House of Commons, 28 February 1889, Canadian Confederation with Alberta and Saskatchewan



Mr. DAVIN asked, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill amending the North-West Territories Act, so as to secure to the Territories Government powers as full as those of the Provinces, with the exception of the power of borrowing money?
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. It is not the intention of the Government to bring in such a Bill this Session.


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."
Which, of course, was lost. It was moved by Mr. Charlton:
"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."
Which was lost. Mr. Blake then moved:
"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. WILSON. They cannot do it.
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.


Canada. House of Commons Debates, 1875-1949. Provided by the Library of Parliament.



Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Isabelle Carré-Hudson.

Personnes participantes: