(In the Committee.)
Mr. DEWDNEY. The second clause was
allowed to stand for two purposes: one, in order
that the schedule might be prepared, and also, I
think, with reference to the application made by
the hon. member for West-Assiniboia (Mr. Davin)
regarding the police. Instead of repealing the whole
of section 2, I would ask that only a portion be
repealed. I propose to leave that portion which
says that the members of the Assembly shall receive
$500, as it is. With regard to the schedules, it is
proposed to give the Assembly twenty-six members
instead of, as heretofore, twenty-two members and
three experts. That will carry out the proposition
of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Davis) by
adding two to Alberta, one to the Saskatchewan
and one to Assiniboia, which will make the total
number twenty-six. I have laid on the table a plan
showing the division of districts proposed under
this Bill; and as I informed the hon. member for
Bothwell (Mr. Mills), we have to provide for
an election which takes place in the course of a
month or two, it will be for Parliament to say
whether, in the future, the division of districts
should be left to the Assembly. I think there
would be no objection to that.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I think in the future
it ought to be left to the Assembly.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). If they had only a fixed
amount of money appropriated, the more they
multiplied the members, the less they would get.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. The Act says they
shall get so much each. I think it right to allow
them to alter the boundaries of the districts.
Mr. O'BRIEN. Do I understand the Minister
of Justice to say that the Assembly will be allowed
to alter the boundaries at any time?
Mr. CHARLTON. This Bill provides for a
Legislature of 26 members. Is there any provision
for a future increase?
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. No; that is what we
were discussing, and I was urging that, that should
be kept in the hands of this Parliament to arrange
from time to time, so that the number should be
definite, but that we should give them power to
alter the boundaries of the electoral districts.
0n section 10,
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I am astonished that
the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Davin)
does not suggest some other name instead of Moose
Jaw. That is the translation of an Indian name,
and I am sure that it must grate harshly upon the
exquisitely fine ear of the hon. gentleman. I will
suggest that it he called Davin's Jaw.
Mr. DAVIN. The name is taken from a stream
called the Moose Jaw. I believe it is the translation of an Indian word, but it is
very appropriate,
because the stream forms an outlet very like that
of a moose jaw. But I object to Davin's Jaw for
this reason— that we intend to have mills on the
4299
[COMMONS] 4300
Moose Jaw, and if we have Davin's Jaw, probably
some Mills would he afraid to go there.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I think the hon. gentleman will he content as long as the mills go after
they
are there.
Mr. DAVIN. I wish to call the attention of the
Government to a matter I raised in committee the
other day, and it is a subject I dealt with on a
motion for the first reading of the Bill to amend
the Dominion Lands Act. It has relation to the
clause that limits section 13. The Bill reads:
"7. Section thirteen of the Act is hereby repealed, and
the following is substituted therefor:—
"13. The Legislative Assembly shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, or any
other Act of the Parliament
of Canada in force in the Territories, have power to make
ordinances for the Government of the Territories in relation to the classes of subjects
next hereinafter mentioned."
Sub-section 6 has reference to the incorporation
of companies for territorial objects, with the
following exceptions: "railway, tramway,
steamboat, canal, transportation, telegrpah, and
telephone and irrigation companies." I called the
attention of the Government to this, as I thought it
was unwise to limit the power of the Legislative
Assembly in regard to railway or tramway, and
other such companies, and, if I may refer to what
I said on the motion for the first reading of the
Dominion Lands Act, I may say that I pointed out
that the United States was accustomed to give
grants of lands for railway purposes to these territories and I instanced especially
Minnesota. An
hon. gentleman who is always well informed on
railway matters, and who is especially well
informed on matters connected with the United
States, question the accuracy of the statement.
Now, Sir, as a matter of fact the Territory of
Minnesota obtained grants of lands from Congress
to the extend of 4,051,140 acres for the purpose of
giving lands to railways, and the advantage that
has accrued to them is very great, because
Minnesota derives a large revenue at the present
time from a certain percentage which that State
is entitled to on the net profit. I do not intend
to move in this matter, but I call the attention of
the Government to it, that perhaps we err on the
side of not giving more power to the Legislative
Assembly. I do not see that it would be any harm
to give it the power to incorporate railways, tramways and irrigation companies. I
call the attention
of the Government to it because they have to
deal with the territories at some future session and
I think it would be well to consider whether the
power to incorporate small railway companies
should not be given to the Assembly; and whether
it would not be well, also, to do what was done in
the case of Minnesota, and place at their disposal
a certain amount of land which they could give to
the railways.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.
This individual participated in:
