saskatchewan runs
both through my district, that of Alberta, and the Saskatchewan district. There are
a great many half-breeds who
live on the border of the Saskatchewan River, having settled
there in old days. The resolution to which I refer reads as
follows:—
"Whereas it has been represented to this Assembly by some of its
members that among the half-breeds resident in the electoral districts
bordering on the Saskatchewan, who preferred claims for losses during
the rebellion at 1885 before the Commissioners on such claims, and
whose claims have been rejected, some, who were known to have been
loyal, had their claims rejected, while others who were known to have
been directly implicated in the uprising have had their claims allowed.
That such apparent discrimination has given rise to a wide spread feeling among the
half-breeds referred to that those who remained loyal
have not received the justice intended by the Government at the hands
of the Commissioners. Be it resolved, &c."
I think that a commission should be appointed, as the resolution sets forth, consisting
of a judge of the Supreme
Court of the North-West Territories, so that all claims may
be wiped out, and not be brought before Parliament year
after year. The next resolution upon which I will touch
was passed on the 23rd of last November, and it sets forth :
"That in the opinion of that Assembly a vote of the Territories on
the question of license versus prohibition should immediately be taken."
This is one of the most burning questions of the North- West. The people should be
allowed to decide whether
they would have free whiskey or high license, or have the
liquor as in the Eastern Provinces. Lliquor is now
brought into the country, and the Government derive no
revenue from it. I have no doubt, if a vote of the people
were taken to-morrow, every man in the business of
selling liquor would vote against free whiskey and with
the temperance party, simply because to do otherwise
would be to destroy his means of livelihood. There
are in Calgary to-day not less than 25 saloons selling
liquor. Neither the town of Calgary nor the Dominion
Government derive any revenue from that sale. It will be
asked, where does the liquor come from? It comes from
British Columbia, Manitoba and Montana. Under these
circumstances, it would be better if the people of the
North-West were allowed to have a vote on this subject,
or at least be placed on the same footing as the people
in other portions of the Dominion, so that they could pass
the Scott Act or not as they desired. It is certain that you
can never prohibit the sale of liquor in the North-West as
long as it is manufactured. I hope, therefore, that the
Government will take this resolution more especially under
their consideration, and will endeavor to deal with it in
such a way that we can have this question settled either by
the vote of the people or by the Dominion Parliament.
The next resolution takes up the question of immigration.
I think the Government should without doubt grant more
liberal aid to immigration to the North-West than they
have given hitherto. There should be immense quantities
of pamphlets circulated through all portions of Europe, the
United States and even Eastern Canada. I venture to say
that the United States Government have sent out ten car
loads of immigration pamphlets to one sent by the Dominion Government, and the reason
why their country has
been settled is because it has been advertised. With regard
to placing agents in Great Britain and the United States, I
fully agree with the resolution and the remarks of the hon.
member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Davin). It is asked
that the sum of $15,000 be placed at the disposal of
the Territories, and this would be a mere drop in the bucket
as compared with other expenses that are going on, and it
would benefit the country tenfold. The next resolution
deals with the subject of the settlers being allowed to use
dry wood for fuel. That, I believe, has been already
arranged, and I have simply to say that the people of the
North West should be allowed to burn up the dry wood that
is going to waste without paying revenue to the Dominion.
There is another question I wish to urge upon the Minister of Inland Revenue, and
that is the appointment of a
hide inspector at McLeod and Calgary. At the present
time when so many cattle are being shipped out of the
country, it has become very important that all the hides
should be inspected before the cattle leave the country.
Even if a man kills meat on the prairie he should be compelled to bring in the hides,
so that it would be known
whether he had killed his own animals or those of his
neighbors. The cost would be but very light and it could
easily be paid out of the revenue, by simply putting a fee
upon our hide inspector. In this same resolution the
Assembly recommends as follows:—
"As under the Half-breed Commission of the 20th March, 1885, the
Indian title, in as far as half-breeds are concerned, only extends to
those born prior to 15th July, 1870, and as a number have been born to
parents coming under the said Commission of 1885, who in the opinion
of this Assembly have equal rights to those already dealt with: This
Assembly would draw the attention of the Dominion Government to the
fact and urge that steps be taken to finally end all halt-breed claims."
We all know that there are quite a number of half-breeds
in the North-West Territories who when this treaty was
made with them in 1870 were in Manitoba, but before they
were settled with they moved to the North-West. Those
people were not settled with until 1885 and then only those
who were included in the Treaty of 1870 had their claims
met by the Government, leaving the children born between
1870 and 1885 out of the treaty. There is no reason in the
world why those children should not receive the same
benefits as the other so long as their title is not extinguished.
If the Government had paid eveiyone of them in 1870
there would probably have been no rebellion in 1885. I
would strongly recommend to the Government that this
matter should be attended to at once and that the claims of
those excluded from the treaties should be considered in the
same way as the claims of the others, viz, by a commission
of the judges of the North-West Territories. The Assembly
also recommends:
"That the Dominion Government be asked to grant scrip to all those
acting during the North-West Rebellion as scouts under the Police Act."
They also recommend that the North-West Mounted Police,
who rendered valuable services during the rebellion, should
be rewarded. I think that this is a very fair request to make
to the Government. There is not the slightest doubt that
any one who acted as a scout duiing the rebellion, as well
as the members of the North-West Mounted Police force
should receive the same compensation as others. They are
certainly better entitled to recognition at the hands of the
Government than many of those who received it. I cannot
see why the scouts and the Mounted Police should not be
treated the same as the militia and volunteer forces. They
did as good work as any of the others, and they should
382 COMMONS DEBATES. February 28,
receive the same reward. They have been precluded from
even the small recompense of receiving medals, with the
exception of just a few who were in actual combat. I
know that some of the home guards who never left their
homes at all were presented with medals, but the police
and the scouts who took an active part were left out in the
cold. Whether the police were in action or not, I hold that
every man of them who was in the field should at least
receive a medal. Those medals would not cost much; I
suppose not more than $1.25 each, and that amount would
never be felt by the Dominion of Canada. Another resolution of the Assembly says:
"We, your committee, find that several trails are made use of for
carrying Her Majesty's mails, as well as being the main highways leading from one
settlement to another. We find that certain streams, rivers
and sloughs on those trails form strong impediments, not only to settlement, but interfere,
to a great extent, in the conveyance of Her Majesty's
mails, besides causing an increased expenditure of that very important
item.
"The condition of some of those trails, at certain seasons of the year,
has proven to be dangerous to life and property, and communication
between the different settlements made most difficult and supplies not
only rendered much dearer, but, in fact, almost impossible to obtain.
"Such a condition of affairs is a most important element in retarding
settlement and the proper development of the Territories, and as the
funds at the disposal o the Territorial Government are insufficient to
make the necessary improvements, and we consider the Dominion Government especially
interested in those trails, we would, therefore, urge
that the Dominion Government appropriate a special sum to be expended on the following
trails, viz.:—
"From Macleod to Calgary.
"From Calgary to Edmonton and Athabasca Landing.
"From Swift Current to Battleford.
"From Qu'Appelie to Prince Albert."
I call particular attention to the necessity for improving
the trail between McLeod and Calgary. There are four
rivers on that trail which during at least four months in
the year are almost impossible to cross, and only one, at
Elbow River, is bridged at the present time. I would
urge on the members of the Cabinet, and especially on the
Minister of Public Works, to see that an appropriation is
put in the Estimates for the bridging of these streams.
The work is most important to the people of that district,
and it should not be neglected. The same remarks apply
to the trail from Calgary to Edmonton, and the trail from
Lethbridge to McLeod. This latter trail is only a short
distance of thirty miles, and we have two of the largest
rivers of the North-West to cross on it, which at all seasons
of the year are unfordable. In the spring when the ice is
soft and coming down, it is almost impossible to get
across this river in any way. Not only are those rivers
dangerous to property, but scarcely a spring passes that
there are not lives lost there. Permit me to make
some comments on the statements of the hon. member
for North Wellington (Mr. McMullen) with regard to
colonisation companies in the North-West, for I have
some experience up there, and I know something about
the condition of things in the Territories. Let me tell the
hon. gentleman that the two colonisation companies in the
district of Alberta have been a great benefit to the country,
instead, as he would try to make out, an injury and a disadvantage. There are only
two companies in operation at
the present time in the North-West, as the lands held by
the others have been thrown open, but I can say that these
two companies have been a boon to that section of the
country. The hon. gentleman has spoken of the expenses
incurred in connection with the administration of affairs in
the North-West and it is a subject which he has been constantly growling about in
this House. It has got to be a
chestnut with the hon. member and I have heard him singing the same old song for the
last three years. If we ask
for the expenditure of public money up there it is because
we need it to develop our great country, and whatever is
expended on us now is in asense only borrowed money, for
in a few years we will be able to pay it back to the Dominion Treasury one hundred fold. The hon. member has
spoken of the high salaries paid to Dominion land agents.
They get the small sum of $1,200 a year each and when a
man has to board himself out of that in the Territories it
cannot be considered in any sense a high salary. Why, we
have to pay a cowboy $600 a year and board him into the
bargain, and if he is a first class man we have to pay him
$1,800 a year and board him too. Talk about $1,200 a year to
a Dominion land agent who must be an educated and intelligent man, who knows the country,
when we have to pay
sometimes nearly double that to a good cowboy. I should say
that the Government ought raise the salaries of the land
agents to $1,500 a year and then it would look more like decent pay. The hon. gentleman
has also spoken of the Office
expenses of those registry offices. What does he want to
do with them? Does he want to close them all up and let
them take care of themselves? I suppose that would be his
remedy and that would be his policy to bring population
and settlers into the North-West Territories. There is
another matter to which I wish to call the attention of hon.
gentlemen opposite who are constantly complaining in this
House about the expense of feeding the Indians. I have
lived a good while in the North-West and know more
about the Indians than some of the hon. gentlemen who
pretend to dictate to us the way in which we should treat
them. Let me tell those members that they will find it a
great deal cheaper to feed the small number of Indians that
we are feeding at the present time than to have constantly
a row on our hands. It is a good deal easier to feed the
Indians than to fight them, a fact which they have learned
in the United States, and of which they have bitter experience. I shall not take up
the time of this House further
on this question. There are other matters effecting the
interests of the North-West which will be brought to the
attention of Parliament and the members interested in that
district will probably have an opportunity of referring to
them again.
Mr. DEWDNEY. I do not propose to occupy the time
of the House with any lengthened remarks on this subject
to-night, because I think several opportunities will be
afforded before the close of the Session for dealing with
almost every subject touched on by hon. gentlemen today.
I think, by this time the House will have found out that there
is more than one "funnel" through which we can obtain
very valuable and interesting information, with regard to
North-West matters. I am sure, we feel very much indebted to the hon. member for West
Assiniboia (Mr.
Davin) for bringing up these questions, and not only making
hon. gentlemen acquainted With the resolutions passed by
the Legislative Assembly last autumn, but affording an opportunity for an expression
of views by hon. gentlemen
who are interested in our western country, and giving
myself and the Government an opportunity for giving a
greater and more intelligent consideration to the several
matters included in his resolution. The hon. gentleman
went over these resolutions
seriatim; but I do not think an
extended reply will be expected from me, because hon.
gentlemen are aware, that all these memorials are now
under the cousideration of the Government, and the Government's reply to them, will
in a very short time be forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor for the information of
his Legislative Assembly. The hon. gentleman was kind
enough, in connection with the resolution which
he considered of great importance, the prohibition
resolution, to say, that he sympathised with me during the years that the permit system
was placed
under my control. All I can say in reference to that
is that I did not find the duty a very pleasant one, and
I sympathise with my successor who is now in my shoes in
dealing with it. I shall only be too glad to see some change
made in that respect. As I said to my constituents last
autumn when addressing them, I do not care much what
1889.
COMMONS DEBATES. 383
change may be made, because I think no change can be
made that will not be an improvement on the present
system. During the seven years that I occupied the position
of Lieutenant Governor, I carried out the duties connected
with that disagreeable portion of my office to the best of
my ability; and in looking back over those years, I do not
consider that if I had to perform those duties over again, I
could perform them with greater justice or conscientiousness than I did. In regard
to another important matter
which has been referred to by my hon. friend from
Saskatchewan (Mr. Macdowall), namely, the appeal made
on behalf of the half-breeds, I may say that the Government are giving very serious
attention to that matter, and
I am sure that they feel inclined to do all they possibly can
to carry out the views expressed by my hon. friends from the
North West. With regard to the appeals also made on behalf
of the scouts and the Mounted Police who were engaged during the rebellion, for scrip,
that is a matter which it appears
to me should receive the favorable consideration of the
Government, and I shall exercise what little influence I
have to bring about the wishes of my hon. friend. With
regards to the remarks of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), I may
say that I do not agree with
him in the views he has expressed with regard to our land
laws. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Daly) spoke very
freely on that subject, when I think my hon. friend from
Norfolk was not in the House, stating that on several occasions he has differed from
the hon. gentleman on the subject
of our land laws as compared with those of the United
States. He, as well as some other hon. members, consider our
land laws as liberal if not more liberal than those of the
United States. However, I am not as well acquainted with
those laws as the hon. gentleman opposite; but it does
appear to me very singular that hon. gentlemen should
differ so much in that respect. One feature of the United
States land regulations may be more liberal than ours,
for while within the railway belt, some 50 to 80 miles
on each side of the railway, what is known as the
chequer-board system is adopted, outside this belt a settler
can homestead on every quarter-section. That may be
better than our policy, and I do not see how our
policy can be improved except as suggested by the hon.
member for Marquette (Mr. Watson) by giving land grants
to railways in alternate townships instead of in alternate
sections. I agree with him in that entirely, and I may say
that the Government in dealing with any application made
to them are acting upon that view, and in future when any
land grants are given, they will be given in that way. The
hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. McMullen) and
several other members have diverged a good deal from
what I expected would be the line of the debate. That hon.
gentleman came loaded with figures which I was not quite
able to follow, and which I am not able at present to controvert. I may say that I
was also loaded up with figures,
but unfortunately I have left my gun behind me. But I
differ from the hon. gentleman in the conclusions he has
arrived at, and I hope to take some other opportunity of
giving a comparison as to the cost of management of the
North-West under the present Government with the cost
during the years the hon. gentleman's friends were in
power. I can show him that our management has been
infinitely more economical than theirs. Now the hon.
member for South Norfolk stated that he thought that our
policy had been wrong in not putting up to competition coal
lauds, pasture lands and timber lands. Well, we have a very
large coal area, and I am not aware that there is any great
demand or rush for those coal lands, and I do not think that
if they were put up at auction we would derive more benefit
from them than we do now. It requires very large capital
to enter into the coal mining enterprise, and for that reason
there is not avery great demand in that direction. Our
coal area is of immense extent, and the coal is a very
valuable commodity, which should be carefully handled and
protected, and in whatever we do our great aim should be
to have it worked as economically as possible, and get it
into the hands of the settlers at as cheap a rate as possible.
I intend to take measures similar to those taken in the
United States in order to prevent any monopoly of our coal
deposits, and will bring in an amendment to this effect
when dealing with our Lands Act. With regard to our
ranche lands, I do not think, if they were put up at auction,
we should derive any more financial benefit from them
than we do the policy, when leases were first established,
was to induce ranchemen to bring capital into the country
in order to start the cattle industry there. The price
we have obtained for those leases has not been extravagant,
but a great many of those who have leases are not paying
their rent, and I do not think they intend paying it, as they
do not consider the privileges they derive from their leases
sufficient to induce them to pay their rent. I do not think
if we were to put those ranches up at auction that we would
get any greater benefit from them than we do. As regards
timber limits, no doubt the hon. gentleman knows that for
some years past they have been put up at competition.
With regard to the land law generally, in which of late I
have taken special interest, I feel very much in the same
way as do my colleagues in the North-West. I am an
anxious as they are that we should do all we can in the interest of the settlers.
In all new countries, whether mining
or agricultural, the early pioneer is the one who has to face
the greatest difficulties, and the one we ought to protect
and assist as much as possible. I was glad to hear from
the hon. member from Marquette and others that the interview we had this morning in
regard to matters generally
in the North-West was satisfactory, and that some
conclusions I had arrived at were satisfactory to those
hon. gentlemen. I shall be always willing at any
time to receive their suggestions and do my share
in bringing about any changes which will be in the
interests of the settlers. It is hardly the time for me
to answer the hon. member from North Wellington. I
may say that my impression is that the officials are not
overpaid, and I may tell the hon. gentleman that I had this
morning an appeal from the members of the west who
waited upon me, and who certainly know what they are
talking about, to increase the salaries of certain officials in
the North-West Territories. I do not think I need detain
the House longer except to thank my hon. friend from
Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) for bringing this matter up, and
giving me an opportunity of hearing the different views of
hon gentlemen, which will be of great assistance to the
Government in coming to a conclusion on the subject under
discussion.
Motion agreed to.
This individual participated in:
