1911-05-09

FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 85) respecting forest reserves and parks.- Mr. Oliver.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: This Bill was before the committee on a previous occasion, when somewhat full explanations were made in regard to it, and a map was laid upon the table which would give, perhaps, a clearer explanation than anything I could say. That map will be laid on the table again in a few minutes. Unless another resume of the purposes of the Bill is required, I would suggest that it be taken up clause by clause.


Mr. PERLEY.: The minister might explain the general purposes of this Bill.


Frank Oliver: I have just stated that I explained the Bill at some length on a previous occasion, but if another explanation is required, of course, I can repeat. The Bill is practically a revision of the present Forest Reserves Act. Perhaps the most important feature of it is that which sets apart by statute the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains as a forest reserve. Certain parts of that area are now under reservation. The Rocky Mountains Park, of which Banff is the capital, is a reservation by Act of Parliament-a park reservation, not a forest reserve. The Waterton Lakes reserve is a reserve by Act of parliament. The large area of which Jasper House might be called the capital is under reservation by order in council as a forest park. It is proposed to place the whole of the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains, including these reservations, in the position of a forest reserve, under restrictions as to surface occupation and regulations as to the protection of timber which prevail in regard to all other forest reserves under the present Forest Reserves Act. But this Bill contains a provision which differs from the existing Forest Reserves Act in this-that any portion of the area included in a forest reserve may be placed under the additional

restrictions or provisions which would enable that particular area to be used as a park or pleasure resort. These are the two distinctive features of the Bill.


Mr. HEBRON.: Does the government own all the timber that is going to be protected?


Frank Oliver: There may be some small isolated areas taken up by settlers. There are certain small areas which we propose to take out of reservation. On examination it has been found that they do not meet the conditions considered desirable in a forest reserve, and we think the public interest is best served by withdrawing them. Besides the reserves shown on the main map, there are reserves in the railway belt of British Columbia which are shown on another sheet.


Mr. MAGRATH.: Is there not a reserve on the American boundary of Alberta? And has not some effort been made to have some other regulations on both sides of the line?


Frank Oliver: None that have come to my attention. Any representations that have been made have looked to securing the setting apart of the reservation on our side. With that done, perhaps some question of uniform regulations might come up.
On section 2,-lands in schedule withdrawn from sale and occupancy,


Mr. FOSTER.: What area is included in these reserves, and of the total what portion is on the Rocky mountains' slope?


Frank Oliver: Under this Bill there are twenty-four reserves, with an aggregate area of 16,760,640 acres, as compared with twenty-one reserves, with an area of 3,379,200 acres under the present Act.


George Eulas Foster: Within those sections that are set apart and are within these boundaries, are there any private ownerships, leases or anything of that kind?


Frank Oliver: There are some mineral claims in this proposed Rocky Mountain reservation, and there may be an occasional settler. But the number of settlers is very limited, and of course their right would have to be dealt with; and there are some timber limits.


John Herron: As the minister is aware, there are a number of settlers in some of these reserves, and is it the intention of the government to let them remain in peaceful possession where they are now, or to remove them?


Frank Oliver: It depends on circumstances. If the settlers have gone upon the reservation after it was declared a reservation, then they are not recognized as having any right, and are subject to summary Mr. OLIVER.
removal. But if there are settlers now in legitimate occupation of land covered by a reservation at the time the reservation is declared, then of course they are dealt with on the basis of that right, whatever it may be. There is no intention or desire on the part of the government to interfere unduly with any man's right. But if parliament, in its wisdom, sanctions the action of the government in setting apart a certain reservation, and if, in pursuance of the purpose of parliament, it becomes necessary to clear that area of settlers, then of course that clearance must be effected, always having due regard to the value of the rights of the settlers. If a man has a right, and it is the will of parliament that he shall not retain that right, then he must be compensated.


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: I understand these reserves will only be declared as such when this Bill becomes law. There is no declaration of reservation yet, is there?


Frank Oliver: These lands will only become a reservation when this Bill becomes law. But there are now a number of reservations under the existing Act which will be included under the terms of this Act when it becomes law. In the territory that is put under this Act, rights existent at the time of the passing of the Act of course must be recognized.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Are there any timber limits held under license and abutting on these reserves?


Frank Oliver: Yes, there are timber licenses both abutting on the reserve and included in the reserve. The owner of a timber license would be in just the same position as the owner of a mineral right or a surface right. Whatever rights he had he would retain, or else be compensated for them.


George Henry Bradbury: Do I understand the minister to say that the holder of a timber license may still retain his right in that reservation?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Henry Bradbury: These timber licenses will not be expropriated by the government?


Frank Oliver: It has not been the policy to expropriate them. Of course we propose to handle the timber question in these reservations when we get to it, and have the means, and we propose to handle the timber question in a more detailed manner than we have yet been able to do. But up to the present time, we have not interfered with the right of limit holders whose limits happen to be included in the various reserves. Of course they aie subject to more

stringent regulations in regard to preservation from fire than the general regulations governing reserves. So far as they have a proprietary right, we have not interfered and do not propose to interfere with that right.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister tell the House how many acres of timber reserves there are in this portion now set off?


Frank Oliver: I think I would be safe in saying that the area is the difference between the area of the existing reserve, and the total area of the proposed reserve; that is to say, roughly speaking, the area of the Rocky Mountain forest reserve, if my information is correct, will be about 13,000,000 acres.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister mean to say that of this whole reserve of 16,000,000 acres odd, some 13,000,000 acres are already held by timber licensees?


Frank Oliver: Oh, no.


George Eulas Foster: That is the question I asked.


Frank Oliver: I could not answer that question offhand. But I would say that the land held by licensees at the present time is not all in proportion the proposed total area.


George Eulas Foster: Approximately.


Frank Oliver: I do not think I could give that just now. The area of this reservation is very large, it includes the whole of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains. Therefore, the area that could possibly be timbered under conditions suitable for commercial operations is very small as compared with the total area.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister any information which he could give to [the House as to the proportion of that which is timbered?


Frank Oliver: Not now, but I could get it. We have gone into the matter fully, we have very detailed information, and any question in regard to the area or quantities I can give at a later date.


George Eulas Foster: What the House ought to have, and what would be useful, is, in the first place, the area which is fairly well timbered, and the area which is not timbered but which is suitable for planting or forestation. These two figures put together would give us the area suitable for forest land. We might have 16,000,000 acres and a very small proportion, or a comparatively large proportion of it, might be land which might be useful for the purpose for which a forest reserve was set apart, namely, that timber may toe grown on it, and that all the atmospheric and climatic effects may be gained from it.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I suppose that these timber licenses were granted before these reserves were set apart?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Mr. SCHAFFNER, Have any been granted since?


Frank Oliver: No.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: And will not be?


Frank Oliver: And will not be. We do not propose to hold the timber which is in these forest reserves from use, but we propose to inaugurate a policy which will look to the utilization of the timber and to the reforestation or continued forestation of the land. We have not arrived at that point yet but we hope to do so. In a great measure the public requirements are met by the holders of timber licenses inside and outside the forest reserves, but our purpose, in dealing with the timber in the reserves is, first, the economic utilization of the timber which is useful for commercial purposes and, next, the reproduction of timber so that there shall be a continuous supply.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That puts a little different face upon the question of these timber reserves and rather changes our ideas. What is the primary object that the minister has in mind in setting apart these timber reserves?
Mr. OLIVER, The primary object is to conserve the sources of water supply by the protection and production, or reproduction, of timber or wood around the sources of the water supply. It is to be supposed that the sources are elevated areas, otherwise hills, and, they being elevated areas, are not the most desirable areas for agricultural purposes. We propose to utilize that land which is, under ordinary conditions, either waste or of much lesser value in this work of conserving the water supply, and at the same time to reproduce the timber growth for the benefit of the dwellers on the prairies surrounding these areas.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understand that the primary object in setting apart these reserves is to conserve moisture and rainfall. What idea can the minister have in his mind when he wants to utilize the tintber that is at present growing on these reserves? The minister must not lose sight of the fact that if this timber is once utilized it will toe very difficult if not impossible to reproduce it. I think that the minister will agree with me that that will be the result in the case of most of these reserves. If what the minister has stated is the primary object, it seems to me that it is not good policy that this timber should be utilized, and that he should depend upon



tlie reproduction of tlie timber for the purpose of conserving moisture. I cannot see what good object the minister has in his mind.


Frank Oliver: Of course, we are quite aware that we cannot eat our cake and have it too, that we cannot take coal out of a coal mine and still have the coal mine; but we do know that we can grow wheat on a certain area one year, harvest the crop, grow wheat again on that same area next year and continue the process indefinitely. So, by the present existence of forest growth and the proved adaptability of the area to the growth of forest trees, we have hoped and we believe, judging from the experience of other countries, that we will be in a position to harvest our crop of timber and reproduce that crop.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: How long does it take to reproduce average kinds of timber?
I assume that it takes some years anyway.


Frank Oliver: It depends upon the kind of timber. Poplar will reproduce in fifteen or twenty years, spruce takes much longer and other kinds of timber will take a still longer time. I am not ^ suggesting that we can harvest our crop this year and again harvest another crop next year. We have to take it according to the term of years that intervenes before the next crop will be matured, but still I believe it is possible to harvest those trees in the forest which have attained their maturity, or their reasonable maturity, leaving the trees which have not yet attained that maturity to be harvested within a few years after that when they shall have attained their maturity. With a tree, as with an animal, or with any crop, up to a certain period of its life, its growth will be faster than at any other period, so that, after having arrived at a certain period in life, whether it be an animal or a tree, the growth will be very slight. We believe that when a tree has arrived at the period when its growth has done its quickest work in the production of timber, that is the time to harvest the crop and leave room for the neighbouring tree also to come up to that standard of growth. That is the theory of forestry as I understand it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The minister has undertaken quite an important work, and he will require to use a very great deal of judgment as to which of the reserves he shall utilize in the manner he has stated. Certainly none of the reserves on the prairie can be utilized in that way. I have brought the question of our own Turtle Mountain reserve before the House on several occasions, but I shall not say anything particularly with regard to it to-day. I may say that the policy of the minister in retaining these timber


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: areas for the purpose of conserving moisture is a very laudable one, indeed, and one to which governments might long ago have given their attention with beneficial results, but I am not much in favour of a policy of destroying the timber on these reserves, and depending upon the reDroduction of the forest growth. I think the minister will have to use a great deal of judgment in deciding as to what timber he shall destroy. What he says about the life of a tree, and the life of a man is all very well, but the comparison does not extend any great distance. I repeat, that it will require a great deal of judgment as to what timber shall be destroyed in the expectation that it will reproduce itself.


Frank Oliver: I quite appreciate everything that my hon. friend has said, and I may say that we are hastening slowly in this matter. We are studying the conditions as they exist in our own country. We have a vast mass of information with regard to forestry, and forest reproduction in other countries. What applies in other countries may not apply in our own, and for that reason we are studying the question very carefully to see what the possibilities are. We hope that we will be able to work out a system such as they have adopted in other countries of harvesting our crop, and still having another crop to harvest, all the while protecting the sources of water supply as they can only be protected by some measure of forest growth. We must always recognize that timber in our own western country is of special value. It is worth so much per thousand feet, but it is worth a great deal more than any actual economic value in the settlement of the country. While it is desirable that we should see that the sources of our water supplies aTe preserved it would not be possible for the government-at least I do not think it would be possible-to sit tight and say:	We will not allow this timber to be
utilized. I know that in order to meet public opinion, even if we had no other reason, we would have to provide for the utilization of the timber as it reached tne point when it was most useful as a commercial article.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Will it be your object to select only timber which has fully matured, leaving the younger timber an opportunity to grow? License holders will not be allowed to cut down acre after acre of timber, young and old.


Frank Oliver: That is absolutely our policy, that is the ideal we are working to, but of course we have to meet the immediate pressure of public opinion, of the settler who wants wood and wants building logs. We are at the same time doing our best to consider the proper conservation and reproduction of the timber. I want

to assure my hon. friend that the idea he has expressed is exactly the object of our administration of the forestry branch.


George Henry Bradbury: That is a very old clause in the timber limits, there has been such a provision for the last 30 years, that no timber shall be taken below a certain size. How much of this area is now held under license by timber men, how much has been operated and who are the licensees in each reserve?


Frank Oliver: As I said to the hon. member for North Toronto, I have not that information under my hand, but we have it in the department and I shall produce the figures within a day or two.


George Henry Bradbury: In case of a man holding a timber license in the area which you are including^ in the reserve, does he contribute anything towards the protection of his timber?


Frank Oliver: Certainly, limit holders under any circumstances, must pay a share of the cost of fire protection.


George Henry Bradbury: Nothing special is add-[DOT]ed for the protection when the area is taken within the park?


Frank Oliver: No, the limit holder does not ask to have his timber included in the forest reserve, and I do not see that we would be justified in placing him under any penalty because of our adopting this policy.


George Henry Bradbury: What inspection is -. qarovided^to-insure- Lhe-carrying-out-of-the regulations as to the size of timber to be cut and the protection of the reserves from fire by the removal of brush from the cutting of the timber? The regulations under which they are allowed to operate in the reserve ought to be stringent and strictly enforced.


Frank Oliver: It is the intention and policy of the department, to see that the cutting of timber inside the forest reserves is done in conformity, not only with the license that has been issued', but also with our general regulations for cutting timber within forest reserves. We pay men to enforce those regulations, and if they do not do their duty they ought to be fired.


George Henry Bradbury: Is there any provision for replanting areas that have been cut over, or are the government simply protecting the younger trees that are left growing? More timber has been destroyed in Canada than has been used by the people, and the fires which have caused this destruction *are often caused by brush left on the ground that has been cut over. Are the government providing for the protection of this timber by having the brush removed -or destroyed?


Frank Oliver: The cutting within the reserves is expected to be done under the special regulations which are applicable to the forest reserves. We liave not entered upon a policy of replanting in the areas that have been cut over. So far, we have contented ourselves with providing as well as we may for the opportunity of the younger growth to develop and for its protection. We have made some small experimental efforts in seeding and planting, but the committee will understand that with 16,000,000 acres of forest reserves, the resources of Canada are not adequate to undertake a general policy of reforestation.


Alexander Haggart: This is legislation in the right direction which will have the sympathy of every member in this House. I suppose that the details of the regulations for the prevention of destruction and for reforestation will be the subject of the rules and regulations that may be made from time to time by the department?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Herron: When the Waterton Lakes Reserve was set apart I understood that it was the policy of the government to set apart a townsite within the reserve. Is that still the intention? Will the government survey a townsite, and by lease or in any other way give outsiders an opportunity of going in to establish a town or places of business and recreation within the limits of the reserve?


Frank Oliver: The cash of the Waterton lakes reserve is one of the cases not provided for in the existing Act which we hope to provide for in the present Bill. The Waterton reserve is a forest reserve, the primary purpose of which is to preserve the timber growth and prevent occupation by people. Under the present Bill we propose to take power to withdraw or cut out of any forest reserve any certain area to be brought under proper regulations for occupation. Under the present Act we are not legislatively empowered to deal with the Waterton reserve ox with other like reserves as they require to be dealt with if used for purposes of recreation; but under the present Bill we shall have full authority to set apart a portion of a reserve as a place of recreation, and deal with it as may seem best. My hon. friend said something as to places of business. It may as well be Understood at the beginning that it is not proposed that these parts of reserves set apart for purposes of recreation shall be primarily places of business. There will be no business there except such as is absolutely necessary for the recreation of the people. That is the principle that is embodied in the Bill.


John Herron: I wish specially to urge on the minister that provision be made for settlers to have access to a portion of the timber at all times. I refer particularly to the dry or half-dead timber. It is hard to make regulations which would be just to everybody, but I think there might be more liberal regulations with regard to that than we have had in the past. I think the minister might make provision for the removal of dry timber up to a certain size for firewood and building purposes. It would be an advantage not only to the homes of the country, but to the timber area, to have it cleared of dry timber, which is liable to cause fire and to make it spread. I would like to know what the minister proposes in that regard.


Frank Oliver: I cannot at the present time give my hon. friend the details of our regulations; but we quite appreciate the desirability of getting rid of the dry timber. At the same time, we have to use a certain amount of care in giving people permission to enter a reserve and take timber. As between the two objects we have in view, the preservation of the good timber and the useful application of the dead timber, I want my hon. friend to understand that the Department of Forestry has quite a busy time. It is our desire to have the timber which has reached its growth, even if it is not killed by fire, but all the more if it is, utilized as freely as possible, always having regard to the proper protection of the timber generally.	[DOT]


John Herron: While I would strongly recommend liberal regulations in that regard, I am aware that it is often overdone. There are many cases in which settlers unduly draw away timber without making a proper use of it, at great loss to their neighbours. So that while I would recommend liberal regulations, I would also recommend that the department see to it that those who are over-zealous do not get more than their fair share.


Mr. GORDON (Nipissing).: I am sorry to have to differ a little with my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Herron); but if such a regulation were enforced, there would be great danger of there being more dry timber to handle than there is at present. I also am in favour of giving the settlers every possible advantage, but I would rather provide for them getting green timber, for the simple reason that I think it would be hutting a premium upon unscrupulous people seeing that they always have dry timber ahead.


Frank Oliver: That is one of the difficulties of the situation, and the department is very well versed in the different sides of the question. As a settler myself,
I have had to fight the government of Canada for the right to cut timber, and 11 Mr. OLIVER.	' :
have backed other people in doing so. Nobody appreciates the value to the settler of the right to cut timber for his own use, and nobody will go further to protect him in that than I will. On the other hand, the wisdom of the country, as expressed by parliament, is that the timber shall be protected, that certain laws shall be enforced, and it is my duty loyally to carry out that expressed will. I put the matter frankly before the House, and only say that the situation is very delicate and very difficult, but we bring to the discharge of the responsibility the best information we have and the best good-will both to the settler and to the wisdom of parliament in declaring the reserve.


George Gordon: Something has been said about reforestation. In my opinion too much is said on that subject. What this government and other governments which control timber should emphasize the most, and what they emphasize the least, is the preservation of the small timber. If the small timber of the country had the protection which it should have, until such times as the country is in a position to spend more money for reforestation than it is at present, the better it would be for the country. In many parts of the country the small timber is not marketable, bin it has probably taken fifty or seventy-five years to grow. This is the timber which should be protected, and the more we do in the line of protecting that timber and the sooner the department gets down to that basis, the sooner posterity will reap the benefit.


John Herron: After this Bill passes, and a forest Teserve is set aside, what steps are to be taken to increase the park reserve in the forest reserves. On whose recommendation will that be done? Are the local governments to be consulted with reference to setting aside park reserves or game reserves? There is a reserve close to the boundary line, which, if protected, would be a great place for shooting big game, such as bears, and mountain sheep, and goats. I hope that a large portion of this forest rdserve will be set aside as a game or park reserve for that purpose. Will the local governments *be consulted?


Frank Oliver: All forest reserves are game preserves under this Act, that is to say, so far as the jurisdiction of the Dominion government extends. It is our intention to patrol these reserves, and exercise our rights of proprietorship in the protection of game. We of course will have to come to an arrangement with the provincial governments regarding any general law concerning game, and that we hope to do as the occasion arises. As regards the setting apart of areas within the forest re-

serves as park reserves, it will not be necessary to consult any particular person or government. Whenever it appears to the department that the need exists, it will be within the rights of the department to make a recommendation to council setting apart a certain area as a park reserve and bringing it under direct regulations which will make that particular area available to the public as a pleasure resort.
On section 4,
The said reserves shall, subject to the direction of the Minister of the Interior, be under control and management of the director of forestry or such other person as is from time to time selected for that purpose by the Governor in Council.


George Eulas Foster: What powers does the minister propose to give to the director? Does he propose just to work this as a department?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: And the director of forestry becomes simply a clerk in the department?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
Mr. FOSTER, Is there any mutuality of advice and consultation outside of the department between the management of these reserves and the Forestry Conservation Commission?


Frank Oliver: There is no direct connection. Of course all the information which the Conservation Commission collects regarding forestry work in all the provinces, and in other countries as well will be available to the forestry branch of the Interior Department just as all the information of the forestry branch is available to the Conservation Commission.


George Eulas Foster: So that practically it will be under the system of patronage the same as every other department of the government. Will the Civil Service Act apply to the officers of the forestry branch?


Frank Oliver: To those who are in the city of Ottawa, of course it will, but until the Civil Service Act is made to apply to the outside service, it will not apply to those outside.


John Herron: Will the hon. minister allow any further homestead entries within the bounds of these reserves?


Frank Oliver: No.


John Herron: Will stock be allowed to graze within the areas contained in these forest reserves? Has any complaint been made to the minister personally with reference to sheep being driven into that locality under consideration?


Frank Oliver: As set out very clearly in clause 2, there will be no homestead entries within the forest reserves. There will be no ownership, no alienation of surface rights. With regard to grazing, it is contemplated that grazing will be allowed within a forest reserve, where it is thought that such a right may be granted without prejudice to the special purpose of the growth of timber. We have not yet, however, arranged any policy in that connection. Complaints have come to my personal attention that too many sheep were being driven into the foothills for grazing, but I have also had demands from the owners of the sheep to be allowed to drive them into the foothills for that purpose. That is one of the nice little questions in the same class as the question of settlers timber, and a good many others. There are two sides to it, and each one thinks that his side is the only one. My hon. friend may be sure that the men who do not want the sheep among the foothills, and those who do, can be depended on to bring their claims and alleged rights to the attention of the Interior Department.


Mr. GOODEVE.: Under what authority are these licenses for sheep grazing granted and what regulations are proposed?


Frank Oliver: We have not yet decided upon any regulation regarding , grazing within these park reserves. Sheep at present have no right to graze within the area covered by this Bill. Under the law certain portions of the pTairie country are set apart as sheep grazing areas, and sheep are ailowed to graze on public lands within these areas, but none of them are in the Rocky Mountain district. Any sheep grazing in the mountain or foothills are outside the protection of the law.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Is there anything in the Act to provide a certain section in which sheep can be allowed to graze?


Frank Oliver: It will be in the right of the minister or the Governor in Council to provide regulations under which, if it is thought wise, sheep may be allowed to graze within that area. As I have said, no decision has yet been reached. We do not feel that we have enough information on the subject to warrant us in formulating a policy as to grazing within that area. But once the Bill is passed, if it is passed, we will undertake, of course, to go into the matter very fully and decide what is to be done.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Is it only by order in council that certain areas may be used for sheep grazing? As I understand it there is no authority given in this Bill to allow the department to use these as sheep grazing areas. I would like to know where the minister has his contemplated authority.


Frank Oliver: In section 16, subsection (b). The word ' cattle ' is used there, but

I am under the impression that for the purposes of the law, sheep would be included under that term.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Then, I will leave the discussion of that until we come to the section referred to. I consider it very important, if the minister so understands it, that the matter should be carefully considered in this House. Speaking for myself, I have very strong objections to leaving with the minister or the Governor in Council such powers as these. It is a great liberty for the minister to exercise, to say who shall and who shall not use the public domain for his individual advantage. What I claim is that regulations of that kind should be general and every man should have an equal right.


Frank Oliver: The objection of my hon. friend (Mr. Goodeve) does not lie especially against this Bill, but against all the law regarding the administration of land in all the three prairie provinces, for, at the present time, the disposition of grazing rights is a matter of regulation by the Governor in Council throughout the total area. This Bill does not change the existing conditions, but merely carries it on.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: That is the reason I asked my first question, as to whether the government would have this right under the present Bill. Apparently, according to the minister, we are giving him that right. It is to guard against it that I raised the question, but, as it does not come under this clause, I will reserve further discussion on the matter.


Mr. SPROULE.: What does the government propose to do with timber leases within the territory covered by this Bill? One method of granting these rights was what might fairly be regarded as a perpetual lease, which I think is a radically wrong principle. There was a provision in the lease to the effect that the lease should be renewable from year to year as long as there was merchantable timber standing on the tract. It is only necessary, then, for the holder of the limit to leave a few trees of merchantable timber here and there to secure a renewal of his lease. Is there any provision either in this Bill, or elsewhere that would enable the government to cancel that lease? In most of the leases it provides that if the land is needed for settlement it may be taken, but I am not sure that there is such a provision in the leases to which I have referred. If part of these areas is covered by leases of that kind, what does the government propose to do with them?


Frank Oliver: As I have already said, it is not the intention of the government to interfere with rights existing at the time Mr. OLIVER
of the inclusion of a certain area within a forest reserve. If a man has a homestead right, he holds it

even if he is a squatter before survey, he holds his right. And the timber-limit holder keeps his rights to his limit as if the reserve had not been created, with this difference, that under the Act, in the handling of his business on his limit he must conform to the special regulations which the government considers it desirable to enforce within the forest reserve. Otherwise, there is no interference or intention of interference with the rights held by a party before the reserve was made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that the government contemplated taking over some of these timber reserves and converting them into parks. That is what we were told in the discussion of a Bill some years ago, and I presume that there would be a similar clause in this Bill. Is it the intention of the government to take over any of these old timber reserves and keep them for park purposes, allowing no cutting of timber to go on?


Frank Oliver: We have no present intention of interfering with licensees beyond the point I have mentioned-to require them to conform the conduct of their affairs on the limit to the regulations of the reserve. We do not desire to interfere with what may be called their vested rights. If we did, it would simply mean a burden upon the public treasury, which, at the present time, with so many responsibilities in connection with forest reserves we hardly think we would be warranted in imposing.


Mr. TURRIFF.: One word with reference to the point raised by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that the license holder by leaving a few trees on a limit or part of a limit could make his lease perpetual. I may say that there is also a clause which says that the department may give the licensee notice with regard to any portion of the reserve on which there is only a little timber that he must take the timber off within a specified time. This done, the government has the right to withdraw it. So, the licensee cannot retain the lease of an area on which there is practically no timber if the department does not wish him to retain it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I remember putting the question directly when these were under consideration before, and the answer I got from the government was that as long as there was merchantable timber there they could not cancel the lease, making it practically perpetual. I think such a lease is one of the most absurd business transactions a government could perpetrate, to the injury of the people. We have example

after example in the province of Ontario of leases given thirty, forty and fifty years ago; the original leaseholders have died and the family own them still, gracti-cally holding them for ever. Timber has gone up in value six or seven times, but the royalty to the Crown is just the same as it was forty or fifty years ago. I regard it as piracy, it is little less than highway robbery of the people's property, and it is improper and wrong for any government or Governor in Council to grant leases in that way. There are leases in that country, according to the interpretation of that law by good lawyers in this House, grazing leases, held practically forever. There are timber licenses which will be held practically forever, as long as there is merchantable timber on the land. That any government should give leases of that kind is contrary to reason and common sense.
On section 5,


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Is it the intention of the minister to appoint as forest rangers men having certain qualifications and technical training? This section leaves it optional with the minister.


Frank Oliver: It leaves it optional, and I do not know that we can make it any better. What is wanted is a man who knows when a fire starts and knows how to stop it. If we can get such a man, who is willing to do the best that is in him, we are doing as well as it is possible to do. The country is getting good service from such men. Our difficulty is to find such men, even without any restrictions. Under the present circumstances, the less restriction there is upon our freedom of appointment, the better men we are likely to get.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Nearly all the universities in the country have, forestry departments, and are turning ouP trained foresters. It would be a great advantage to the government to have as forest rangers men who have some knowledge and training in the science of forestry. A man may have ever so good an intention, he may be honest and all that, and yet be of little service as a firefighter because of lack of training. In certain conditions in our forests, a man requires to have a considerable amount of knowledge to be a good fire fighter.
On section 11: Act does not apply to land to which Crown has no title.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no provision that enables you to take this land if it has not become denuded. If the leaseholder does not see fit to take off the standing, merchantable timber, he can hold it as long as he wishes. The annual growth of timber would cover a very heavy rate of interest on the money invested, even if he held it for a hundred years.


Frank Oliver: It is not the purpose of this Bill to interfere with existing rights. If we undertook to interfere with vested rights we would raise a great many questions which are not pertinent to the purpose in hand, and are not now to be dealt with in this Bill. We have carefully avoided raising that issue. The policy or impolicy of the granting of the original form of license is not a matter that necessarily comes into this Bill. We take the licenses as we find them and we do not interfere with the rights under them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You take power to expropriate in several clauses.
On section 12: timber licenses.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister thought about extending that to officials in the department?


Frank Oliver: I do not understand the point.


George Eulas Foster: It refers to the purchase of timber, does it not?


Frank Oliver: No.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Is not section 12 inconsistent with section 10? Section 10 says that:
The Governor in Council may secure from the holder of any title to or interest in any land within the limits of a forest reserve a waiver in writing, &c.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And section 7 as well.


William Sora Middlebro: Section 12 says, that the Governor in Council may not.
Neither the Governor in Council nor the minister * * is authorized * * to expropriate.
Also, as my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) points out, section 7 gives power to expropriate any land in the reserve. Standing timber is, in law, considered land, and, therefore, would come within section 10.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is in error. Section 10 is provided for the case where certain land is owned within a reserve and by reason of it being owned outside of the Crown any regulation which the Crown might make with regard to the protection of game would not apply on that particular area. It is merely to provide for the effective enforcement of any game protection that the Dominion might see fit to inaugurate within the limits of a reserve provided an arrangement can be made with the private holders, as section 10 contemplates. It might easily be that the government could not arrange with a private owner to dispose of his actual right and yet might make an arrangement to provide for a waiving of his right in so far as game protection is concerned and allow of effective protection throughout the entire reserve. This



OOMMONS

[Stage Direction]
has no connection whatever with the abrogation of proprietary rights. Section 12 is a provision that was inserted in the present Act at the suggestion of my hon. friends opposite who rather thought at that lime that there might be a possibility that the extraordinary powers of acquirement which are given to the Governor in Council might be used to the undue advantage of the owners of timber limits, and a provision was put in to say that the rights of limit holders should not be acquired. I hardly think that the section is necessary, but we simply preserve it in this Bill, as it was in the original. We have no objection to its being there, as we do not think it would be a wise policy to undertake to acquire these timber limits. We had not that in contemplation when we framed this Bill, and therefore, we preserved this section in the Bill.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: In reference to the protection of game, does the minister contend that a private owner has the right to say we shall not protect game if we are so disposed?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I understood him correctly, he said that provided the Governor in Council thought it desirable to protect game the carrying out of that policy is subject to the rights that a private individual possesses. How does a private person become possessed of the right to control game under a timber license or a grazing license?


Frank Oliver: We are not thinking of those cases so much as of the fact that the Hudson Bay Company own two sections in every township within these forest reserves and they have not disposed of their right. They may not be willing to dispose of their right at the present time but they possibly might be'willing to waive their right with regard to the game in order that the protection that we might establish in the reserve would be efficient Otherwise, owning these sections of land, they could, in spite of this government, so long as they were in compliance with the law of the province, lease shooting rights or do anything else they pleased upon these areas, and, therefore, could set at naught our efforts for the special protection of game within these reserves.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How could the Hudson's Bay Company do that any more than a private individual could?


Frank Oliver: Any private individual who owned the title to his land, if it were included within a forest reserve, could say to us, when we undertook to make a special arrangement with him for the protection of game. I am subject to the laws of the province in regard to game, I am not subject to any guardianship of yours, I do not know you in the transaction, this Mr. OLIVER.
is my land, I treat the game on the land as my property and I will not allow you to interfere with it. We have made this provision, so that, while we would not expect possibly to make such an arrangement with a small private holder, we have thought that probably we could make such an arrangement with the Hudson Bay Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It appears to me to be an anomaly, that might be very awkward to handle in the future, to draw a distinction between a private owner in observing the game laws and the Hudson Bay Company, allowing one to ignore the law and compelling the other to observe it. We have regulations with regard to game in that country, have we not, under the Land Act?


Frank Oliver: The province legislates with regard to the protection of game. As proprietors of the land we have the right to deal with the game on that land, but we have not the right to legislate generally speaking with regard to game except upon our own land. We have no right to legislate with regard to game on another man's land.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I always thought that the laws that we had regarding game applied to all land held by the Crown as well as land held by the Hudson Bay Company. I did not understand there was any distinction; my idea was that if you made a law to protect game, it protected the game whether on a Hudson Bay lot or on a government lot, so long as the government had the constitutional right to make the law, and so with the provinces within their sphere.


Frank Oliver: The Dominion has not a constitutional right to make a game law applicable to any property except what the Dominion owns. The province has a right to make a game law which applies to all land, including Dominion land, so that when parties own land within the area of a reserve in which we desire especially to protect game and exercise our rights as proprietors it is quite clear that those who have a proprietary right as against us, are not under our regulations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have control of all territory not coming under the control of the provinces. If in that territory you pass a law providing a close season for prairie chickens, that would apply to all land whether owned by the Hudson Bay Company or any one else.
On section 13, protection from fire along railways under construction.


Frank Oliver: 
George Halsey Perley: I understand the present Act applies to Dominion lands which have been erected into forest reserves. It might be wiser for this government to have a special clause in this Bill, with reference to -railways in operation, which would be different from the clause which the Minister of Railways would put in force against all the railways in the country; in other words, a railway going through a forest reserve might well be subjected to more stringent conditions in reference to fire protection than a railway in the ordinary country.


Frank Oliver: Since this matter has been taken up-and the responsibility is distinctly placed upon the railway company to guard against the setting of fires, there is no greater necessity for precautions where the railway runs through a forest reserve than where it runs through valuable private property. I think that the special protection which is adequate in the one case is adequate in the other. I think it is better to leave the matter as it is in the Railway Act with the provision in this Act that is now the law in reference to railways within forest reserves. I have a further amendment which I would like to propose if the House agrees to the new section 13.


George Halsey Perley: What are the provisions in the amendment to the Railway Act with reference to railways in operation through forest reserves?


Frank Oliver: The Bill is before the House and I am not absolutely familiar with its terms. The main point is that the railway companies are themselves required to pay for the patrolling of their own lines in operation.


George Halsey Perley: The entire cost?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say whether they pay the entire cost or only half the cost.
But they have to pay for the patrolling of their own line in operation, whether inside of a forest reserve or outside.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: In this connection I wish to make a few remarks in regard to fires on these reserves. I think the minister will agree with me that one of the most difficult things to contend with in connection with these reserves is their protection from fire. There should be some better method of protecting them, in the interest not only of the reserves themselves, but of adjacent property. I think the minister said it was possible for the department to control the game reserves in these forest reserves. That may be, but I think it would be better for the department in that respect to work in harmony with the provincial governments, who control the game reserves. Fires are often caused on these reserves by hunters. Nearly every year the Turtle Mountain reserve is burned over. Last fall a fire started on this reserve and extended to the private property of a poor man named Balfour, of Bannerman, and destroyed everything he had, including 100 tons of hay, his house and other property. The matter is before the department; I do not know whether it has come to the notice of the minister himself or not. We had a somewhat parallel case before the House last night, in regard to a fire caused by a threshing engine. It was considered that because that fire extended beyond the limits of the Indian reserve, the government was liable for the damage done to private property, and would be willing to pay it. I think the same thing applies to this case. This man's property was destroyed from a fire which originated in the Turtle Mountain timber reserve. I ask that an investigation be made as to the origin of the fire, and the extent to which it destroyed private property, and if the minister finds that the fire originated on the property of the government, and extended to this poor man's property, he should be compensated for the damage done.


Frank Oliver: The case mentioned by my h&n. friend is hardly parallel with that which was under discussion last night. In that case the allegation was that the fire and the resulting damage was due to the carelessness of an employee of the government, and therefore, as in the case of a private individual there would be a legal responsibility, if the government had a similar responsibility it should not avoid paying the cost. In the case mentioned by my hon. friend, it is not alleged that the fire was due to the carelessness of an employee of the government. It merely started on government property. I think we had very much better go out of the forest reserve business, and go out of it quickly than to assume the responsibility for every

fire that might start on any one of these reserves. I think that would be assuming a responsibility altogether beyond the strength of the Dominion government to carry.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If these prairie reserves were fenced, and were leased for grazing purposes, I believe the danger from fire would be greatly obviated. Every year a large amount of grass grows on these reserves, and in the summer it becomes dry and forms a great fuel for fire. If cattle were allowed to graze on the reserve, it would be a benefit to the farmers, and be at the same time a great protection from fire.


Frank Oliver: That view of the case has been presented, and we hope to try it out very shortly, and I think the reserve my hon. friend mentions is one we have particularly in mind. Of course, our experiment may not be successful; it may be found that the cattle will destroy the young growth. Representations have been made to us that the grazing of the cattle would be a protection from fire, and would not injure the young growth. At any rate, we hope to try the experiment on a small scale before long.


George Halsey Perley: The Railway Bill to which the minister refers does not seem to be printed yet. I have not seen the amendment, but I doubt if it extends to five miles on each side of the track; it is probable that it refers only to the right of way. While I agree with the' minister that private timber is as worthy of protection as government timber, at the same time this parliament has special interest in protecting its own timber, and these forest reserves, I understand, are especially necessary on account of the watersheds. The whole reason for setting t.he Rocky Mountain park on the eastern slope aside as a forest reserve is to protect the rivers of the hon. minister's own province, so that this parliament has a special interest in protecting the timber in that section. It would be a national disaster if that timber should be burnt. Even if the railway companies are to pay compensation in case of damages, that would by no means make up for the national loss should there be a big fire. While this section provides for taking care of the timber, and while the railways are to provide certain protection for five miles on either side of the track, my impression is that the Railway Act will not go that far. I submit to the minister, if he wants to keep the timber on the eastern slope of the Rockies, that it would be better to have some special provision more stringent and extending a greater distance from the railway than the Minister of Railways probably thinks advisable.


Frank Oliver: I am under the impression that when we have laid upon the rail-Mr. OLIVER.
way companies, as the Minister of Railways proposes, the burden of patrolling all I their lines in operation, we are asking as much as is fair from them, and it is for us to take efficient measures for the protection of the property of the Crown at the distance my hon. friend suggests. We only propose this measure not knowing what is to be included in the Railway Act. I desire that the railway companies shall bear a fair share of the burden of fire protection because certainly they are the most incorrigible and persistent fire setters, but I do not wish to be unfair to them. We lay the burden upon the railway corporations very strongly under this Bill during construction. Then during operation, I think that the Board of Railway Commissioners is really the proper authority to have control, and I would prefer to leave the matter in that way for the present. I propose, however, to add another clause to read as follows:
Every fire-ranger appointed to patrol a line of railway under construction or in operation shall be furnished by the person constructing or operating such railway with free transportation on all trains running on such railway, whether passenger, freight or con* struction trains, while in the discharge of his duty.
So thus we shall take that advantage of the railways by compelling them to transport free our men engaged in the fire protection service.


George Halsey Perley: I am not desirous in any way of imposing heavier burdens on the railway companies. I had no intention of claiming that the railway companies should pay a larger share than the minister is providing in this Bill, but what I was concerned about is the efficiency of the protection. I thought that since we have not the proposed clause in the Railway Act before us, it would be wise to go a little slowly until we find out whether the Minister of Railways is providing in his Bill as efficient protection to the national parks as this measure proposes.


Frank Oliver: When we ask from the railways the same protection in the parks that we ask everywhere else, we ask as much as we should, and it will be for the forestry branch of the Interior Department to see that, over and above that, efficient protection is given. If, after this new provision of the Railway Act comes into operation, we still find that the railway companies are not bearing their fair share of the expense, it will be quite in order to make a further change. But I think we are going as far as we are warranted now if the House will adopt the further provision which I have just moved, and which will compel the railways to give our patrolmen free transportation.


John Herron: If this clause should pass, would it include only the officer in charge of the fire-patrol or also the men fighting the fire? For instance a number of men might be brought for a distance of ten or twenty miles to fight the fire.


Frank Oliver: This will apply to every one employed. ' Every fire-ranger appointed to patrol.'


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The following amendment is proposed:
Every fire-ranger appointed to patrol a line of railway under construction or in operation shall be furnished by the person constructing or operating such a railway with free transportation on all trains running on said railways, whether passenger, freight or construction trains, while in the discharge of his duties.


Frank Oliver: Call that section 14, and then renumber all the others.


John Herron: Would a settler, for instance, who was ordered out to fight a fire, be an officer in the sense meant by the Bill?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid he would not.
I would not like again, when introducing a new principle such as this, to carry it too far. If we do not find the clause sufficient, we can go further another time. We are making a long step in advance in this Bill, and the . Railway Act over what we have had before.


William Sora Middlebro: Does not that give an inspector very large powers of travel over a railway?_ He might travel-on the-Canadian Pacific railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and say he was in the discharge of his duties. Should not this free transport be limited to within the confines of the reserve of which he is inspector?


Frank Oliver: This section does not apply merely to the reserve, but to anywhere in the Dominion where there are fires to combat.


William Sora Middlebro: Would a ranger appointed in British Columbia have the right to go down to Manitoba to look after a fire there?


Frank Oliver: I would think not. I think that the words ' in the discharge of his duties ' place a sufficient limit. That means within the limits of his patrol.


William Sora Middlebro: I should think it would be better to say ' within the limits of his jurisdiction.'


Frank Oliver: That would be all right. Mr. Chairman, will you make the change suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Middle-bro)?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the railway was not one under federal charter, but under provincial charter?


Frank Oliver: I am under the impression that this section would apply just the same.
I am very well satisfied that it ought to; and, so far as this parliament has jurisdiction, it will. I think this parliament has sufficient jurisdiction, but, if it has not, we cannot do better than adopt this provision, anyway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When members of parliament and senators were given the right to travel on railways, it was held that this parliament could only give that right so far as railways under federal jurisdiction were concerned. Will you be able to go further in the case of a fire ranger than you did in the case of a member of parliament? Here are two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, each of which has power to charter railways. They are building railways through federal property. Fire rangers would be employed along these railways to prevent fire. If we have not the right to give authority to a member of parliament to travel on a provincial railway, would we have that right to give authority in this other case?


Frank Oliver: I think that, all things considered, and it being a case in which it is conceded that private and public property is being protected from these very railways,
I think that in the public interest we should assume that we have the power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would rather hear the opinion of some eminent lawyer on that subject, for it seems to me if we have not the right in one instance we have not it in the other. It does not depend upon a question of protecting property, constitution-, ally we have the right or we have not the right.


Frank Oliver: I do not quite see the point the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule), makes. If we have not this right, we do not need to say we have not it; but by declaring it, if we have it, it becomes effective, I think it will not be wise to enact any exception to this provision; I do not think it is called8'for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I contend is this: When we were dealing with the question of members of this House and of the Senate travelling on railways, I think, it was agreed that we had not the power to deal with provincial railways. If we have control for that purpose, it seems to me we cannot possibly have the right of control for this purpose.


Frank Oliver: I am not learned in the law, any more than my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), but I think the two purposes are radically different. In the case of the transportation of members of parliament, the railway could not be assumed to have any direct interest or responsibility, whereas

in the case of the protection of property from fire, the railway has a direct interest and responsibility. And it seems to me, that the conditions being as they are, our business is to say that they shall carry these fire-rangers, and it is for them to say they will not if they do not wish to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It might be all right in equity, but in law I think both cases would be the same.


George Halsey Perley: If we pass this legislation and a locally chartered railway wishes for free right of way across the Dominion forest . reserve, it must apply to the minister, who could make it conditional that they shall comply with this law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be all right, but it would be done by negotiation.
- Mr. PERLEY. Yes, when we pass the legislation it may be. made^applicable to them by negotiation, whereas, if this were not in the Bill, the minister might not have the necessary power.


William Sora Middlebro: I think that as to railways actually constructed under provincial charter, we should not have the right to impose conditions on them. But in the case of a provincially chartered railway wanting to go through the reserve, it could be made a condition that they shall comply with the Act.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The proposed section reads:
Every fire-ranger appointed to patrol along the line of a railway under construction or in operation shall be furnished by the person constructing or operating such railway with free transportation on all trains running on such railway through the district for which he is appointed and while in the discharge of his duty, whether they are passenger, freight or construction trains.


Mr. ROCHE.: Arc there any mounted policemen attached to the Interior Department and looking over the forest reserves?
I believe that was a case in years gone by?


Frank Oliver: No.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 14,


John Herron: Under this clause will any person be prohibited from carrying arms within a reserve? Are the regulations in this clause going to govern the carrying of arms?


Frank Oliver: These are not regulations; the regulations will be made by the Governor in Council from time to time. This is a measure for the enforcement of the regulations.


Mr. BARNARD.: In reference to subsection 3, will the forest ranger have a right to Mr. OLIVER.
search any house in the reserve without a wr arrant?


Frank Oliver: It is a question how far we are warranted in carrying the jurisdiction of these forest rangers. If we are going to take efficient measures for the protection of the game, we must have some authority outside the limits of the reserve. Perhaps ten miles is too far, I am not going to insist upon that, but they should be allowed some jurisdiction outside the boundaries of the reserve if there is to be efficient protection of the game.


George Henry Barnard: How does the minister arrive at the distance within which he can search for arms? If you are going outside the reserve at all, you must have some reason for stopping within the prescribed distance.


Frank Oliver: I cannot give any reason why we should either go as far as ten miles, or less. This is an arbitrary right which we consider necessary for efficient protection of the game, and when we are giving such an arbitrary right we should not extend it to any great distance. It is a matter of opinion whether the distance should be limited to ten miles, or five miles, or whether it should exist at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the Hudson Bay Company sells their land, it will be to provide owners, and how are you going to deal with those people to prevent them from having a gun?


Frank Oliver: We have in a previous section of the Bill taken , authority to purchase, or even to expropriate, 'such rights within the reservation, either to acquire them by purchase, by exchange or by expropriation. Already under the Act of 1896 in relation to these reservations, we have spent a considerable amount of money in buying out the rights of settlers, homesteaders and even squatters, for the reason that we must have the ownership of the land in order that we may exercise proper jurisdiction for the protection of game. In regard to the Hudson Bay Company, they have not disposed of any of their lands within the reserve. Since we passed the Act of 1896 they have retained their land, and they are in negotiation with the government on the subject of an exchange of that land, but so far we have not yet reached a conclusion. It is hoped that later on we will be able to make a fair exchange with the Hudson Bay Company, so that their right's within the reservation will pass entirely to us.


George Halsey Perley: 
Frank Oliver: The instructions are to secure his removal by mild means if possible, and if not possible, to take legal proceedings to eject him. So far we have not had to take such proceedings very often, because when people find that they must go they go without being forced. But that is one of the many features of the administration of this law that is anything but pleasant.


George Halsey Perley: I can understand that. The reason I ask is that I have known good provincial laws placed on the statute-book under which no man had a right to squat on Crown lands, but it was broken every day because there was no enforcement of the law to prevent squatting.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend had been here in previous sessions, or at a previous time, he would have heard some strong complaints as to the action taken by the department in this respect. My apology at that time was that we were instructed by parliament to clear the reserve, and we had to cleaT it.


George Halsey Perley: Those references were to squatters that were previously on the land, were they not?


Frank Oliver: Squatters who had gone on the land after the reservation had been declared. The reservation was declared by departmental order, and squatters came on even after that departmental order had been given, and they had to be disposed of.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what-position will the federal authority be, provided a provincial authority pass game laws in conflict with those of the federal authority? A good deal of this land will be in the provinoe of Alberta, which has a right to pass its own game laws. What will happen if there is a conflict of authority between the province and the Dominion in regard to game laws?


Frank Oliver: I think not. The. whole purpose in setting apart this reserve, in so far as game is concerned, is to preserve the game. Therefore, any law of the province that contemplates the prevention of the killing of game at some time or other will be acceptable to the Dominion, in this way, that the Dominion will not be anxious to issue authority to kill game at a time when the province says it shall not be killed. There will be no conflict between the two authorities in that way. The only difference will be that under our law there may be greater restrictions against the killing of game than there would be under the provincial law. We will operate within the provincial law and therefore, there will be no conflict. If we undertook to operate outside of the provincial law and authorized the killing of game when the provincial law said it should not be killed there would be a conflict, but so long as we keep within the provincial law and not only say that game shall not be killed, when the province says it shall not be killed, tout that it shall not be killed at other times, there can be no danger of a conflict.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There might be conflict if the provincial law should set aside as a time for the killing of game the time that you say shall be a close season. The question that naturally arises is, who has the authority to pass the game laws? It i3 admitted that the province has. To assume that the game laws will be exactly the same always will toe assuming something that is not likely to happen. It seems to me that there would toe very great chances of a conflict of authority.


Frank Oliver: I will guarantee that there will be no conflict


William Sora Middlebro: Under the provisions of this section, while a fire-ranger may be permitted to seize an animal fifty miles from the reserve, he could not search for an animal ten miles from the reserve, and very often they require to search before they can make a seizure.


Frank Oliver: There is a radical difference between the right of search and the right of seizure. The right of seizure has not in any degree the same objection as the right of search. The right of search is a very objectionable authority to give unless "under special circumstances. It is contrary to the principle that every man's house is his castle and all that sort-of- thing, and it is an authority that should be given very sparingly. It is quite different from the right to seize an article which, if it is known to have been taken in trespass, certainly should be seized wherever it may be found.


George Henry Barnard: I think the minister is quite right in what he says, but that is hardly the spirit of his Act because he has also provided that, although you can search ten miles outside for guns and ammunition, you can only seize these articles within the reserve, which is rather a direct answer to the argument he has made.


William Sora Middlebro: If you found them outside the reserve you could not seize them at all.


Frank Oliver: I hardly follow the hon. gentleman.


George Henry Barnard: You say in the second part of subsection 2 'and within a reserve may seize all fire arms, ammunition, explosives,' &c., while subsection 3 gives power to search for anything mentioned in subsection 2 ten miles outside the reserve. The search will be unavailing because you could not seize.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that it is absolutely necessary that these things should be seized if found outside, but it should be known who has the timber, mineral, birds and fish and if found they can be seized.


George Henry Barnard: But you do not take the power to search for these. You take the power to search for that which you cannot seize and you take the power to seize that which you cannot search for.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend is mistaken. Paragraph 3 says:
For the purpose of searching for anything mentioned in subsection 2 of this section, any forest ranger may, without warrant or legal process, enter and search any house, dwelling, structure or camp within a reserve, or within ten miles of the boundary of a reserve.
Paragraph 2 provides that:
Any forest ranger may seize, whether within a reserve or elsewhere, all timber cut or removed, all mineral removed, all animals, birds and fish captured or killed.


George Henry Barnard: But there is a limitation of the Tight after that.


Frank Oliver: That is perfectly clear.


George Henry Barnard: Read the remainder of the section.


Frank Oliver: By the remainder of the section he is not authorized to seize the articles mentioned outside of the reserve. I do not know if that is necessary. It should he known who owns these articles and who handles them, so that if it is necessary to identify any person who is concerned in breaking the law on the reserve the authorities will have that information.


William Sora Middlebro: Is it the intention of the minister to give power to search ten miles outside of a reserve for articles which the ranger could not seize?


Frank Oliver: For articles which you can seize, and there is no exception in the case of articles that you cannot seize. I cannot see any reason why, in the interest of the preservation of game, it is not altogether desirable that the ownership and the place of hiding and keeping of these articles should not be known even if it were not necessary to seize them.


William Sora Middlebro: Suppose I have a gun hanging innocently in my house ten miles outside of the reserve, what right would you have to search my house and find that I have a gun when you cannot seize it?


Frank Oliver: If there is a suspicion that my hon. friend is poaching on the reserve, a suspicion which cannot be verified otherwise, and if it is desirable that Mr. BARNARD.
the game guardian should know that my hon. friend has a gun. he should have the right to make a search. Yet, it would not be right that my hon. friend's gun should be taken from him on that ground.


William Sora Middlebro: That is an infringement of the principle that the minister laid down a few minutes ago that every man's home is his castle. Even if that gun has been illegally used in the reserve, while you may search for it, you cannot seize it. when you have found it.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to adopt the principle in the Bill of seizing these implements mentioned outside of the reserve, but I do wish to maintain the principle of seizing the result of the use of these weapons when found outside the reserve. I think my hon. friends are drawing the case very finely when they make the objection they do.
On section 15:	Lands withdrawn from
reserve for railway purposes.


William Roche: Has there been any addition to the Duck or Riding Mountain reserves or any subtraction from the same?


Frank Oliver: We are proposing to add to the Duck Mountain reserve, by the terms of this Bill, a very considerable area to the west of the reserve. There has been no addition to the Riding Mountains reserve, and I do not think there has been any withdrawal from it.


William Roche: The reason I ask the question is that I have had some correspondence with the department with regard to a petition that was sent in by some of the residents of the municipality of Boulton, in the province of Manitoba, with regard to the withdrawal of certain lands that form part of the municipality of Boulton, and which are within die Riding Mountain timber reserve. The petition reads as follows:
To the Hon. the Minister of the Interior-
We, the undersigned reeve and councillors of the municipality of Boulton, humbly showeth that townships twenty-four and twenty-five in range twenty-seven west of the first principal meridian are in the Riding Mountain timber reserve. The municipality of Boulton comprises townships twenty-two to twenty-eight in ranges twenty-six and twenty-seven west, and is cut in two by these townships, causing much inconvenience and unnecessary expense to settlers in their intercourse on account of there being no road through these townships. These townships are as fit for settlement as the townships north, which are thickly settled, there being no timber of any commercial value on either of them. These townships if thrown open would be settled in a very short time, principally by friends of the settlers adjoining them, who are very anxious that they should be thrown open. By throwing these townships open the western boundary gtf the re-

serve would be straightened, thus insuring its permanency. And by these townships being settled there would be more inducement for a much needed railway to come through the municipality.
We, therefore, humbly ask that you in your wisdom may see fit to throw these townships open.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
Signed on behalf of the council and ratepayers of the municipality of Boulton.



WM. HEMBRQFF,

[Stage Direction]
Reeve.

[Stage Direction]
Councillors.
EDWARD ARMSTRONG, Secretary-treasurer.
I understand the minister did send an inspector last winter to make an inspection of that reserve, and in this connection I received a letter dated March 21 from Shelvin, Manitoba, which reads:
At a public meeting held at Shevlin on March 20, a resolution was passed unanimously that our member, Dr. W. J. Roche, be requested to bring in a Bill to amend the Forest Reserves Act to withdraw a part of township 25, range 27, west of the 1st meridian.
Whereas, these lands being more suitable for farming purposes than forestry purposes as can be proved by the earnest desire of settlers constantly squatting upon them, by the large amount of farm produce they raise on these lands and that is raised by the farmers on the adjoining lands. As the main line of the Canadian Northern railway runs through this township 25, it is most desirable for the saving of the growing timber that it should be settled jxpon on the south side of its tracks, thus giving a fire protection to the growing timber.
Here is how it relates to this particular section:
The Shevlin siding on this railway being in the reserve, we cannot have access to receive any railroad benefits through being liable to prosecution by the forestry officials.
In other words, there is a siding within this reserve on the railway and the people apparently cannot get access to this siding for fear of being prosecuted for trespassing on the reserve.
The municipality of Boulton being diverted by townships 24 and 25 in the forest reserve, we are debarred from municipal privileges, causing discontent and deserted homesteads.
Having been promised that it was the intention of the Minister of the Interior to withdraw these lands at this session of parliament, but no action having been taken by him in this matter, we respectfully request you to bring this Bill in for us to give us the relief we desire.
This was duly proposed, seconded and carried.
I had a communication from the department stating they had caused an inspection to be made of the lands referred to,
and the inspector apparently did not approve of their being thrown open for settlement. In answer to that I received the following letter dated March 21, 1911:
Yours of the 16th received, and in reply beg to inform you that an inspection of these lands was made last January, when it was 40 below and two or three feet of snow on the ground, after ordering a few squatters off of the sections that the Hon. Minister of the Interior had promised them would be withdrawn from this forest reserve. And spending an hour or so on the reserve, after such a thorough and full investigation and under such favourable circumstances they made a full and honest report contradicting all that has been said and written by hundreds of persons who have petitioned in favour of them being opened, and the resolutions that have been passed by the municipalities interested in the withdrawal of these lands from the reserve. We claim that there is no better land for ranching or mixed farming and grain growing in Manitoba than these sections we are asking to be opened.
We earnestly desire you to bring this matter up in the House and bring in a Bill to amend the Forest Reserve Act, to withdraw a part of township 25, range 27, west of the 1st meridian, in the Riding Mountain forest reserve, thus giving us free access to the Canadian Northern railway, and putting it outside of the forest reserve, as was done in other cases.
Hoping you will give this matter you earnest support and push it through the House at this session is the sincere wish of the electors of Marquette.
I have also had several communications from individuals, and councillors, the reeves, -allurging that, the 1 ands be thrown open and taking direct issue with the inspector who inspected the lands at a most unifavourable season, according to this letter. Apparently the settlers, who are best acquainted with the nature of the lands, claim that they are especially well suited for mixed farming; and it would straighten the reserve and allow the municipality that is now cut in two to be made compact. The settlers would also derive the full advantage from the railway siding of which they are now deprived. Has the minister caused any subsequent inspection to be made in view of communications that have reached his department recently?
Frank Oliver: The two townships mentioned were included in the first reserve made by departmental order about 1900. They have been under reservation ever since, and the objections that have been urged against the reservation are the objections which are to be urged against every forest reserve that is established anywhere in the Dominion. The man or settlement established next a reserve does not want the reserve there for obvious reasons. I am glad my hon. friend has brought this matter up because that is a side of the question that does not strike the average

member of parliament; but, the member who has a reserve in his constituency understands that each forest reserve is necessarily a cause of irritation to the settlers immediately adjacent to the reserve. Under all the circumstances I cannot hold out any prospect of the withdrawal of the two townships mentioned.
In regard to the small corner of one township where the Canadian Northern enters the reserve, we had the inspection made to which my hon. friend alludes and to which the settlers in the vicinity object. The inspector is as positive in his view as the settlers are in their view, and it seems to me, in view of the very positive representations made by the inspector, that we would not be warranted in asking parliament to withdraw the sections at this time. I had hoped that this Bill would have been passed during the winter and so assumed that it would not be possible to have a second inspection of the ground made after the snow was off the ground; otherwise I should have had a second inspection made. Under the circumstances I did not see that I could do anything but accept the representations of the inspector. I think it is an unsafe principle to adopt that when we have set aside reserves by Act of parliament, have spent large amounts in securing the removal of people from the reserves, have held out to all the world that they are going to be reserves, we should then undertake to throw them open unless there is a very well established case.


William Roche: Apart from the general objection of settlers in a district to the establishment of a forest reserve near them, there is in this case that very strong objection on the part of the municipality from a municipal standpoint. It is a serious thing for a municipality to be cut in two and not have any settlement between the two sections of it; it causes all taxes for schools, roads and bridges to fall upon a smaller number of people than would otherwise be the case, and, therefore, they cannot secure the improvements they would desire. I would urge this objection more strongly from the municipal standpoint than from the individual standpoint. What is the name of the inspector who made the inspection?


Frank Oliver: I cannot give the name offhand. I can give it later on.
On section 16,


Frank Oliver: I wish to move to add after the word ' cattle ' at the end of the third line on page 5, the words ' or other animals,' so that horses or sheep may be grazed if it is thought well.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: While nearly all of the subsections of this section have primary reference to the protection of the park, Mr. OLIVER
and, therefore, are quite necessary and quite within the prerogatives and rights of the Governor in Council, this remark doe3 not apply to subsection (b), which has to do with an entirely different matter. It refers to certain special privileges which may be granted at the will of the minister. Nearly all of them are very valuable priv-leges, for instance:	' The cutting and removal of timber, the working of mines, quarries and mineral deposits, the removal of sand, gravel, earth, stone or any other material, the pasturage of cattle or other animals.' The minister has stated the difficulty that he has found in dealing with persons who desire special privileges; and yet by this subsection he is asking for an unlimited, arbitrary and extremely valuable power. This section names privileges, which I do not hesitate to say would run up to millions of dollars in value, which it is proposed to place arbitrarily in the hands of the minister. If this Bill passes he becomes an absolute czar in regard to the granting of these privileges. I do not think this parliament should place any man in that position. In the past such absolute power in the hands of a minister has led to a great deal of trouble, and many instances have occurred in which its exercise has been very much to the injury of the public domain. Private individuals have been able to make large gains, in some cases immense fortunes, in cases exactly parallel, to this. Hon. gentlemen know that some years ago there were scandals in regard to leases granted to certain men in the western provinces. Yet by this Bill we are placing in the hands of one man the sole authority to grant similar privileges, One man might go to the minister, and ask for the special privilege of grazing sheep or cattle, and might apparently make out a good case for it. Another man who came afterwards might have an equal right, but in the mind of the minister might not make out an equally good case, and be refused. I say this power is a dangerous power to place in the hands of any man. I think the minister should first submit to parliament the regulations which he proposes to apply to these matters, and they should be such that all men would be placed on an equal basis.


Frank Oliver: What the hon. member has said is absolutely true. But the responsibility supposed to be assumed here by the Governor in Council and laid on the shoulders of the minister is exactly the responsibility he has now, and for my part, I do not know any other way of handling the business under the circumstances. All these matters mentioned in subsection (b) of section 16 are now under the same control, throughout the three prairie provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon

Territory, and always have been. So that the condition is not new. It is a condition which has prevailed for many years. The particular objection to providing by statute for each of these matters mentioned in subsection (b) is that we are undertaking the administration of a new responsibility for a purpose which is only in embryo in the public mind, which has not yet been worked out to a detailed conclusion.
We do not know yet how best we can carry on the business in these several parts bo as to get the best result. We have to provide to use the timber and at the same time provide for the protection and reproduction of the timber. Then we have to provide for the mineral development and make that provision under such restrictions as will still protect the timber. We must also make provision that the public shall not have the free right of ingress and egress, but that, under certain restrictions, they shall have the enjoyment of these parks. I need not say more to show that in dealing with a new condition, we cannot be expected to provide legislation which will prove in every respect satisfactory; -and under the circumstances, it is much better to administer by order in council so that regulations may be adopted from time to time as the conditions change and our information increases.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee for the further consideration of certain Bills.
Mr. NORTHRUP.: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of Bills on the Order Paper for their second reading, and I am informed that unless they pass their second reading to-night they cannot possibly pass before the 24th of May. If the committee should rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, these Bills, none of which are contentious, I believe, could be given their second reading. Only two or three minutes' time would be occupied, and'then the committee could resume the consideration of these other Bills. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to -sit again this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 203) respecting certain Patents of Munderloh and Company, Limited.- Mr. Gordon (Kent).	.
Bill (No. 204) respecting the Cariboo, Barkerville and Willow River Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).
Bill (No. 205) respecting the Canada Cement Company, Limited.-Mr. Northrup.
Bill (No. 206) respecting the Chatham, Wallaceburg and Lake Erie Railway Company.-Mr. Gordon (Kent).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARTIN (Regina) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 202) to incorporate the High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is one of the exploiting Bills a number of which we have had in this House before. I think we cannot take too early opportunity to express our dissent from the whole thing. The idea of building a canal from Nipigon to Hudson bay, as is proposed in this Bill, must seem so absurd to one who knows anything about the matter that we can hardly entertain that idea with patience. But if that were the real purpose and intention, whether it would result to the good of the country or not, it would not be so bad. But any one who has given the slightest consideration to the matter, I think, must have come to the conclusion that this is simply an exploiting Bill to get hold of water-powers and other privileges that belong to the country, under the pretext of building a canal. Personally I am entirely opposed to it, and will avail myself of every opportunity to. oppose it so long as it is in this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the xecond time.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the New Ontario and Quebec Railway Company.-Mr. Gordon (Nipissing).
Mr. LANCASTER.: When this Bill was up on Monday last, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) said he would take the matter under consideration and declare his policy with regard to it. This Bill involves the question of provincial rights, which is surely an important matter. But, as the Minister of Railways is not here I do not see how we can proceed. I am prepared to debate my amendment to the Bill, but I suppose we ought to hear from the minister firsts


Mr. PUGSLEY.: What does the gentleman In charge of the Bill say? I do not think that the Minister of Railways and Canals desires the Bill to stand, and I am sure that his view is. that as this Bill has passed the Railway Committee, it should be accepted by the House. I know also that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) is strongly in

86 <3

favour of having railways under Dominion authority as far as possible. The railways connect with trunk lines, and are linked up in a general railway system, and it is desirable in the opinion of the minister that all should be brought under the Railway Commission. I am sure that, unless there is something very exceptional about this Bill, he would favour going on with it.


George Gordon: I submit that there is nothing exceptional about this Bill making it necessary to hold it over. With regard to the objection of the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) there is one point I might mention. The branch line we are proposing starts in from mileage 1,000 of the Transcontinental railway. But I do. not think that the hon. gentleman is aware that the Transcontinental railway is already built to a little east of that point, and the other line starts in from mileage 940. It will be some time before the Transcontinental is built to that point, and, in the meantime, these gentlemen say they are getting legislation passed to build this road, and, as mentioned in clause (b) they can get at the line from both ends, which they cannot do by going over the line which the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara desires that they should build first.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have had some experience of railway legislation in this House, and I know the views of the Minister of Railways, perhaps, as well as does the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). The Minister of Railways, quite properly, sometimes changes his views when he hears matters discussed. After hearing this discussed the other evening and noting what I said with regard to this measure interfering with provincial rights, he said he desired to take the matter into consideration. If he authorizes the Minister of Public Works to say that he would favour the passage of this Bill, why we can debate the matter. I think the Minister of Railways should be here to say whether he does not think that the amendment I have proposed is a good one. The Minister of Railways has gone further than I was proposing to go with some charters that interfere with provincial rights. .1 am not opposing the building of this road, but I am trying to prevent a trick being played upon the country by this company getting Dominion legislation to control a railway that ought to be a purely provincial railway. I think it would be well for the committee to rise and report progress on this Bill, or at least wait until the Minister of Railways himself comes in when we can discuss it with him.
Motion to rise, negatived.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
Mr GORDON (Nipissing).: This will be a feeder for it.
Mr- LANCASTER. If it is a feeder for rt why do they not get a provincial charter? ihe hon. gentleman wants to feed a provincial railway with a federal railway. If it is going to be a feeder for it, can he not the common sense of the authorities of Ontario to give him a charter? My hon. friend, and those behind him should go to the province of Ontario and get a charter, and build the railway if it is going to be a feeder for a railway owned by the provincial government. How is this railway to be controlled? My hon. friend will be in a condition of chaos. I am a better friend to him than nerhaps he thinks, because I point out to him that if it is going to be a feeder for a provincially-owned railway, the Dominion Railway Commission cannot have anything to do with the freight rates upon it. My hon. friends show their want of bona fides by such a contention. If it were a provincial railway which was not owned and operated by the province as a government railway, through traffic would be controlled by the authority of this parliament. Let me read section 8 of the Dominion Railway Act:
Every railway, steam or electric street railway or tramway, the construction or operation of which is authorized by special Act of the legislature of any province, and which connects with or crosses or may hereafter connect with or cross any railway within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, shall, although not declared by parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, be subject to the provisions of this Act relating to:
(a)	the connection or crossing of one railway or tramway with or by another, so far as concerns the aforesaid connection or crossing;
(b)	the through traffic upon a railway or *tramway and all matters appertaining thereto;
(c)	criminal matters, including offences and penalties; and,
(d)	navigable waters.
Provided that in the case of railways owned by any provincial government the provisions of this Act with respect to through traffic, shall not apply without the consent of such government.
The provisions of this Act, as to through traffic, are not to apply to such a road as the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, and yet my hon. friend says that he is going to make this proposed road a feeder to the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. Under our Railway Act, 2731
the minute we pass this Act for this purpose through traffic cannot be controlled by the Dominion authorities. Look at the chaos and the trouble that gets the people into. Here is a Dominion charter granting the right to construct what he says should be a feeder to a provincially-ownedi railway, and because it is a provincial government railway the Railway Commission will have no power whatever over the through traffic with which my hon. friend is going to feed the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. Here we have these two little branches 25 miles in length beginning at a point on the government railway, and running within 25 miles of it in one direction and 25 miles of it in another, on a slant till they reach the line that they say they are going to build in order to get a Dominion charter. The amendment which I move is one which every hon. gentleman should support whether he is in favour of all railways being controlled by Dominion authority, as the Minister of Public Works indicates, or whether he is in favour of the provincial authorities controlling provincial railways, which they should do under the British North America Act. It is all very well for the minister to say that he believes in going as far as he can in putting all railways under the authority of the Dominion parliament, but when he says that he is willing to break the constitution because the constitution is that, when a railway is entirely within a province


William Pugsley: If it breaks the constitution we cannot do it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This government has broken the constitution.


William Pugsley: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes. This government has been breaking the constitution, if not every session, certainly every parliament, since I have had the honour of having a seat in this House. This government broke the constitution when it introduced the Naval Bill, because it failed to place the navy under the control of the King.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend realize that if that is done the legislation must be ultra vires, and that it wouldi be out of the power of this parliament to legislate contrary to the constitution?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Look at the position the minister puts himself in. He is quite willing to concede that he is breaking the constitution, and he will pass this Bill because it may be held to be ultra vires.


William Pugsley: No, no.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Well one thing or the other; the Minister of Public Works would make a much more creditable argument, in my opinion, if he would undertake to show

that I am wrong in what I say about the British North America Act, but, the minister concedes that I am right, that the IBill is ultra vires and he argues that it should pass because the courts could declare it ultra vires. Is that the principle upon which we should pass legislation?


William Pugsley: That is not what I was speaking about.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman said that I was right in stating that the Bill would be ultra vires.


William Pugsley: I hate to take the precious time of the committee, but my hon. friend evidently intends to take up all there is to spare so that it does not make much difference. I was directing my remarks to what the hon. gentleman said with regard to previous legislation which had been promoted by this government. He said that this government, during every parliament, had broken the constitution. What I wish to say is that it is impossible for parliament to break the constitution. Parliament can legislate and if it is within its legislative authority it is all right; the constitution is not affected in any way.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it is not within its legislative authority under the constitution it is all wrong, and if it is within its legislative authority it is all right. I suppose the minister will have enough logic about him to admit that, although he does not always have very much logic in this House, and particularly on private Bills.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has a great deal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman is very fond of stating one side of a question, and denying the converse of that statement, although it must of necessity follow from his own statement.


William Pugsley: This Bill is entirely within the legislative authority of this parliament in its present form.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is provided that it is a bona fide application. If the minister looks at the route he will find that the railway provided for in clause (a) starts at the east side of Lake Abitibi, and makes a little curve in order to get into the province of Ontario, and then comes southerly down the east side of the lake. There is no place there where it can do business. The two other lines each 25 miles long are entirely within the province of Ontario. The provincial authorities allege that they have every reason to believe that this railway does not intend to do anything but construct the lines authorized under clauses (b) and (c), and for these lines they should certainly not receive a charter from this parliament. We would be doing no more than is right and just to the people of Ontario by adopting my amendment that there Mr. LANCASTER.
should be no construction of the railways provided for under clauses . (b) and (e) until they have first constructed the line authorized by clause (a), which is the only excuse for their coming here. If they are going to construct the line authorized by clause (a) then they should be obliged to accept the amendment of which I gave notice on Friday, but they should not be allowed to get a Dominion charter to construct the other two lines until they have constructed that line.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there were no other reason against this Bill than the fact that the provincial government sent its representative here to remonstrate with the federal government as to the unwisdom of passing this measure, that is a sufficiently strong reason why we should refuse to pass it. I do not think we should always endeavour to place ourselves in antagonism to the provincial governments. Those governments, I think, are properly believed to have prior rights in this country. They were in existence before the federal government was formed. They gave up a part of their rights to permit the federal government to be formed, but others they maintained for their own purposes, and one of these is the right to grant authority by incorporation of a company to build railways within their own boundaries. It was in pursuance of that right that the provincial government opposed this Bill, because the railway it proposes to charter is in reality only a provincial railway, and what is tacked on to it is tacked on simply to bring it within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. I can see no other reason for it. Now, I think it is our duty to examine these proposals very carefully when they are submitted to us, and bring our judgment to bear on the question as to whether or not they are an interference with provincial railway, and what is tacked on to avoid such interference as far as possible; and when we have not only the circumstances surrounding this proposed railway to1 indicate that it is a provincial railway, but the fact that the provincial government sent its representative here to remonstrate against it, saying that it would he injurious to.the province's system of railways and to its aim, we should be very slow to encroach on the domain of the province in that respect. Now, this railway has a main line and two branches. All railways are expected to build their main line first. The branches of this railway could never be successfully operated in connection with it, if they were ever intended to be operated with it, until the main line were built. The proposal of my hon. friend from Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) is that the company shall build the main line to the point where the branches branch off, and

then build the branches. If they build the main line, which is within federal jurisdiction, that would be an evidence that they had a bona fide purpose in coming here for the charter. But the proposed railway, I contend, is only a device to circumvent the rights of the province-to get the right under a federal charter to build a railway in the province which should be built under a provincial charter if it is built at all. I do not think we should support that device or play into their hands. It seems to me that we should have sufficient respect for the province to give it fair play in the situation. The province has inaugurated its own railway policy and system. Why was the Timiskaming and Northern railway carried away back into the wilds of that country? It was done for two or three purposes:	First, to open
up the country for settlement, and, secondly, to supply the needs of the country in connection with the opening up of new mines. Since the Cobalt mines- were found in that country, the provincial government has exerted itself to its utmost to- give the people railway facilities. It has now its railway in operation. It goes into a country where there is not a very good supply of railway traffic to support a railway, and unless it has feeders it must be a financial failure to the province. When a province undertakes to build its own railway system, it should not make the same fatal mistake and blunder that the federal government did, when it built the Intercolonial railway as a main trunk line and failed to provide feeders for it in the shape of branch lines. The province, desiring to profit by the mistakes of the federal government in this respect, -when they mapped out their railway system in these northern wilds, made up their minds to throw out a branch line whenever a new mine was opened up or a new settlement took place. They are doing that at very great expense to the province, and some of these branches may not pay for a long time to come. But there is no locality in that country suffering badly for the need of a railway, and, therefore, there is no strong argument why another railway should come in and share with the provincially-owned railway in the traffic of that country. They want to have a paying railway at as early a date as possible, and, therefore, do not look with unconcern on any company or any other scheme that is calculated to take away the traffic that rightly belongs to that railway. What is here proposed? This railway has three lines. At first it starts from the Transcontinental railway at a point in the province of Quebec in order to bring it under the federal parliament. Then it goes across the boundary line into Ontario, and then starts its branch line from the Northern Ontario railway, a government-owned railway, to take away the freight that properly belongs to that road. The Ontario government are prepared to build a line into this locality just as soon as a railway is needed there. Why then grant a charter to any company for the purpose of building a branch line which will take away from the traffic of a provincial-owned railway? That is unjust to the province.
The hour for Private Bills having expired the committee rose and reported progress.



FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 85) respecting Forest Reserves and Paras -Mr. Oliver.
On section 16,
Arthur Samuel Goodeve: When the House rose at six o'clock I was very glad to hear the Minister of the Interior agree with me regarding the great responsibility which wili devolve upon him in this connection, and also with regard to the immense value of the natural resources of which this measure will give him the absolute control. He said that he agreed in every particular with the remarks I made, but gave as _ a reason for having this section in the Bill the fact that the administration of these resources has been carried on in a .similar manner by this government before, and that there was great difficulty in making general regulations which would restrict and control the giving away of these vaci-ous resources. It does not appeal to me as a sound reason that because this government allowed certain things to occur previously they should continue that policy. If that policy has been shown to be injurious to the public interest, and to have resulted in abuses, we ought to endeavour to change it, and prevent this abuse in the future. That is why I should like to see this particular clause cut out.	_
This clause Tefers, amongst other things, to mineral deposits. The hon. minister will remember that the Dominion Mining Institute has for years taken special exception to the administration by the Department of the Interior of mineral deposits ;n the lands under its control. So strongly do they feel on this point that there has not been a year, when it has not been brought up at their annual meeting. They have appealed to the Mines Department to bring in a Bill setting forth fixed regulations governing the disposal of minerals on Dominion government lands. We had that question- up in the Mines Committee, of which the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) is chairman, but I regret that so far that committee has not brought in a Bill dealing with this matter. I remember one instance cited by the Dominion Mining Institute. Certain capitalists had

sent out prospectors into that northern country, and had them there two years at heavy expense. These inspectors found certain indications of value, and the parties made application to the Interior Department, but after considerable delay they were informed that they could not obtain the mining rights. They withdrew in disgust their prospectors, and said that under such conditions no man would undertake to prospect in that country. I give that simply as an illustration. The same thing has occurred with regard to the cutting of timber. I cannot see why this government should not have fixed general regulations for the disposal of timber in these park reserves. Let them regulate the manner of cutting so as to save the young trees, and let them throw open the cutting of the timber to public auction, and give every one a fair chance. Let them give the cutting of the timber to the men who comply with the regulations, and whose tenders are the highest. In that way the feeling that there is undue favouritism would be removed, the department would be relieved of much responsibility, and the public would have greater confidence in the administration of these reserves. Without going further into this argument, I think the minister will see the force of some regulation of that nature being imposed before we give him the absolute control of resources of such great value.
This Bill also deals with water-power sites and power transmission. A few years ago these things were considered of not much value, not only in Canada, but in most places; but to-day the use of electrical energy from water-power has made such advances that it is probably one of the most valuable of our resources. We can readily understand therefore how men will endeavour to get control of the water-powers which are on these reserves. The main argument made for this reserve on the eastern slope of the Rockies' is that it controls the headwaters of the magnificent rivers and 1 other water-powers we have there, so that any one will see that the clause ,we are now considering is dealing with resources of immense value. And one should not have to emphasize the necessity of our having a standard set of regulations governing them, so that applicants for water rights would know the exact conditions under which they could obtain them, the rates fixed, the length of time they could have the use of them, &c. It is not a sufficient answer for the minister to say that it is difficult to make sdch regulations. We are here to discharge our duties and responsibilities, no matter how difficult, and see that the public is protected. We know what our own commission appointed by this government has said regarding these water-powers, and the neces-Mr. GOODEVE.
sity of protecting them. I submit that we should not pass_ this clause as it stands, but that the minister should be prepared to give this parliament some idea of what regulations he proposes to adopt in the disposing of these various natural resources mentioned in this section.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that I can add anything to what I said before the House rose at six o'clock. I said then that the whole of the provisions of the subsection to which my hon. friend alludes are already in force under the same jurisdiction, and are applied to the whole of the territory that is under federal control. We are not asking for something in this Bill that is not already conferred upon and exercised by the same authority that is alluded to in the Bill. If my hon. friend thinks that what has been practicable during the last fifteen or twenty years in regard to the whole country is not applicable to this small section of it, then of course he may call for legislation in regard to that particular part. But as I said before, the fact that we are undertaking to work out a theory and a policy in regard to forest and water conservation, dealing with a matter which is as yet in embryo, and which must be worked out according to experience gained-I say under those circumstances his demand that there should be cast into legislative form all the various regulations that are required in the administration of the resources mentioned under this section, is scarcely a reasonable one, and is not one that he would consider reasonable if he were in my position. As to the water-power regulations, my hon. friend is surely aware that all water-powers under the control of the Dominion government are subject to well defined regulations, which are admitted by all who have studied them to have conserved the public interest on the one hand and the development of power on the other, and which are generally admitted to be more satisfactory than anything else that has been attempted in any country in the world. I do not think under these circumstances we are asking too much in asking that the same authority under which all these natural resources are administered throughout the Northwest Territories and the Yukon should be exercised on this reservation.


William Sora Middlebro: This is a more important provision than appears at first sight. The Bill covers an area of 16.000,000 acres of land, Dominion lands, grazing lands and mineral lands, and I have no doubt that the minister is given power under this section to dispose of timber, minerals and other resources representing a value of perhaps four or five hundred million dollars. So we are giving to the Governor in Council, which of course means the government, the absolute power to dis-

pose in such manner as they see fit of the assets of this country worth four or five hundred million dollars. Now it is an admitted principle that parliament should have control over its own assets, and that the most democratic form of government is that which submits to parliament the proposed disposition of the country's assets. Under the proposed section I conceive that the minister would have the right for instance to dispose of all the gold, silver, copper and other minerals, on these nine reserves in the province of British Columbia. In addition to that, the minister would have the right to make leases for any length of time he should deem proper of all the timber limits contained on this reserve, also of all grazing rights for cattle and other animals. In the province of Manitoba there are five reserves where there are valuable timber and grazing rights, and probably mineral rights; in Saskatchewan six reserves, and in Alberta four reserves, 24 reserves altogether, containing some 16,000,000 acres of land. Now that gives to the Governor in Council, and to the Minister of the Interior particularly, very large powers. I should think that the minister would like to protect himself against the encroachments of some of his whilom friends, and in order to do that, I should think he w;ould desire some uniform standard regulations with regard to each proposed concession; just for instance, as we have a model clause when we are granting charters to railway companies, and a model clause when we are - granting charters to telephone companies. There are model clauses to which every proposed company seeking incorporation has to submit. In the same way I think the minister could put a provision of that kind in the proposed section 16. If you do that, then, if you are going to offer a mineral lease, if you are going to offer a concession for sale, all you have to say to the purchaser is: Here are the rules and regulations we have made with respect to mineral rights or mineral leases for this reserve; we are going to put that up for sale bv auction on a certain day, you will have the same right to tender as any one else. After being duly advertised for sale the inference is that the government will get a fair price for the concession. The same rule will apply to all other concessions put up by the minister, because the minister admits that this section gives him the power to make regulations, and it is admitted that he will make regulations. Now if he does that with regard to each concession, why not go a step further and say that the sale of this concession under this regulation shall be by public auction, so that the public may have a right to tender. I see no objection to that, and for that purpose I propose that the following
amendment be inserted at the end of subsection (c):
Provided that prior to the exercise of any of the powers in this subsection contained, a uniform standard giving the conditions and terms of sale for each class of concession shall be imposed, and that the intention to dispose of such concession shall be duly advertised, and such concession shall be sold by public auction under such standard conditions and terms.
There is another section of the Act which says that the regulations which are to be made under this must be submitted to parliament. So in this way we will get the regulations submitted to parliament and approved, and then we will have standard written uniform regulations that he who runs may read. Every man who proposes to buy a concession will know the exact conditions of sale, and when you put a concession up by public auction, with all the conditions attached to it, it will be sold to the highest bidder. I do not think you can apply any more just or reasonable principle to the sale of the assets of the country, or one that will better assure to the public the highest price of the asset you intend to sell. I ask the minister in all earnestness to allow me to make this amendment. I would point out that the principle is adopted so far as the regulations are concerned. These regulations are to be submitted to parliament, and the minister should go one step further and adopt the principle of sale by public auction, and this amendment will carry out that provision.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend from Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve), and my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), seem not to be exactly at one in their consideration of this section. My hon. friend from Kootenay states that there should be legislative provision covering . the disposition of the rights to these several natural resources. My hon. friend from North Grey is willing that these should be disposed of by regulation, but the regulation must provide that they shall be disposed of by auction. My hon. friend from North Grey seems to be under the impression that we have not any regulation, that he who runs may read, under which our natural resources are disposed of.


William Sora Middlebro: The minister has misunderstood me. I have read the old Act, and I knew that there were regulations. But thev are not specific as under this Act. You have no Act which says that the concession must be sold by public auction. But we have that principle in connection with our public works-where the amount involved is beyond a certain amount there must be public advertisement and tender. Why should the same principle not hold

when selling assets worth millions and millions of dollars?


Frank Oliver: That only shows hlow difficult it is to understand something that a man is not familiar with. There are certain natural resources, the rights to which it is perfectly feasible and proper to dispose of by public auction. But there are certain other natural resources, the rights to which should not be disposed of by public auction.


William Sora Middlebro: Can the minister give us an instance of each?


Frank Oliver: Of course, that is what I propose to do. We do dispose now of rights to timber by public auction-that is what our regulations provide for. So far as that is concerned the rights of the public, and also of the individual who undertakes to utilize these materials are conserved. That is *considered to be in the public interest. But when it is a matter of disposing of mineral rights, I think the hon. gentleman will search the world in vain for a case in which mineral rights are disposed of by public auction.


William Sora Middlebro: Why, the Ontario government sold a mineral right by public auction, and received a million and a quarter for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And it was given away by that government's predecessors.	i


Frank Oliver: I can only say that in my humble judgment the way to deal with mineral rights is the same as to deal with land rights, and that is to give them away.
I think that is sound public policy.


Mr. LENNOX.: That is the way they used to do in Ontario.


Frank Oliver: I am here to say, and to argue the point if necessary, that the best way in the public interest to dispose of mineral rights-speaking of rights to precious metals-is to give them away. And that is the way to dispose of public lands- to give the land away. I do not know that we need discuss the reasons for that. But, just as my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro), holds one view, I hold the other, and, judging by the lines of administration which prevail throughout the world, my view is favoured by the majority. Now, with regard to water-power rights, in my humble judgment it would not be wise in the public interest to dispose of them by auction sale. The advantage to the public in connection with water-power rights is in the abundance and cheapness of the power that can be produced.


William Sora Middlebro: But cannot the hon. gentleman attain that object by regulating rates? Put on a stringent regulation if you like and then offer the concession for sale Mr. MIDDLEBRO.


Frank Oliver: Under the regulations we have, provision is made for regulating rates at which power shall be sold, and there is also provision for regulating the rental that shall be paid by the lessee for the use of the power. It must be obvious that,if that right is sold by public auction and a sum of money is paid by the lessee for the right, the ultimate user of the right is the man who must pay that money. What I judge to be the great benefit of the utilization of power is the quantity that can be produced and the cheapness with which it can be supplied, and, just in proportion as you charge a price for the right to produce that power, you lay an additional tax upon the consumer. In my humble judgment, that is not sound public policy. I am quite aware that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Middlebro) has as good a right to his opinion as I have to mine. He represents one view, the national treasury, while I represent the other view, the public interest.


William Sora Middlebro: I am representing the view of getting rid of political favouritism by putting these rights up to public competition.


Frank Oliver: So far as that is concerned, the hon. gentleman will find that, under the regulations of other countries than Ontario there is no room for political favouritism if the regulations are administered as they should be. And that there are regulations for the disposal of water-powers where there is equally no room for political favouritism. The question of political favouritism is not necessarily settled by an auction sale, nor does it necessarily appear when an auction sale does not take place. I am willing to accept the principle of auction sale when that principle is in the public interest, but, from my point of view, it is not wise to accept the principle of auction sale in the matter of mineral rights or water-power rights, or, for that matter grazing rights.


William Sora Middlebro: Does not the hon. minister see that there is a great difference between a mine and a farm? Does not he see that it is in the public interest that the farm should be settled, because you thereby increase the productiveness of the land and add to your population? But to give away mineral rights, as the minister suggests, for nothing, though they may be. worth two or three millions-surely he must see that it would be better, in the public interest, to secure the two or three milion for the benefit of the treasury rather than leave it in the hands of private individuals. For that is what it means when the minister says he would give away a mineral right rather than sell it. In other words, he would sooner give a couple of million dollars into the hands of-I will not say a friend, but a private individual-instead of securing it

for the public interest. I certainly differ from the minister on that point. There is a clear distinction between farming land and a mine. In the case of a water-power, in spite of what the hon. minister says, he can make regulations as stringent as he likes in the public interest, and then sell a concession to the highest bidder.


Frank Oliver: But the price he will give will have to come out of the consumer just the same.


William Sora Middlebro: But if you give it to the lessee for nothing, what is the advantage?


Frank Oliver: But it is on the principle of regulating the rates at which power may be sold, thus bringing the price down to the lowest possible point. And everybody knows that on cheap power the prosperity of industry in which machinery is used depends.


William Sora Middlebro: In one case you rely upon him to whom you give it to bring the price to the lowest possible point, but in the other case vou make the regulations as severe as you choose in the interest of the public and sell it by public auction. You know then whether you are getting just what it is worth or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It struck me that the argument of the minister in justification of this clause was a very weak one. He says we have this principle in the Land Act, that we have been administering public rights under that law and we are only going a little further, but doing the-same thing. Let him ask himself for a moment what has been our experience under what he is pleased to call the correct principle? Did it turn out good or bad? Look at the administration of the timber berths in the country. What has that been? We have had the greatest public scandals ever perpetrated in Canada, absolute piracy, dishonesty, thievery, fraud and what belonged to the whole people was converted to the use of a few individuals improperly and dishonestly, under the very low and the very principle that he is defending to-night. In my judgment our experience of the past is the strongest argument possible why we should devise some other means for dealing with these matters in future because that which has been pursued in the past has not been a success. It has been admittedly a failure, and that is known from one end of Canada to the other.
There is another reason why I think there is a good deal of force in the argument of my hon. friend from North Grey. What we are dealing with is not our own. It belongs to the people. What are the government? They are the trustees for the time being, handling the assets of the people, and like every other trustee who is dealing with something in the nature of a trust they are hound to make the very best
possible use of the asset that they can in order to give the largest return to the owners. Are they doing that by this system? Are they doing it when they are acting in this way? The hon. gentleman says that he would give away a mine as well a3 he would give away land. Suppose that by an accident of Providence, or whatever you like to call it, there is great wealth stored away in small compass in the ground; it belongs to the Dominion of Canada and the Minister of the Interior is the party who is entrusted with the duty of seeing that it is administered in such a way as to bring to the owners the largest return. Yet he says that he would give it away. That is not getting the largest return from it. The party who works it is entitled to a reasonable profit out of his labour and out of the money invested in it, but the return to him is likely to be more than a dozen profits on his operations. Who is entitled to the return over and above what is a reasonable profit? Are not the owners entitled to that- the people of Canada? Therefore I say that when it is handled in trust it should be the duty of theTtrustees to handle it so as to get the largest returns for the owners, and when they are doing that, in my judgment they are doing what is good business, and they are following out a principle that is universally admitted to be the proper principle for every trustee to be guided by in administering a trust. The minister said something with reference to mines. He believed in giving them away. When I can get the attention of the minister with all the many attractions elsewhere, I will address myself to the subject. When a minister is in charge of a Bill and a member is endeavouring to criticise the measure, and is addressing himself to the subject, he is entitled to receive the attention of the minister.


Frank Oliver: I wish to apologize to the hon. gentleman by saying that I was asking my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) on my right-


An hon. MEMBER.: You have no right to ask a question.


Frank Oliver: I was asking my hon. friend on my right a question to bring to my mind a point that my hon. friend was speaking on at the moment. It was not any lack of attention to what he was saying, but I was wishing to keep myself informed as to the thread of the hon. gentleman's discourse.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that is the explanation I will exonerate the hon. gentleman from any desire to he discourteous, but I thought that I saw him trying to attract the attention of other hon. gentlemen around him.


Mr. NESBITT.: I take the opportunity of endorsing what the hon. minister has said.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid my hon. friend is too suspicious.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know that the endorsement comes with very good grace from the hon. gentleman. I was just trying to give an example of the two systems. The late Sir Oliver M-owat and his successor, Mr. Ross, seemed to have the same idea with regard to the administration of a trust that the Minister of the Interior has to-night, and in pursuance of that they took the mines of Ontario and absolutely gave them away to their own friends.


Mr. McLEAN (Huron).: No, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say yes; and the history of it is so plainly written on every page of the late government's record, that he who runs may read, if he were only half blind, and then he would not be any worse than the hon. member for Huron when it comes home to him. What was the result? They were harrowing money to carry on the affairs of the government of the province, they were squandering the assets of the province, and when the change oE government was made it was found that they had given away four-fifths of the valuable mines in Ontario. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. gentleman has good order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When I hear men talking in ordinary conversational style I hardly think it is good order. I was saying that they had given away nearly four-fifths of the valuable mines when the present government came in. What did they do? They took a small portion of a lake, they took remnants, they took mines here and there, endeavoured to find out the value of these mines, advertised them for sale and they got as high a value as they could for them. What did they bring back to the people of the province of Ontario between the time that the preceding government went out and they came into power-a period of about seven years? There has been derived from these mines between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000. That belongs to the province of Ontario, whereas, similar resources were being squandered by the predecessors of the present government. This result has been accomplished by virtue of a change in policy that recognized it to be the duty of trustees to use the trust confided to their care to bring back the largest return to the owners. What are they doing to-day? One of those mines alone is bringing over $70,000 a year that was not bringing $100 a year when the present government came into power. This revenue Was being given away and the same principle Mr. SPROULE.
obtained with regard to nearly all the valuable mines in Ontario. To-day the province is getting a large return from them and the result is that although the government are spending more in the interest of the people of the province they are still able to carry on the affairs of the province with great success, and they are doing it greatly to the benefit of the people. They are doing that by virtue of a different method of administering the trust confided to them than that proposed by the Minister of the Interior, and it should be a strong argument in favour of the wisdom of trying to handle that which is given to you in trust in such a way that it brings the largest returns to the owners for whom that trust is being administered.
By carrying it out in this way you are not likely^ to do that. Our experience in the past is the best evidence of this, and I know of no better criterion by which to judge the future than the experience of the past. What has been the experience of the past under the law the minister is defending to-night? It has been one of wasteful extravagance and dishonesty. I am free to admit that under regulations properly carried out in the spirit and letter we might get a much better return than we have got in the past under many regulations. Not only was the law bad because it was on a wrong principle, but the regulations were not properly enforced, and the result was great loss to the Dominion of Canada in the administration of timber limits, of mines and grazing leases. Yet, the minister can see no reason for a change now. To my mind the history of the past is the very strongest reason why we should endeavour to devise some other way whereby we could handle what belongs to the Dominion of Canada in a better way than it has been handled in the past, and to bring to the country a larger return for it.


Mr. DOHERTY.: If the regulations referred to be the regulations made under the Land Act, and if the government are exercising the power of regulating the entire question of how rights are going to be acquired under the Lands Act, by a system of regulations made by the government over a period of thirty years past, it would seem to me that the government ought to be in a position to know what are proper regulations to make, and if the government are in that position I fail to see why they do not propose to this House to enact those regulations into law. I understood from the minister that the Teason why it was considered necessary that the government should have conferred upon it power to control these matters, was that the whole thing was in embryo, quite a new thing, something which could not now be elaborated

and provided with a permanent system. I was struck with this position as going a great way to justify this departure from the sound principle that the control of the acquisition of these rights ought properly to be determined by this parliament, but if the government has been prescribing by regulations for a period of thirty years the manner of disposal and acquisition of similar rights I do not grasp how it could be said that the whole matter is in that embryonic condition in which it would be impossible to formulate and lay before the House just the regulations required for that purpose. There seems to me to be a contradiction between the two positions taken by the minister. Is it intended that existing regulations under the Lands Act shall govern the acquisition of the rights with which we are now dealing in this particular portion of the country that is to be set aside as a forest reserve?


Frank Oliver: It is intended that the regulations at present applicable to these rights in other sections of the country shall be made applicable to the same purposes within the proposed reserve, but with such changes as are considered necessary in order to carry out the special purpose of this reservation. It is the special purpose of this reservation that makes the new condition which is not thoroughly understood and which makes it impossible to apply the regulations as they are, and have been in use in the rest of the country. My hon. friend argues that we should have our regulations which apply to the country "genera ally put in statutory form, but the underlying principle of these regulations, in regard to mineral rights particularly, was reversed in 1907 and 1908 so that the present regulations have only been in force since that time. They have not been thoroughly worked out, and the fact that they were reversed in 1907 and 1908 from the regulations prevailing before is evidence of what I have already said that in the formative condition it is desirable that there should be a freer means of meeting new conditions and new situations as they arise than is provided by definite legislation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understand, the regulations already made under the Lands Act must not only be submitted to parliament, but must be approved by parliament. These regulations approved by parliament have become law, and it does not seem to me desirable that what parliament has approved and made law should be susceptible to alteration not only in details, but in entire principle, as the minister says in 1907 these regulations were altered by the Governor in Council alone. I do not know how long these regulations had been in force before they were altered, but I fail to see any reason why the power should remain in the hands of the Governor in Counoil. There does not seem to me to be anything to indicate that there was such urgent need to make changes in the regulations that parliament had sanctioned that it was necessary to give that power to the Governor in Council. I have had occasion to look at some of the regulations made by order in council under the Lands Act which are before the House now.
It appears that a number of the regulations changed had been in force for a long period of years. If that is true, what is the necessity of placing the power to amend those regulations, which have become law by the action of parliament itself, in the hands of the Governor in Council? We have an annual session of parliament, and surely the few months that would elapse while the government would wait to submit to parliament any proposed alterations in those regulations, would not be a matter of vital importance. We are dealing here not with pure questions of administration. They may be questions of administration if you look at these lands as the property of the government; but you are going quite beyond that when you make a law to determine how rights in that property may be alienated and become the property of individuals; and the minister has, I think, conceded that when you are making a law for the purpose of determining how the public generally may acquire rights on certain property, the first essential is that that law should secure perfect equality of right between all citizens who arc subjected to it. Now, we- are asked, because it has been done in the past with regard to this immense tract of property, to surrender our legislative power to determine how one may acquire rights in or upon it, over to the Governor in Council; and I can see no reason for that except that between sessions of parliament there might arise a necessity for amending these laws. I have entire sympathy with the position taken by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve), that parliament ought to keep control over legislation that is to govern the transmission of this particular kind of property, just as fully as it should keep control over any other matter that is subject to its legislative competence. It seems to me that the continuance of the system under the Lands Act is difficult to justify in itself; but to so a step further, and to say that because it does exist under the Lands Act, we must continue it here, when there is no substantial reason advanced to establish the necessity of our doing so, seems to me to be very far from conclusive. In the perusal that I have had occasion to make of the regulations passed under the power conferred by the Lands Act, it has sceemed to me that many of the matters there dealt with would have been more properly dealt-

with by parliament itself; and it is a most "undesirable system to create and maintain throughout a large section of country, under which not only the executive but the legislative power is exercised by one body, that body being properly speaking the executive branch of parliament, which we are taking out of its functions and delegating to it functions which properly speaking belong to us. That seems to ine to be in principle a most undesirable state of affairs, and one which should call for some more serious reason than any that has been advanced to justify it. This is not the only instance we have had of legislation of this kind. We have had this session quite a number of Bills in which parliament has been called on to hand over its legislative powers to the executive government. All these instances, while they may be cited as precedents for our doing the same thing again, are instances of the growth of a very serious abuse. I do not profess to be familiar with the precise details of how the rights here in contemplation ought to be dealt with; but I do think that the government, which has been administering and dealing with this kind of property throughout all these territories for a long period of years, ought to be in a position to lay before us a statute that would determine how these properties ought to be disposed of. If that were done, I can realize that it might be a proper thing with regard to the details, to confide some power of making regulations to the government. Before I sit down, I would like to point out what seems to me to be a difference between these regulations and the regulations provided for in the Lands Act. While the latter regulations become law when made, they only continue in force if approved by parliament at its next session. But under section 18 of this Bill, the approval of parliament is not required. All that is required is that the regulations shall be laid before parliament at its next session. Of course, it is competent for any member to raise the question then whether these regulations should not be abrogated, but there is a substantial difference between the requirement that regulations shall be laid before parliament without parliament being required to take any action and the requirement that they must be submitted to parliament for approval. The minister has said that the position taken by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Soroule) differs materially from that taken by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve). No doubt in moving an amendment my hon. friend from North Grey is accepting the principle of the section. but he moved that amendment on the assumption that the minister had closed the door to any possible consideration of the very conclusive reasoning made by my hon. friend from Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) Mr. DOHERTY.
in support of the position he took, namely, that at all events before parliament should act the minister ought to submit the regulations which are to govern the disposal of these rights.


Mr. MACDONELL (South Toronto).: 
Alexander Haggart: I approve this Bill so far as it means the conservation of natural resources, but it requires but little thought to understand that the legislation is of a very serious nature. Until this Act is repealed, we divest ourselves of the power of governing a kingdom-over sixteen millions of acres-not only lands, but minerals, timber, and all the wealth contained in those lands. We have to look forward perhaps, to that kingdom becoming greater in another way. Cities and towns may grow up in it. And it is all to be governed by whom? By the Governor in Council-in name; by the minister, in name: but rather by some official appointed to carry out the work in this department, such as the gentleman who rules over the timber department. This Act is to be supplemented by regulations that are to have the same power as if they were contained in the body of the Act. The Act says the regulations are to be published in the ' Canada Gazette,' and are to be submitted to parliament, There is not even an averment in the Bill that regulations will be null and void until approved by parliament-they are to be submitted, that is all. This kingdom we are giving over to an official, a hired official, perhaps a political official, who would be appointed to take charge of it. We divest ourselves not only of _ the power we have -at present for the direction and control of all its wealth, but we are giving to this official all the powers, for	all this territory	of municipalgovernments. He is to make rules and d-o everything that a municipal council could do in a very much smaller land. He is to arrange how even the fee	simple is to	be disposed
of, and the mining rights, the timber rights, the removal of stone, gravel, or sand, the pasturage of cattle, the use of hay lands and the establishment of and use of reservoirs. There may be an agricultural community there, and I suppose that even grain growing would go with the pasturage rights in the land. I think if the minister would stay his hand and afterwards come to the House with something more definite so that we might know what sort of a government the country and the people were to have, we might assist him. But I think the House would be making a mistake in passing the Bill in its present shape.

Mr, GOODEVE. I want to reiterate and make very clear my position on this matter. I would like to take up the argument of the minister when he was trying to show that a difference in principle existed between the position of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) and my own. I think the minister did not well sustain his contention. Both the hon. member for North Grey and I contend for the one principle of absolute publicity and absolute equal rights in the disposal of these natural resources. I will take the minister's own argument. In dealing with my position, he referred to the mining law. That is the principle I have contended for. In every province of this Dominion we have statutory enactments, or mineral laws. Every prospector knows exactly the conditions under which he can stake out a mineral claim. It does not lie in the option of the minister or of the Governor in Council to say whether he shall or shall not receive that claim. The law has fixed all the conditions. That is exactly the principle I am contending for, so that when a man applies for a grazing lease he shall know the conditions under which he can obtain that lease. I think the minister scarcely realizes that he is asking in this Bill to be made a king over 25,000 square miles of territory, even a man above the king. Practically he is given power to say to one man, Go, and he goeth; and to another man, Come, and he cometh, because he will be given power to refuse that man a right or to give him a right. He will control everything except the fee simple to that land. He becomes an absolute czar of that great kingdom of 16,000,000 acres of land. I think even the Minister of the Interior should hesitate before he asks this parliament to grant him such absolute power. All I am contending for is that which has been so well advocated by the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell), and the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart). We want the regulations brought down in a schedule and put in this Bill. We want to know what are the conditions under which the minister proposes to dispose of these valuable assets. We are not opposing this Bill, we are supporting the minister on the principle of this Bill, but we want to make it, if possible, of [DOT]such a character that it will conserve the great natural resources of this country. I would ask the minister to allow that section to stand for further consideration, and give us some idea of the regulations he proposes to make.
Amendment (Mr. Middlebro) negatived: Yeas 17, nays 39.
On section 17: Dominion parks.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Are we to understand that the word ' reserves ' in the section Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).
means the reserves that are specified in the schedule as forest reserves, and are these parks to be taken exclusively out of the [DOT]forest reserves?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it might possibly be made clearer because from the wording of the section it looks as if the minister were empowered to make such reserves as he liked into Dominion parks. The section says that he may ' designate ' such reserves or areas within reserves as he sees fit.' I do not insist upon it, but it seems a little ambiguous, and it might suggest that he could make any reserves he liked.


Frank Oliver: Suppose we insert the word ' forest ' before the word ' reserves '?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, I think that would make it perfectly clear.


Frank Oliver: I move that the word ' forest ' be inserted in the second line of section 17 between the words ' within ' and ' reserves '.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18: regulations to be published and laid before parliament,


William Sora Middlebro: Is it the intention of the minister that parliament shall have any legislative authority over these regulations when they are laid before parliament?


Frank Oliver: It is not the intention as [DOT]expressed in the section.


William Sora Middlebro: What is the use of laying them before parliament?


Frank Oliver: For the information of parliament.


William Sora Middlebro: Suppose they are not satisfactory to us, what remedy have we?


Frank Oliver: There will be an opportunity to express an opinion with regard to them, and I presume that if the opinion be well founded it would be for the government to try to meet the opinion so expressed and if the majority in parliament should disagree with the regulations it would be for the government to step down and out.


William Sora Middlebro: W'ould not the minister adopt somewhat the same principle as that which he adopted in his Indian Act the other day when he gave the judge of the Exchequer Court power to do certain things, but he must lay his report on the table of the House, and it must receive the assent of this House before it becomes operative? Would it not be fair that these regulations should not become operative until assented to by parliament. Sure-

ly, when a minister is going to make regulations under which he has power to dispose of millions and millions of dollars worth of the assets of this country, we should have some say as to the manner in which they should be disposed of. Under the sections that we have passed already he will have absolute authority, and this parliament will have nothing whatever to do with the matter of disposing of these assets. Surely the minister will not prevent parliament from having some say, from giving consent to the manner in which these assets shall be disposed of. It is merely to give the House an erroneous impression to say that these regulations shall be laid before the House, but that we shall have no legislative authority to deal with them. The whole substance of the Act is that this parliament shall have the right to say how these assets shall be disposed of.


Frank Oliver: The larger part of the regulations would be of such a character and for such a special purpose that I do not think it would be for the dignity of parliafnent to require parliament's consideration of or assent to them. If my hon. friend will read sections 16 and 17 he will see that regulations are required for a very large number of what might be considered trivial matters, and I would hardly think that it would be necessary or desirable that these matters should be subject to the approval of parliament. I do not think it would add to the dignity or prestige of parliament that it should be so. With regard to the regulations for the disposal of natural resources, these are the important ones, and I have no doubt these are the ones that my hon. friend had specially in mind. With regard to regulations such as already exist, and which are applied to Dominion lands generally undeA the control of the Dominion government, these regulations are subject to the approval of parliament, as my hon. friend desires. The application of these regulations to the forest reserve area will only mean certain restrictions or modifications so as to bring them into line with the special purpose for which the reserve is set apart. The basic principle of the alienation of the public right in these resources will already have been approved by parliament as being embodied in the original regulations which are general in their application throughout the country, and therefore it would seem to me unnecessary that the adaptation of these regulations to the park reserves should, in the same degree, be submitted to parliament.


George Halsey Perley: The minister does not say that the regulations regarding the forest reserves will be the same as those provided under the Dominion Lands Act with
regard to other sections of the country. We have a Bill before the House now with regard to orders in council that have already been passed under the Dominion Lands Act. These regulations are all submitted to, and approved by parliament. The minister might put in force a certain regulation under the Dominion Lands Act which might have been approved by parliament, and then he might turn around and put in force an entirely different regulation under the Forests Reserves Act, with which he does not require to come before parliament at all. If he puts it in this Bill that these regulations are to be the same as those under the Dominion Lands Act, which are already approved by parliament, that is one thing, but to take to himself authority to make entirely different regulations without the approval of parliament is something with which we cannot agree.


Frank Oliver: It certainly is not the intention to make different regulations. I have already explained that it is the intention to adapt the regulations that are generally applicable to the special conditions which prevail in the parks and reserves. If these regulations have already been approved by parliament it does not seem to me necessary that the adaptation should also require the approval of parliament. It is true, as my hon. friend says, that the Act does not say the regulations shall be the same. The Act cannot say that the regulations shall be the same and yet may be different. I can assure the House there is no intention to exercise the power my hon, friend suggests may be exercised. Our idea is to have the regulations throughout the country, whether in or out of reserves, conform as closely as possible in their general principle, but we have to vary them, for instance, in the case of school lands, which are a trust, and in the case of park reserves.


George Halsey Perley: lations shall be laid before both Houses of parliament within the first fifteen days of the session next after the date thereof, and such regulations shall remain in force until the day immediately succeeding the day of prorogation of that session of parliament, and no longer, unless during that session they are approved by resolution -of both Houses of parliament.
That is a reasonable section, and I would ask the minister what objection he could have to inserting it here?


Frank Oliver: I have explained that many of the matters calling for regulations under this Act are not of sufficient importance to deserve the careful scrutiny given to a legislative enactment. The transactions covered by the Dominion Lands Act are of a much more important character than the regulation of the conduct of persons in a park for instance. While my successor might not he bound by what I say, if he should place before the House regulations in regard to parks not conforming in their basic principles to the regulations existing:, he would lay himself open to strong criticism by the House.


George Halsey Perley: Is there any difference between the powers given in this Act in regard to the alienation of public property and the powers given in the Dominion Lands Act, except that under the Forest Reserves Act the fe'e of the land cannot be sold or alienated?


Frank Oliver: That is a stupendous difference, and is one of the great reasons why we do not need to look at one in exactly the same light as the other.


Alexander Haggart: A license to cut timber or remove ore is as much an alienation as the issue of a patent. The timber is the land, so is the ore.


Frank Oliver: I would not like to become involved in a dispute with my hon. friend in regard to law, but in administration under the Lands Act we do not recognize that timber is land. Where a timber license is granted we retain the right of entry on the the land for mineral or other purposes, the. licensee has only a right of access to the land for the timber, and for the beneficial use of that timber for his own purposes.


George Halsey Perley: There are places where the timber is worth many times the value of the land on which it grows, and the real estate consists of the land with the timber on it. If there is $9 worth of timber for every dollar's worth of land, the minister could alienate and dispose of the $9 worth of timber under this Act without submitting it to parliament, whereas he cannot deal with a dollar's worth of the land itself. What objection can there be to his laying before parliament orders in council that may be made under the Forests Reserve Act at the same time that he brings down Mr. PERLEY.
the regulations made under the Dominion Lands Act?


Frank Oliver: I do not know that there is any objection to it, but I am arguing in defence of the Bill as drafted, that there is no reasonable necessity for doing so. What my hon. friend said about the alienation of the timber is not the question, the alienation of the timber does not have to be laid before parliament, it is the regulations under which that alienation takes place.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I followed the minister rightly, none of these regulations, either in the respect in which they would be identical with the regulation^ under the Lands Act nor in the respects in which they may differ from them, would be submitted to parliament for its approval.


Frank Oliver: Not as the Bill stands.
Mr. DOHERTYL As pointed out, the alienation of the right to cut timber or to extract minerals may be the alienation of a very much more valuable thing than the fee simple in the land itself, and if it was considered desirable under the Lands Act that we should make regulations to govern the alienation of land, if it was a proner thing that these regulations should only continue to have force after having had the approval of parliament, why is it not just as important to have that requirement with regard to regulations governing the alienation of rights which in a large number of cases are of much more value than the land itself? I admit that there is force in the statement that it might be beneath the dignity of parliament t0' be dealing with regulations on trivial matters; but that would not irrevent a provision being made that would require regulations made under the powers conferred by subsection (b) of section 16 to be subject to the same requirement that is made with regard to the alienation of land under the Lands Act. Apparently every regulation made under the Lands Act requires the approval of parliament. Even if the minister, by a general regulation under this Act, should make the regulations made under the Lands Act applicable, and later on should proceed to alter those regulations under the Lands Act, the alterations would have to be submitted to the approval of parliament; but that would not necessarily apply to the provisions of this new Act. So that you would have a situation in the future where the minister, if he took the regulations under the Lands Act and made them the regulations under this Act, would have to submit them to parliament for approval, whenever he allowed them as regulations' under that Act, whereas as regulations under this Act, they would not require the approval of parliament. Is there any reason for that distinction? Whereas you refuse to make a law that will last longer

than the next session of parliament of any regulation under the Lands Act, you give the minister absolute carte blanche to make regulations governing every matter coming under this Act, without coming to _ parliament at all. If parliament is going to dispossess itself of legislative power over these matters, it ought at least to do it in accordance with some consistent system, and upon some basis that will indicate that we are not doing it by pure haphazard. Apart from that mere argument of inconsistency, it does seem that the power to deal with these important rights is such a wide power that it would be only proper, if parliament should have nothing to say before the regulation is made and goes into force, it should at least be given the power to sanction or refuse sanction after it has been done, unless for some reason it is considered desirable that the government should be put in a position where in regard to these matters it shall be absolutely beyond the control of parliament, even though parliament is in session and is in a position to deal effectively with them. I would submit that it would be only a proper recognition of parliament that the regulations should at least, after they have come into force, be submitted to parliament for approval. Moreover, this would put us in the position of being consistent with previous legislation.


Frank Oliver: There is no serious objection, from my point of view, to adopting the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. Anne. To my mind it is not necessary either to maintain the dignity of par-lfament or to preserve the public rights in the matter; but there is no objection to it, and I would be quite willing to add to this section such a provision as my hon. friend has suggested. I still think that the Act would be just as well without that provision and the public interest just as well served, but I am quite willing to defer to my hon. friend's view.


William Sora Middlebro: I move in amendment:
Every regulation made by the Governor in Council in virtue of the provisions of subsection 'B/ section 16, shall have force and effect only after it has been published for four consecutive weeks in the 'Canada Gazette.'
Then add the terms of the Dominion Lands Act.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps it would be just as well to let this section stand, and I shall have a section drafted to' be placed before the committee later on.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 19,
19. Any person violating any provision of this Act or any regulation made thereunder 274
shall, in addition to any civil liability thereby incurred, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of not more than one hundred dollars, and in default of immediate payment of such penalty and of the costs of prosecution such person may be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding six months.


John Herron: I would like to draw attention to a question regarding the boundary between Southern Alberta and British Columbia. I think it is generally conceded that it i-s not laid down correctly in the maps. A person convicted within the province of Alberta might be found later to have been in the province of British Columbia.


Frank Oliver: The boundary between Alberta and British Columbia is not well defined, and in process of time we shall no doubt get a better definition. Generally speaking, however, the best guide as to what constitutes the boundary is the flow of water. The map is wrong, but on the ground the flow of water would be the best direction to ascertain whether an individual was in British Columbia or Alberta.
On section 21.
Chapters 56 and 60 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, are repealed.


George Halsey Perley: In the schedule there are two reserves left out, namely, the Donald forest reserve and the Lake Manitoba forest reserve. Why are these left out?


Frank Oliver: The reason why the Donald forest reserve was left out was because it has a very considerable quantity of land suitable for settlement, and the timber on it is not of much value; and instead of occupying an elevated wood area, which would be a source of water supply, the reserve is chiefly in the vallev of the Columbia river. In the case of Lake Manitoba forest reserve, the reason it was left out is because it does not occupy any watershed but is low land near the lake and has not much timber. It also has land desired by settlers, and a railway is being constructed close to it.
I desire to add to the schedule a reserve which has been asked for by the corporation of the city of Prince Albert. There is a tract of woodland immediately opposite the city. It is not suitable for settlement, and the city authorities have asked that it be declared a forest reserve, and given the name of the Nesbitt forest reserve in commemoration of the first missionary to establish a mission at Prince Albert. I would therefore, move to add to the schedule the Nesbitt forest reserve.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1912, -which, on motion, were referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 103) relating to steamship subsidies-Sir Wilfrid Eaurier-was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 
George Eulas Foster: I understand from the premier's reading that there is not a definite statement that they will not continue, they simply ask that the arrangement be made for one year, so that if further arrangements are not made, they will be in a position to drop it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. I had an opportunity of discussing it with the Imperial authorities four years ago when I attended the conference. The present passage from Liverpool to Hong Kong in 25 days does not give a sufficiently rapid service for the requirements of the British people. I think the Peninsular and Oriental service is shorter, but our aim is to have a service via Canada in a shorter period than the Peninsular and Oriental can give us. We are not without hope that we shall be able to accomplish that, especially since we have not renewed our contract yet for the Atlantic service. 'But we have reason to believe that an offer will be made to us for a much faster service on the Atlantic than we have at the present time.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is not a fact that by subsidizing these steamships they will bring eggs from China into the Canadian market to compete with our farmers, and if he thinks it is wise for us to subsidize steamships for that-purpose.
WILFRID LAURIER. I do not think that I would risk the service. I think I would risk the eggs rather. I think that I would keep the service even if we had a few more eggs for ourselves.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will not this interfere with the proposed all-red route?


Wilfrid Laurier: Quite the reverse. If we had the all-red route it would materially assist us in having a shorter service to the Orient. We would have a service of five days at most on the Atlantic-and this would shorten the passage so much from Liverpool to China.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will it not at the same time assist the people of China to bring their products over and compete in our markets?


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly. These subsidies are given in the hope of facilitating trade between country and country.


George Eulas Foster: 
Wilfrid Laurier: 
George Eulas Foster: It would be that much to recoup our outlay on account of the subsidy? [DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Does that run retrospectively?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


George Eulas Foster: It seems that there is good ground for demanding that payment.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think so.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, the corrollary from that is that there has been equally good ground for years past.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, yes, but it was not done; better late than never.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Miscellaneous-To meet expenses in connection with the International Conference for the suspension of pelagic sealing, $10,000.
['We have appointed a new agent at Paris. My hon. friend knows that Mr. Fabre, the late agent, was paid by this parliament $6,500 and $2,000 additional which was contributed by the Quebec government. We have not thought it advisable to accept any contribution from the Quebec government, and we have made the salary of Mr. Roy, the new agent, $8,000. Mr. Fabre received no allowance whatever for contingencies; every-', 'thing came from the sum of $6,500. It is now proposed to provide $5,000 for office rent, and such contingencies as are necessary to carry on the work.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 12.41 a.m. Wednesday.', 'Wednesday, May 10, 1911.']
Wilfrid Laurier: We have at the present time a treaty with the United States for the suspension during a term of years of pelagic sealing. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) remembers that in 1894 Sir John Thompson attended a conference between Great Britain and the United _States for the regulation of pelagic sealing. The origin of this discussion was that the United States had seized certain of our vessels engaged in sealing operations in the northern sea, pretending that the northern sea was a mare clausum and that the sealers were fishing in American waters. We contested that contention and succeeded. At the same time it was represented to us that pelagic sealing was destroying seal life in this that the females were liable to be killed on their way to the rookeries and that the life of the seals was very much in danger because for every female that is killed two lives are sacrificed. Whatever may be said of this contention, which seemed to me to be founded in fact, we agreed to two things, first, that pelagic sealing, which is sealing on the high seas and which has been engaged in principally by sealers from Victoria, should be restricted to certain seasons. I think it was from February up to a certain time in June, but I forget the months. At all events, there was to be a close season during which our sealers were prohibited from sealing. They were prohibited frcm using shot guns and were compelled to use only the harpoon. Then, they did not have the right to seal up to the three mile

limit around the Pribyloff Islands but they were restricted to a zone of seventy miles from the islands. This has gone on for some years. Now, a new class of sealers has come into existence carrying the Russian and Japanese flags and these Russian and Japanese sealers can seal at all times without observing any close season, they can use all sorts of weapons and they have the whole field to themselves without any restriction.


George Eulas Foster: Not restricted to any zone?


Wilfrid Laurier: They have no zone tp observe. They have been destroying seal life and there is a possible danger of the seal disappearing as the [DOT] buffalo has disappeared. We are to have a conference which is to open on the 11th of this month at Washington between Great Britain, the United States, Russia and Japan and in the meantime we have made an arrangement with the United States by which it is provided that if the operation of killing seals on the Pribyloff Islands is carried on within fifteen years we shall have 20 per cent of the catch. If the Americans killed on their own territory 100,000 seals or 50,000 seals we would have 20 per cent of the catch and other considerations which will be found valuable but which I would not like to disclose at this moment. Mr. Bryce is to be the chief commissioner of Great Britain and we have appointed as our chief commissioner Mr. Joseph Pope who is quite familiar with the whole subject having accompanied Sir John Thompson and Sir Charles Tupper to Paris in 1894. He has already left for Washington and he has taken with him Mr. Found of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Macoun, of the Geological Survey, who was at Paris in 1894 and who knows the subject thoroughly from the point of view of the naturalist. Capt. Byers represents the sealers of Victoria,
To provide expenses of the ministers attending the Imperial Conference and coronation, $6,000.


George Eulas Foster: How many ministers .ire expected to go.


Wilfrid Laurier: Two besides myself, Sir Frederick Borden and Hon. Mr. Brodeur.
Allowance for expenses of Senators and members of the House of Commons forming the parliamentary delegation to the coronation of His Majesty, 18 at $1,000 each, $18,000.


Mr. HUGHES.: I understand that members of parliament who are invited to go are merely invited (by a committee of members of parliament in England, and that they are to be entertained privately or in some semi-official way by members of the English House of Commons. Had this been brought before the House before Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the selection of members I certainly should have opposed any limited number of men going in this way. There will be more than 18 members of the House of Commons and Senate of Canada in England, and with all due regard to the gentlemen selected-and I may say a number of the names especially, of my good friend on my left (Mr. Foster), and the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart), and the gentleman who represents the west on our side are very good names and the maritime province representative-but I have no hesitation in stating that had this been understood at the time as it is now understood there would have been a different story to be told. I do not think, in the first place, that any number should have been selected, but that every man who goes over there should be on an equal footing, and if he pays his own expenses I think he should be as highly regarded in the old country as here. I am not speaking personally, I am going under other auspices, and possibly it is invidious for me to take this stand, but I am doing so on principle. I do not know what attention will be paid to these gentlemen over there. There are five members from the Conservative side and seven or eight from the government side who are to go over on this delegation. Those not on that delegation will have the privilege of paying for seats and watching the performance from a fence corner while others will be entitled to certain favours. More than that when this matter was discussed, it was distinctly understood on this side of the House that each man would go at his own cost. Now a number of gentlemen are quite, disappointed. Had this $1,000 grant been known then I am satisfied a number of gentlemen would have consented to let their names go in for selection, who did not see their way clear to pay their expenses. Were the invitation official from the imperial government to this, for these members to go I would not hesitate. I do not see why the country should pay the expenses of gentlemen who are not invited officially. I do not think the item should be asked for.


Wilfrid Laurier: As has been stated by my hon. friend the invitation that was sent to us was not official, it was simply an invitation of a committee of members of the House of Commons addressed to us. We would have preferred that they should have made their own selection and sent them their invitation, but the invitation had to come through some channel, and it came through the channel of the Canadian government. When we received the invitation we had to follow strictly the terms in which it was couched, and the request was to invite 18 members of our parliament,


Samuel Hughes: Could we not have courteously told them that we respectfully regretted having to decline their invitation inasmuch as many more than 18 would be there and the government' could not take it on themselves to make any invidious distinction?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think we could do that, they might have invited 18, or 20 or 45, but they invited 18 and I do not think we should have made any observations, we could not say we will not accept that unless you invite all our members. The invitation having been received and being meant to be courteous we accepted it as courteously, and we think that under all the circumstances it is better that the Canadian parliament should provide for their expenses. I do not agree with my hon. friend as I have sometimes the pleasure of agreeing with him.


Samuel Hughes: At the time word was passed around it was stated there would be no cost to the country, that no members were to be paid.


Wilfrid Laurier: It was rumoured; certainly it was not officially stated.


Mr. SMYTH (Algoma).: I was asked if I wished to go to the old country on that occasion or not, and I was led to understand I would have to pay my own expenses. I accepted and said I would go at my own expense. ________________; [DOT]	~	*	"


George Halsey Perley: I find myself in a rather awkward position about this vote, and would like to put it as right as I can. Last fall when it. was first rumoured that some of the members of parliament would be asked specially to go to the coronation it was said that some allowance would be made by this parliament towards their expenses, in the same way that Australia and New Zealand were doing. Later in the session it was stated in the corridors that this idea was given up and that no vote would be asked towards the expenses of the members of the House of Commons and the Senate, who might go to the coronation. One day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) sent for me and said that the Prime Minister had called at his office and told him that an invitation had been received from a committee of the House of Commons in England, asking that 18 members of the Canadian parliament should be named to whom this committee in England would simply show courtesy. This was not an official committee of the English parliament, but as I understood it a certain number of the members of the House of Commons who wished to show some attention to the members of parliament from overseas, had decided to ask them in this way, and it
was proposed to give them trips into the historical portion of England, and I suppose some dinners and other entertainments. The Prime Minister then, as I understood, told the leader of the opposition that the selection of names had to be made within a day or two. The leader of the opposition asked me to try to find out what members from our side of the House intended to go to the coronation. He said there were no expenses to be paid by parliament, and no allowances to be made, and I took it that he got this understanding from the Prime Minister himself. Therefore, we went to the various members on our side of the House, and asked them if they intended to go to the coronation. I was asked by some members, as were other whips, why we were asking this question. We told them that the arrangement, as we understood it, was that no expenses were to be paid or allowances voted by this parliament, but that this private committee of the House of Commons of England were to have certain names of members given to them who would be more or less official and to whom these courtesies would be shown. After we got the names of those who on our side of the House intended to go to the coronation anyway,the leader of the opposition topk the list and chose the ones from each section who had been the longest in the House. That was the way the selection was made. A few days afterwards it was rumoured that the government intended to ask for a grant for an allowance to these gentlemen, and I might say that it placed us all in a very awkward position, because, although the names given in by the leader of the opposition are representative and satisfactory names, at the same time I happen to know of one or two of our older members who would have liked to have gone to the coronation, and might have done so if they had known that there was going to be a grant by parliament for that purpose. They did not feel able to go at their own expense entirely. While I have no desire to make any objection to this vote, I want to say to the Prime Minister that I think the way this matter has been handled has not been a fair deal at all, because if it was the intention of the Prime Minister to ask for a vote from this House for this purpose, it should have been communicated to the leader of the opposition at the time that he asked him to give the names of five members on this side of the House for that purpose. I wish simply to make this explanation in order that I may put myself right in the matter.


Haughton Lennox: I differ a little from a good many who have spoken. I am pretty well satisfied with this matter. I think it is a matter that we should leave altogether to the responsibility of the government. They propose to pay what would be equivalent to the expenses of these gentlemen if



[Stage Direction]
they are not too extravagant, and I think we can leave that to them, to do as they dike about it. I was asked if I would like [DOT]to go, and when I was asked that I took for granted that the expenses would be paid. I said no. I did not want to go; so I am not at all disappointed. I did not want to go when I thought my expenses would be paid. I would not give any different reply if I were asked now. If we were at the beginning of this affair, I am not at all sure that I would be in favour of having the expenses paid; I rather think I would not. 3 am satisfied with the gentlemen who have been selected, for a very good reason, that I do not know exactly who they are, with the exception of two or three, and I have not gone to the trouble of finding out. But in this parliament I think we could hardly go wrong in making a selection of men who would be well qualified to represent ns on this occasion.
Wilfrid Laurier: I would be very sorry if my hon. friend from Argen-teuil thought that the manner in which this matter had been conducted had not been fair. Certainly nothing was more removed from my intention. I wanted to be absolutely fair to everybody. I cannot recall minutely what passed between the hon. leader of the opposition and myself. I communicated to him the parliamentary communication which had been received by us from the parliament of Great Britain. I have no recollection that at that time the matter of expenses was mentioned at all. Later on it was mentioned, and there were opinions expressed pro and con as to whether the expenses should be paid or not. There were divided opinions on both sides of the House. For my part I took the liberty of nonsuiting a few personal friends both on this side and on the other side of the House, and having got the opinions of several members on which I thought I could Tely, I submitted the matter to my colleagues, and here is the result. I think on the whole the action was well taken, and should receive the approval of everybody.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: The item under consideration is not a very large item in itself. To my mind, however, it acquires an additional significance by reason of the fact that the beneficiaries are members of this House. The question before us has a double aspect: First of all, the aspect so far most commented on in the debate, namely, the manner in which the recipients of this grant were selected from among ourselves. That to my mind is not a very important feature of the case. It may be that unfairness has been the result of the method adopted. To my mind we should fight that out, if it has occurred, among ourselves, independently altogether of out relationship as members of parliament.


Haughton Lennox: That is to say, it should not be a subject for discussion in the House. The feature, though, in which the country is and should be interested is this: Is it a proper principle to vote the money of the country for this purpose? That to my mind is all that is open for us to discuss here. Now, it seems that the invitation has arisen at the instance of certain citizens of the British Empire who are members of the British parliament. Those men got together, and determined that their hospitality as private individuals should be extended to certain members of the Canadian parliament. It is to be noted that they have no official position in extending that hospitality. They are merely private citizens who happen to be members of parliament. The British government does not come into the matter at all, or ask that this country be officially represented by members of this House. The Prime Minister states that although that is the case, they chose the channel of the Canadian government to carry the invitation to the members of this House, and he assumes that that puts a different aspect on the invitation, gives it a semi-official character, and justifies the government in voting the money of the people to pay the expense. I am at a loss to understand how they could have communicated the invitation in any other way. It was simply a method of communication. It did not change in any way the character of the communication. It did not lift it out of the category of a purely private extension of hospitality, and make it in any way official or semi-official.
That was the method they chose, but the invitation remained all the while just the private invitation of members of the Imperial House. That being the case, it became, to my mind, the duty of members of this House to decide whether or not they should respond, and not the duty of the government. The members of this House did respond. Surely at that point the matter should end. I do not see any justification for voting the people's money to pay the expenses in any degree whatever. It does not matter what the understanding was, the reason of the trip is of a personal and not a public character, and I do not see how this invitation differs from that which many citizens throughout Canada are accepting from their friends across the water. I cannot see the distinction. If a distinction can be pointed out, I am open to change my mind, but until it is, I must oppose the vote. It appears to me utterly indefensible. It is not pleasant to take exception to a vote of this kind. Nobody would take exception to the members who have been selected, and I hope no on.e will imagine that I had any expectation of going "myself. I could not go no matter who paid tiie expenses, and further it would not

be a great object to me in any event. T take more pleasure meeting the common people in my constituency than those by whom perhaps I would be entertained over there. But I would like any member of this House to show me what there is in this invitation, and its acceptance that will justify this vote ox place those who accept the invitation in a different position from other Canadians attending the coronation. The representatives of the government are in a different position, because they go as the official representatives of Canada, and it is only right that the Canadian people should pay their expenses, but this item is of an entirely different character, and I can see no defence whatever for the vote.


George Eulas Foster: I wish to say a word with reference to this item. I think I have stood for some 25 or 30 years in this parliament as a fair defender of economy; and in this instance I have no hesitation at all in saying that under all the circumstances I should defend the vote. But I also feel it is my duty at present to move myself entirely from the category of those who will benefit by it, and I shall, therefore, tomorrow morning hand in my resignation as one of those selected by the hon. leader of the opposition. I shall support the vote. Nothing would have made me happier than to have had visited the old country under these circumstances, but I am not able to pay my own way and shall therefore forego that pleasure, and under the circumstances shall remove myself from the list of those who were deputed_to attend.


Mr. FIELDING.: I trust my hon. friend (Mr. Foster), will reconsider his decision.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: While I realize that this, like every other expenditure of public money, is a legitimate subject for public discussion, and consequently have no fault to find with the views of hon. gentlemen who oppose it, I do not believe there is a citizen of the Dominion who, on serious reflection, will object to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), receiving this small allowance. He has been in the public life of Canada a long time. He is one of the oldest members of this House, and .occupies a distinguished position in it, and I do not hesitate to say that it is right and proper he should go, and the government, as a government, are entirely prepared to assume the responsibility of this vote, to say it is a proper vote, and not hold any hon. gentleman opposite responsible for it at all. I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), will reconsider his judgment and consent to be one of the delegates.


Samuel Hughes: The great objection, to my mind, in this matter, is this:	Here
are 18 members selected from this House of Commons, and these gentlemen, when they cross the water, will be the guests of the members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in England. The invitation is a private one. I do not know what favours will be shown them, but I do protest, and shall continue to protest, against any member from this House or another citizen from this Dominion who crosses over the water, not having the favours shown him that these gentlemen will have. Here is my hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Smyth) going across and paying his own expenses. He will stand among the crowd, and he is equally a representative of the people, and what I object to is that any member who goes across and pays his own expenses should not have the same recognition as any other member whose expenses are paid. That is the ground I take. I am not begrudging the money, I have never been a cheese parer, but i do not see why any member of parliament should be entitled to any special favour over there because he happened to be chosen as a delegate on the invitation of a number of gentlemen on the other side, and be given prominence over his brother members here who also attend the coronation and pay their own expenses. I am surprised that such a proposition should be made, knowing it would certainly bring hard feelings into the hearts of men who pay their own expenses and have to take pot luck, while these hon. gentlemen are given the favours. If the right hon. the Prime Minister will see that any favours that may be conferred on these 18 gentlemen will be extended to the others who pay their own expenses and are not costing the country a dollar, I shall make no opposition. With me it is a question of principle, a question of giving fair play to all, and that is the reason why I am opposing, not the vote, but the principle on which it is based.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is altogether under a misapprehension. The matter which he discusses has nothing to do with the payment or non-payment of the members chosen to represent parliament. Whether they be paid or not, they have been selected by the two sides as those who should accept the invitation from the committee of the Houses of Commons and Lords. With that I have nothing at all to do. I shall be in England as the official representative of the Canadian people, if I may say so, and every member of parliament, invited or not, is the same to me. Anything that I can do to have the favour shown to him to which he is entitled I shall be most happy to do, and I shall not make any distinction between those members, and the other 18. It will be my pleasure to see that all are treated alike and on the same footing. But as to these 18 members, that is a

different matter. These 18 members were chosen, but they will not be there officially any more than the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Smyth), who says he will go and pay his own expenses. These 18 members will be the guests, not of the whole parliament of Britain, but of a committee of members of the House of Commons. That is altogether a private affair. With regard to the other question, I hope that my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) will follow the advice given by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), and that he will consider himself invited. I think it would be a pity if my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) was not there. Some time ago, speaking publicly, I expressed regret that Mr. Deakin, who was Prime Minister of Australia at the time of the last conference, had not been selected as one of the members to represent Australia. I hope he will be there, as I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Foster will be there.


William Ross Smyth: At his own expense, while the others are paid.


Wilfrid Laurier: The eighteen members from Australia have their expenses paid by the Australian government, as the expenses of the eighteen members from Canada are to be paid by the Canadian government. I hope that my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) will be there to represent that portion of the Canadian people whom he represents so ably.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I desire, in the first place, to join most earnestly in the. observation of the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) and the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) so far as they urge upon the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) the desirability of reconsidering the decision he has made. I am sure there was no intention on the part of any hon. gentleman who spoke, whatever opinion he may have expressed, to convey any impression oi objection, or that there could be objection, to the hon. member for North Toronto, as one of those who accepted this invitation.


Mr. LAKE.: I did not even know who composed the delegation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Nor do I] and I trust that the hon. member for North Toronto will accept the suggestion already made to him by more authoritative voices than my own, and that he will see fit to withdraw the statement he has made with regard to his intention of not accepting the invitation. I have no desire whatever to make any objection to this vote. I would like, however, to offer a suggestion in regard to the terms in which it is set forth. I make the suggestion, in view of the statement of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) with regard to the misunderstand-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
ing that seems to have occurred concerning the nature of this invitation, and which misunderstanding may possibly have had something to do with the method of determining who should be the gentlemen to accept the invitation of the committee of members of parliament on the other side. I notice that the vote is provided for the expenses of the ' parliamentary delegation.' I think, under the circumstances, that it is not absolutely correct to speak of these gentlemen as a ' parliamentary delegation.' I understood the First Minister to say a moment ago that these gentlemen will not be there in any more official capacity than any other member of the House who might be in England, and desire to attend the coronation. They are going, as I understand it, .as accepting an invitation from certain members of parliament on the other side, not, properly speaking, as an official delegation from this parliament, I do not understand that this parliament, as a parliament, took any official step to delegate them. I would suggest that there might be found a modification of the wording of the vote which would make it clear that there is not sought to make any official distinction between gentlemen who may go, other than that these gentlemen who accept the invitation given. I am not prepared, perhaps to express it exactly as it ought to be expressed, but my idea would be met if, instead of saying we were voting money to pay the expenses of a parliamentary delegation, we should say that we were voting money to pay the expenses of members of the Senate and House of Commons attending the coronation, and accepting the invitation of the committee of members of parliament on the other side. I suggest that simply to make it quite clear what I think everybody understands, that there is no intention to make these gentlemen any more official representatives than any other member of parliament who may attend. I think that is no offence to the gentlemen-if I thought it was, I would not make the suggestion. I suggest this as putting on record exactly the facts and leaving no room for misunderstanding as to the relative positions of the members who have been fixed upon to accept this official invitation, and other hon. members who mav attend the coronation.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I have the honour to be one of those nominated on this side of the House on this delegation, and, in case there should be any misapprehension about the matter, I wish to state that, so far as I know there was no information given to the delegates on our side of the House which was not given to the delegates on the other side. I did not know anything about whether there would be money provided to pay expenses or not, and the
MAY 9, 19il
first news I had of it was when I saw it in print in the estimates brought down yesterday. No pressure came from the delegation on this side, so far as I know, to have the vote put in the estimates. If I understand my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) the objection seems to be that it was not known on the other side that provision would he made to pay the expenses and that if it had been known they would have made a different selection from that which they did make.


Samuel Hughes: May I correct the hon. member?


John Howard Sinclair: That is what it appeared-


Samuel Hughes: Might I offer a remark? The statement was made to the members when the question was brought up, and each member was told: You will have to pay your own expenses. I think it went further than not being brought up, and that it was brought up in the way I state.


John Howard Sinclair: There seems to have been no authority on the part of anybody to make that statement. If there was any misunderstanding it must have grown up among hon. gentlemen opposite themselves. It should not be too late to rectify it. They ought to be able to agree on five gentlemen on that side to attend this delegation, and if there is any difficulty of that kind, I do not see why it could not be rectified yet, or why they could not make some selection that would suit them all. It is unfortunate if any hard feelings with regard to the selection on that side should exist. There are no such feelings on this side. I believe everybody is quite cordial, and I am glad to say that I was congratulated by nearly every friend around me when my name was given as one of those to go. I will vote against the motion when the vote is put.-I presume my hon. friends on the other side are not talking for the sake of talking, and that they intend to do something more than merely object. In that case, I will join my hon. friends and vote against it. I feel delicate about making any motion, for I do not know how it will affect the gentlemen who have accepted this invitation. I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes). If I understand this matter, the invitation comes from members of the imperial parliament, it is not a general invitation from the House of Commons of England, but from individual members, of whom Lord Rosebery is chairman. It would be natural to suppose that everybody who goes from Canada would receive attention. I suppose there will be thousands of people' from Canada in London, and it would be impossible that these can all obtain
seats in Westminster Abbey to witness the coronation. It would be impossible to grant the same privilege to everybody going from Canada. For my part, I would be inclined to move that the item be struck out.


Mr. MILLER.: The hon. member has spoken about hard feeling among the members; I do not think there is any hard feeling upon the part of any one member against any other member on either side of the House. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) has spoken his mind as he had a right to do, honestly and frankly. But I do not think there are many members in this House, or many people in the country, who will agree with him. I do not think that the manner of the invitation from certain members of the House of Commons in England to the members here, and the fact that the representatives from Canada will be entertained by members in England, is a matter that is of any concern to us at all, or that we have a right to discuss. A11 we have a right to discuss is whether this parliament shall or shall not pay the expenses of eighteen members of this parliament to go to England. 1 think that had there been no invitation at all from the old country, it would have been proper for parliament to pay the expenses of a limited number of members of the House of Commons to go with the members of the cabinet who represent Canada in England. I do not think that all the ability that is in this House of Commons is contained in the cabinet. It would have been impossible for all the members of this House to go and for their expenses to be paid by the public; no one would have expected it. As a matter of course it did place those who had to make the choice in a delicate position. No doubt many members of the House who were not selected would have filled the positions equally well. But all could not go. The member for Algoma (Mr. Smyth'e) is one of the newer members of the House, and he and others will perhaps have an opportunity to attend a similar, occasion at a later date. One of the reasons why I justify this vote is that some of the older members of the House of Commons are going. I quite agree with all those who have spoken, that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) are certainly two men who ought to be included in any list of those who go; I think we all agree in that. I do not think there will be any bad feeling either in the House or in the country, but that there will be good feeling all round. I think the people generally will be satisfied to see this vote carried.


George Halsey Perley: I do not wish it to be understood that I object to this vote, I

think it is a right and proper vote, but I do not think it has been managed in the right and proper way. I should feel badly if the hon. member for North Toronto, on account of the discussion this evening, did not take his share of this vote.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think it possible to do so after the statement that the chief whip has made in the House to-night.


George Halsey Perley: All I can say is that if the hon. gentleman feels hurt at any words I have uttered, it is because I have not the same power of expression that he has.


George Eulas Foster: I think the hon. member knew what he was saying.


George Halsey Perley: I certainly had no intention of hurting the feelings of anybody in this House. I simply wanted to put myself right in regard to this matter. I have no objection whatever to this vote, I think it is right and proper. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) said that we had no reason to think there would not be a vote. For myself I think that when the Prime Minister asked for the names of five members, and did not say anything about a vote, anybody would take it for granted that there would be no vote. That is why I felt justified in saying to the members by whom I was asked that the selection was to be made from those members who intended to go to the coronation any way. I simply rose to put myself right, and to say that a mistake was made by the Prime Minister weeks ago, or months ago, when he failed to say that he intended to bring in a vote for this purpose.


Richard Stuart Lake: I wish to say that in my opinion the attitude taken by the member for Portage la Prairie is a perfectly correct one, and I entirely agree with what he has said. I think that the official representatives of Canada in this parliament are the members of the government who are going to the conference and the coronation.


Mr. BEST.: I was pleased a week ago last Friday when I heard the Prime Minister say that he had changed his mind, and that he was going to the coronation. I believe that the Dominion of Canada has a perfect right to pay his expenses. But it was distinctly understood, at least I so understood, that any other member who went would have to pay his own expenses. I think that any member of parliament who goes to England and has his expenses paid by the people of Canada, is not doing the right thing. If the government offered to pay the expenses of all the members of this House, I think they would all volunteer to go. I did not know who were the members, with the exception of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster)


George Halsey Perley: who were selected to go until he stood up here and said that he was one of them. I was not aware who they were. I do not think this government has any right to pay the expenses of these men.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I regret very much that this discussion has taken a personal turn. Members on this side of the House hold George E. Foster, of North Toronto, in the highest personal regard. There is certainly no one that we would rather see go there to represent the Conservative party and the parliament of Canada than the hon. member for North Toronto. It is not in my mind a question of the personality of the members of parliament who will go. That is not the matter under discussion. It was somewhat unfairly stated by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) a few minutes ago, that the discussion arose from any dissension with regard to the selection of the individuals. I hope he will reconsider those words, because, speaking for myself, I did not know who were chosen on either side. I want to emphasize what the right hon. Prime Minister said that these hon. gentlemen are going entirely in their private capacity, and they are accepting a private invitation. They are not representing Canada in any way, they are simply going to the old country to take part in the coronation, accepting for a certain time an invitation tendered them by gentlemen who have been members of parliament. They are not representing Canada; then, why ask the people of Canada to pay their expenses? It is the principle to which I object most strongly, and if I have an opportunity I will vote against the proposal. If it carries I sincerely hope that my hon. friend from North Toronto will reconsider his determination.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I do not know that 1 can agree in every particular with my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell), who has just taken his seat. Inasmuch as. members have been selected from the respective parties and the Senate to go as the representatives of these two Houses to the old country, I cannot agree altogether with the view that they in no sense will represent Canada. As I understand an invitation has come to this country from the members, of the parliament of Great Britain.


Glenlyon Campbell: No, from private members.


William Cameron Edwards: I am stating it as I understand it, and if I am wrong, somebody can correct me when I get through. As 1 understand it an invitation has been sent here from the members of the British House of Commons to a number of men to go from these two Houses and be their guests while in the old country. If that is correct, then they would to a certain extent be the repre-

sentatives of Canada. But whether that is true or not, I do not agree with the principle of making this grant, I have not one word to say against the personnel of the gentlemen selected from the two parties, because I doubt if you could get a better representation of the House of Commons and the Senate, but I do not think that' the principle is a right one, and I wish simply to put on record my protest against the vote.


Mr. MADDIN.: As I understand the situation, an invitation having come from the Imperial parliament to send 18 representatives from the parliament of Canada, a selection was made in the best judgment of the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition. They go to represent Canada whether they were invited to go or not, which is neither here nor there. They are directed by this parliament to go there for that purpose, they go with the permission of this parliament to represent this country, and if that is so why should their expenses not be borne by this country.


William Ross Smyth: How does this parliament direct them?


James William Maddin: They are directed by this parliament when we pass this estimate. We directed them when the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition agreed upon the matter, and this being the case I cannot understand why hon. members in this House will permit votes to go through for such matters as the Newmarket canal, and then rise and protest against an expenditure of $18,000 to send a delegation from this parliament to appear at the coronation of our gracious Lord, the King. To say that this is a private invitation is not meeting the situation fairly. His Majesty is not issuing invitations personally. The authority is vested in certain members of the Imperial parliament. It may be as informal as you wish, but when that invitation arrives here, and when our representatives are selected with the best judgment of the leader of the opposition and the leader of the government, I cannot understand why the country should not assume the obligation of paying their expenses just as they pay the expenses of hon. members for serving here throughout the session. No one on this side of the House deplores more than I do the discussion that has taken place here to-night. In my judgment it would have been perhaps a proper subject for a caucus to have discussed, and I am quite certain that hon. members upon reflection will realize that this is not a matter to be dealt with in the manner in which it has been handled to-night. Some of us might like to have gone ourselves. There is nothing to debar any of us from going. The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Smyth)
deplores that he will be obliged to pay his own expenses.


William Ross Smyth: I did not deplore that, because I had agreed to do it.


James William Maddin: Then he deplores that he will have to stand behind the line and look through.


William Ross Smyth: I deplore that I am not put on the same standing as some of my fellow members. I represent Canada just the same as they do.


James William Maddin: Another hon. member wonders, if an invitation were offered, and if $1,000 were contributed to pay their expenses, how many of them would go? The same could be said of members of the bar on the opposite side of the House. If the question were put, how many of them would take a seat on the Supreme Court bench at a salary of $7,000 a year, I do not think there would be one member of the bar sitting on the other side of the House who would not hold up his hand for it. 1 think that if the House were asked how many members would go if the country offered them $1,000 to pay their expenses, probably every member who could afford the time would go. But that is not the course that has been pursued. When the leaders of both parties have exercised their best judgment in the selection of representatives of this parliament I think it is only fitting that the country should bear their expenses.


William Ross Smyth: ^Seeing that hon. members on both sides are taking a fling at myself, I think it due that I should say a word with regard to the matter. When I was approached and asked whether I would go to England it was emphasized very strongly that I would have to pay my own expenses. I said: Yes, I will go and when I was asked: Are you sure to go?-I said: Yes, I will go. I was under no misapprehension at all, I knew that I would have to pay my own expenses, and I was willing to pay my own expenses. I do not see why any one else should have his expenses paid when I was ready and willing to pay my own.
Salaries and expenses of the Paris agency- Further amount required, $5,500.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have appointed a new agent at Paris. My hon. friend knows that Mr. Fabre, the late agent, was paid by this parliament $6,500 and $2,000 additional which was contributed by the Quebec government. We have not thought it advisable to accept any contribution from the Quebec government, and we have made the salary of Mr. Roy, the new agent, $8,000. Mr. Fabre received no allowance whatever for contingencies; every-

thing came from the sum of $6,500. It is now proposed to provide $5,000 for office rent, and such contingencies as are necessary to carry on the work.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 12.41 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, May 10, 1911.