1917-07-21

FORBIDDEN CIRCULATION' IN CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to draw the attention of the Government to a matter I brought to its notice on July 18th, in connection with the book "The Fiddlers," and its prohibition in Canada. I said:
I desire to ask the Government under what paragraph of these consolidated orders this notice has been issued, and in respect of what portion of the matter contained in this book?
I would like to ask if the Government is . prepared to give an answer to that question.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: The subject to which my hon. friend alludes is under the consideration of the Committee on Censorship. A report has been received from the Deputy Chief Censor setting forth the reasons why it was thought desirable and necessary to take the action which was taken. That report, together with the report from the Under Secretary of State, will be considered immediately by the Committee of the Privy Council to whom these matters are referred.


Frank Oliver: May I ask if the report will answer the questions I have asked?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether it would be desirable or necessary to set out all those portions of the book which might sustain the action, if the action should be sustained. I cannot say that in advance.


Frank Oliver: When will the report be available to the House?


Robert Laird Borden: Just as soon as it is made. We hope to have it in the early future.


Frank Oliver: I asked the Prime Minister two specific questions in regard to a specific matter, and I desire to press for an answer to those questions.


Robert Laird Borden: I have given my hon. friend the only answer possible at the moment. I have not a sufficient recollec-

tion of the regulations to say under what particular paragraph it was done. The action "was taken on the report of the Deputy Chief Censor by the Under Secretary of State, and following the inquiry of my hon. friend-which was the first knowledge I had of the matter-I asked that a report should 'be procured from the Deputy Chief Censor. This has been prepared for the 'Censorship Committee, and a further report is being made by the Under Secretary of State. Both of these reports will be referred to the Censorship Committee immediately. I cannot give any further answer at the moment.


Frank Oliver: The result will be laid on the table of the House in due course?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Mr. MURPHY:: Did I understand my right hon. friend to refer to Col. Chambers as Deputy Chief Censor? If so, who is the Chief Censor?


Robert Laird Borden: The Chief Censor is in England. Persons appointed for the various dominions overseas have the title of deputy chief censors. They fulfil, in the dominions for which they are appointed, the functions which are fulfilled by the Chief Censor in England.



BUSINESS PROFITS TAXATION.-DETAILS OP RESULTS ASKED FOR.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CARVELL:: I wish to ask the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) a question, and I ask it in view of the discussion which has taken place in the newspapers recently in regard to the report of Mr. O'Connor on the meat and bacon situation. When the matter of the taxation of business profits was before the House I asked the Minister of Finance to produce to the House, in the form of a return, full and detailed statements of the result of the business profits taxation. I felt that the House and the country are entitled to know not only the fact that a company or person paid so many thousand dollars of taxation, but that they should have a resume of the report, showing the capital invested, taxation, and so on. The minister, for some reason or other, thought it would not be in the public interest if all this information were divulged. I find that on June 20 last, as reported at page 2614 of Hansard, the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) was able to give certain portions of this report, for
twenty-two of the leading firms in Canada, the object being to show how much they would have paid under the new system of taxation as compared with that of the first year. If the hon. member for North Grey could go to the department and get such portions of these returns as he wished to use for his own purposes, surely the people of Canada are entitled to the whole of them. Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister if he cannot, without delay, and before this Parliament prorogues, lay upon the Table a complete detailed statement of all the returns of persons and companies who have been taxed under the business profits tax.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the hon. member for North Grey give the names of the firms?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. It will be found at page 2614 of Hansard. There is a tabulated statement of 22 of them. It shows, first, the amount each concern was assessed for the accounting period from 1914 to 1915, and their amounts which they severally would have been assessed under the law as it has been changed.
. Sir GEORGE FOSTER: Does be give the names of the companies?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes; twenty-two of them.
So far as the William Davies Company, Limited, is concerned, the accounting period from April 1, 1914, to March 30, 1915, shows the amount assessed as $109,623.99, then in the column showing what the assessment would have been under the amendment of 1917, I find $223,062.08. The statement gives the same detail with regard to the other twenty-one companies.
If the hon. member for North Grey could get portions of the information which he wished to use, surely the people of Canada are entitled to full information on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid, in [DOT] the absence of the Minister of Finance,
I cannot say very much to my hon. friend, except that I will direct the attention of the minister to the matter. If the hon. member for North Grey had more information than my hon. friend has, he also had more information than I have, so my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) and I are very niuch in the same boat in that regard. I do not really know what the policy of the Minister of Finance is in regard to the matter, but there seems to be some force in the observations of my hon. friend (Mr. Car-

v-ell) and I will direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to them.



EXPLANATION-ME. MACNUTT.

[Stage Direction]
. On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. THOMAS MACNUTT (Saltcoats):: I wish to make a statement with regard to a matter which has been discussed both in the House and among the public. It is not a matter of the most extreme importance, but I think it should he straightened out. I refer to a report of a meeting held a few days ago, at which I was present. I was approached by a reporter, and' I gave him a statement of what had actually occurred at the meeting with regard to this matter. I do not know how he understood me as he did. The report in the Journal-Press is as follows:
Mr. Thomas MaoNutt, of Saltcoats, who was chairman of the Liberal caucus on Tuesday, made the following statement last night:
"The statement made in some of the Government organs to-day that Hon George P. Graham's amendment to the extension resolution yesterday was sprung on the House without the unanimous consent of his party, and that thereby some of the Liberals who favoured the Government's conscription measure were "tricked" into an embarrassing position of opposition to the extension, is wholly without foundation in fact. The chairman of the Liberal caucus yesterday, (Mr. Thomas Mac-Nutt,) declared to-night that Mr. Graham's amendment had been unanimously consented to by every member of the party. The only instruction was that it should not be moved as an amendment of the third reading of the conscription Bill, lest it be represented as being a motion to delay the passing or enforcement of that measure. Mr. Graham was authorized to, present the amendment at the first opportunity, and no dissent was taken to his suggestion that it might be fittingly moved as an amendment to the extension resolution. Even Dr. Michael Clark who voted against the amendment last night, had previously endorsed the principle and wording of it."
I never mentioned that hon. gentleman's name at all. For fear that I shall be again misquoted, I have written out what I remember did actually occur and you will notice there is a difference.
In the first place, the caucus was very informal. No motions were put from the Chair, and no vote was taken by me as chairman on any question whatever. The hon. member for South Eenfrew (Mr. Graham) stated at the meeting in my hearing, and no doubt in that of others, that he had been looking for a chance to move his resolution for some time. He had thought of moving it on motion for Supply, but none had yet been made. He had also thought of moving it as an amendment to the third reading of the Military Service

Bill, but had given up this idea, as it might be considered a dilatory motion. He had now decided to move it as an amendment to the extension resolution, but would drop the term "accumulated wealth" and present it in a different form with the same object in view. I am not quoting his exact words, but that is the purport of his statement as I understood it. The point is this: If the matter had been discussed as reported by the Journal-Press, the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. M. Clark) must necessarily have heard it, but as it was not formally discussed, the statement merely having been made by the member for South Renfrew, it is possible that he and others might not have heard this statement and might therefore have been under the impression that no announcement in regard to the matter had been made. There was no "trickery" or anything approaching it. I do not wish to impugn the veracity of the reporter, but he got it wrong some way; I do not know how.
%



ENLISTMENT OF PERSONS OF FOREIGN BIRTH.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Thomas MacNutt: I have another matter to bring up. I gave notice yesterday to the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Edward Kemp) in regard to this question. I might have brought it up in committee but failed to do so. However, it is not too late yet. It may be of some interest to a. good many people of my district. I have also written this out, and it is as follows:
I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Militia as to the enlistment of naturalized enemy country aliens, with especial reference to Ruthenians, who formerly resided in the eastern provinces of Austria. My information 'is that recruits have not been accepted for the overseas forces for enlistment from among these people, who, if they wished to enlist, had to claim they were Russians. Is it the intention of the Government to accept persons of enemy country birth as recruits in the future, and is it the intention of the Government, under the Military Service Act, to conscript those classes of people of alien birth whom it refused to* accept as volunteers?


Robert Laird Borden: In the ordinary course, my hon. friend's question would go on the Order Paper and the Government would have an opportunity of considering it. .My hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence unfortunately is not here

to-day. We shall be prepared to give my hon. friend an answer on Monday or Tuesday. I am not personally familiar with tne facts as to whether persons of foreign birth have been refused by the recruiting officer. It is, of course, perfectly true 'that the British Government have been very strict as to the enlistment of persons who were born in an enemy country. On the other hand,
I believe that there have been a great many people of foreign birth, possibly some of enemy nationality, who have enlisted and gone to the front. I am disposed to think that, although I am not sure. But we will have inquiries made on the subject and will give my hon. friend an answer on Monday or Tuesday.


Thomas MacNutt: I am not criticising the policy of the Government at all; I am simply asking for information.



BOARDS OF TRADE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce), Bill No. 115, to amend the Boards of Trade Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
Mr. Dugald Stewart in the Chair.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: The Bill is not printed.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: In the meantime I may explain the Bill and we will have it on the record. This is to amend chapter 124 of the Revised Statutes, an Act respecting the incorporation of boards of trade. Section 2 of that Act, the interpretation clause, reads in part as follows:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-"district" means and includes any judicial district, or temporary judicial district, which is set apart or constituted as such by any Act of the Parliament of Canada, or by any Act of the Legislature of any province of Canada, or by any proclamation issued under or by virtue of the provisions of any such Act.
Also t
Any city, county, town or village, to any of which may be added one or more townships selected for that purpose.
After the word "purpose" it is proposed to put in "or any group of such municipalities or divisions." This allows a group of boards of trade, close to each otheT and with a centre of a considerable town or city, to amalgamate for the purposes of the various operations of a board of trade. The special occasion that brings it up is the desire for such an amalgamation between the towns of Windsor and four municipalities about it. Each one of them has a
small board of trade and they have agreed to go together and work as an associated board of trade. Their membership is about 800, and it is supposed, and I think Tightly, that an aggregation of this kind working in unison will make for more effective board of trade work and for carrying out the purposes of the Act to better advantage.


William Pugsley: This is only a little Bill, but that is all the more reason why it should be printed.


George Eulas Foster: 
Charles Murphy: It is printed.


William Pugsley: It is not marked on the Order Paper as being printed.


George Eulas Foster: It is not printed in both French and English.


William Pugsley: How could my hon.
friend move the House into committee.


George Eulas Foster: The House went into committee on the Bill and then it was pointed out that it was not printed in French. I took advantage of its being in committee to explain the Bill so that it might be before the House. I do not propose to go on. 01 course, my hon. friend, being very familiar with parliamentary practice-


William Pugsley: I always look on my
file for Bills. It is really of some advantage for members to Tead the Bills before discussing them. Of course, if it is a matter of urgency, and it has been fully explained in committee, that might be a reason for proceeding with it now.
Progress reported.



PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. J. Roche (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 92, respecting a certain convention between His Majesty and1 the United States of America, for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and the United States, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
Mr. Douglas Stewart in the Chair.
On section 3-Definitions.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: May I ask,
has this treaty been ratified by the Senate of the United States?


Mr. ROCHE:: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it before
the United States now?


William James Roche: Yes.
Mr.. PUGSLEY: Would it not be desirable for the minister to explain what birds are meant in section 3, using, ordinary common language, because I am sure the public would not know them by these names?


George Eulas Foster: Most of them
are common names.


William Pugsley: I do not know whether the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) could give any further explanation?


William James Roche: No, those are common
names.


William Pugsley: I was brought up in
the country, but scores of these names are unfamiliar to me, and I never heard of them in our country. For instance, the name "flickers" is unknown to me.


George Eulas Foster: Does the hon.
gentleman know what the name " dowagers " means?


William Pugsley: Oh yes. Somebody may be able to inform the House later on, if the Bill becomes law.


William James Roche: These are the names ordinarily given to them. They are called migratory as distinct from resident birds.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: The usefulness of this law will depend largely upon joint action on the part of the American and Canadian Governments. The Governor in Council here takes power to make regulations prohibiting the killing of birds. But I thank that the birds mentioned in subsection (c) of this section-bobolinks, catbirds, chickadees, cuckoos, flickers, flycatchers, grosbeaks, humming birds, kinglets, etc., should not be killed under any circumstances. I suppo.se it is the intention to provide that they shall not be killed, if that is not already provided for.


William James Roche: It is in the treaty. Article 2, subsection 2, says:
The season for hunting shall be further restricted to such period not exceeding three and one-half months as the High Contracting Powers may severally deem appropriate and define by law or regulation.
It is provided under article 2 that the season for hunting shall he arranged as between set dates. The close season is to be three and one-half months. This period of three and one-half months shall he estabfMr. Roche.]
lished at any time between 1st September and 10th March, to' suit local conditions.
Mr. COPP,:	What effect will this legislation have upon provincial legislation for the protection of game?


William James Roche: The draft of the treaty was submitted to all the provincial legislatures, 'and approved. The treaty itself, after it was signed, and the Bill, were also submitted to the provincial legislatures. Some of the provincial legislatures have adopted legislation approving the steps taken in this respect and have passed their Game Acts in accordance with the conditions of the treaty. Others have promised to do so at the next session.


Mr. COPP:: I assume that the matter has been submitted to the provincial executives.


William James Roche: We have communications from the executives stating that it is their intention to introduce legislation confirming this at the next session.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The New Brunswick gams law was amended at the last session of the provincial legislature, not in accordance with this proposed legislation. The game birds in New Brunswick are a source of revenue to the province; regulations are made and licenses issued for the shooting of game birds.


William James Roche: This will not interfere with that at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: I notice that in the treaty the prohibition of the killing of migratory and insectivorous birds is made absolute. It reads as follows:
The close season on migratory insectivorous birds shall continue throughout the year.
And that I approve. I call attention, however, to the fact that in subsection (b) of section 4, my hon. friend takes power to make regulations for the granting of permits to kill or take migratory game, migratory insectivorous and migratory nongame birds, or their nests or eggs. I imagine the intent is not, to grant licenses for the killing of these migratory and insectivorous birds, because in the treaty the killing of these birds under any circumstances is prohibited.


William James Roche: I shall read to the right hon. gentleman article 7 of the treaty. It is as follows:
Permits to kill any of the above-named birds which, under extraordinary conditions, may become seriously injurious to the agricultural or other interests in any particular community, may be issued by the proper au-

thorlties of the High Contracting Powers under suitable regulations prescribed therefor by them respectively, but such permits shall lapse or may be cancelled, at any time when, in the opinion of said authorities, the particular exigency has passed, and no birds killed under this article shall be shipped, sold, or offered for sale.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister says that this legislation will have no effect upon provincial game laws. Suppose the Dominion Government makes the open season different from the open season in the province; will that not cause difficulty?


William James Roche: I shall read some correspondence that has been had with the Government of New Brunswick in respect to this matter. Here is one letter:
With further reference to your letter of the 20th of March last respecting:
"A proposal made by the United States Government for a convention between Great Britain and the United States for the protection of migratory birds in the United States and Canada."
I herewith enclose you a letter from Mr. Loggie, Deputy Minister of Lands and Mines.
It appears the laws now in force in this province for the protection of birds and game embrace almost everything included in the convention proposed and very little change would be required, if a convention were adopted.
1 note that the constitutionality of the Act of March 4th, 1913, passed by the United States Congress, was doubtful; whether this question has been settled by the courts I do not know. A similar difficulty will be found in legislating in Canada. The laws upon this subject come within the jurisdiction of the different provinces.
The establishment of refuges referred to in Article 4 of the draft convention has at different times been discussed here and X trust that in the near future, action may be taken to establish these refuges.
Another communication is as follows: Referring to the enclosed correspondence received through you on the 15th inst., with regard to the proposed conference for the protection of migratory and insectivorous birds, I have had reference to the correspondence with your honour and the Deputy Minister of Lands and Mines dated 24th of April, 1914.
The only inquiry called for in the enclosed correspondence is that contained on the third page of the commercial paper No. 95 from Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, British Ambassador at Washington, to the Hon. Sir Edward Grey, Bart., K.C., dated April 30th, 1914, namely a close season for plover in New Brunswick. The date suggested by the conference is from September first to January first. If reference is made to the enclosed proclamation of the President of the United States on the close season for 'plover it will be shown that an exception is made of the states of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Long Island by allowing the open season for plover to commence August 15th or the same date as is now in force by the game laws of this province. I am, therefore, of the opinion no change in our game laws is required to keep them in harmony with what is proposed by the convention.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Under section 4 the Governor in Council may make such regulations as may be deemed expedient for the protection of migratory game, etc. If the Governor in 'Council passes a regulation making the close season for certain game between certain dates and the provincial legislature of New Brunswick specifies totally different dates for that purpose, the result will be that a man may be poaching so far as Dominion legislation is concerned, but absolutely within his rights under the provincial law.


Six WILFRID LAURIER:: If there is a clash between legislation passed by the provincial parliaments and regulations passed under this measure I presume the provincial legislation will go by the board, and the regulations passed under this legislation will be effective. I think, however, this is very proper legislation. Article 7 of the treaty says:
Permits to kill any lof the aibove-named birds which, under extraordinary conditions, may become seriously injurious to the agricultural or other interests in any particular community

Does the minister apprehend any danger of that kind from bird life to-day?


William James Roche: For example, in Saskatchewan cranes are occasionally injurious to grain. In British Columbia geese, pigeons and robins are sometimes injurious to agriculture. In other parts of Canada mergansers may destroy young fish. To meet all such cases where a bird, which is ordinarily useful to agriculture, or innocuous, becomes injurious to agriculture or other interests, permits may be given to kill such species so long as they may be injurious.


Mr.   M ARGIL@: Has the minister had any correspondence with the Quebec Government on this matter?


William James Roche: Yes.


Mr. MARCIL:: What did they say?


William James Roche: They approved it at the last session of the legislature.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Did the minister have any communication with the Nova Scotian government with regard to this matter?


William James Roche: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Is this legislation satisfactory to that government?


William James Roche: Yes, it is at the present time. An objection was raised, but the

legislation had been amended to their satisfaction since. The Quebec Government have sent a communication stating that
The Province of Quebec welcomes this treaty, and will endeavour to carry out its provisions affording uniform protection throughout the greater part of the North American continent.


Charles Marcil: The crow is a nuisance down in eastern Canada.


William James Roche: That bird is not in the treaty.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have no objection to this legislation, but I would like to know what effect it is going to have on provincial legislation, and my hon. friend has not answered me in regard to that matter. This Bill says that the Governor in Council may make certain regulations in regard to migratory birds. The province of New Brunswick has certain laws in regard to game birds and it has been very careful and jealous in looking after the game birds in that province for a number of years past. The Governor in Council, after the passage of this measure, may make an arrangement as to the close season for game birds. But the provincial government cannot change their regulations-that is in the hands of the provincial legislature, and at any session of the provincial legislature of New Brunswick the dates, of the close season may be changed. For instance, at the last session of the New Brunswick legislature, the game season for black duck was extended by an amendment to the Act from 1st to 15th September. I want to find out whether by the passing of this Act the provincial legislation in regard to this matter goes absolutely by the board, and the whole protection of the game birds is to be afforded under this legislation. You cannot have dual control.


George Eulas Foster: You can have the two pieces of legislation if they agree with each other.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But the dates may be changed very quickly.


William James Roche: The New Brunswick government have already assented to the principles of this treaty, and when regulations are to be formulated, they will be formulated in consultation with the members of the provincial executive. The same difficulty arises in connection with the state governments of the United States. All the state governments exercise jurisdiction in regard to the various provincial laws, and the only way in which this matter can be satisfactorily dealt with is by [Mr. Roche.3
making a treaty with the United States authorities as, under the British North America Act, we are entitled to do.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think my hon.
friend understands the point I am making. Under this legislation the Governor in Council makes regulations for the protection of migratory birds. My hon. friend must not forget that the provincial government cannot make regulations as can be done by the Governor in Council under this legislation, but the legislature can change the regulations. If you make regulations along certain lines, making the close season between certain dates, that might agree with the present legislation of the different provincial legislatures, but when a provincial legislature meets again, it may make amendments that will be absolutely different from these regulations, and, as you are having dual control-dual officers, one under the Governor in Council under this legislation and the other under the provincial statute-there would be a clash at once.


William James Roche: Does the hon. gentleman
think that the provincial legislature would, in violation of the agreement entered into in behalf of the province by their government, change their stand on this question? For they have already consented to the game laws undeT this treaty being taken over and exercised by the Dominion Government?


Arthur Bliss Copp: How have they consented?


William James Roche: Through the proper executive representing the province.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand the Deputy
Minister of Lands and Mines of New Brunswick has written a letter, but he is absolutely without any authority whatever; he is not responsible to the people or the legislature. He is just a local man selected for and appointed to that position.


William James Roche: What does the hon. gentleman Suggest?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am not suggesting anything. I am not speaking against this legislation; I am only asking for information to find out what position the provinces are going to be in after this legislation is passed. This may be very proper legislation, but I know something about the game laws of New Brunswick, and I know that if this legislation is placed on the statute book, and the Governor in Council makes regulations, perhaps this year they will be -in accord with the Game Act of the province,

3G61
but1 next year that Act may be changed, and as you would have dual control, you would not get along harmoniously.


Charles Marcil: Will the Dominion legislation override that of the provinces if such a condition should arise?


Mr. EOCHE:: The provinces all consented to this legislation being carried out by the Dominion under the provisions of this treaty.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Appointment and powers of game officers:
Charles Marcil: Will one set of game
officers be appointed by the provinces and another set by the Dominion?


William Roche: I might say this Bill has merely been handed over to the Interior Department for administration. I had personally nothing to do with the making of the treaty. That was all done by the officers of the Department of Agriculture, and I have to depend upon them for my information. I am informed that it is proposed to administer the regulations under this Act with the assistance of the provincial governments so far as may be possible, and to utilize their administrative machinery. With this end in view certain of the provincial	governments-Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta-have already brought their regulations into line with the provisions of the treaty. Others have signified their intention of doing so when the Dominion legislation has been enacted. It is not intended to duplicate the 4 p.m. existing game protection staffs employed by the provincial Governments, but to use them as far as we can by appointing the provincial game officers to be game officers under this Act.
Sir WILFB'ID LAUEIEE:	If what my
hon. friend has outlined is carried out, I think it will cerainly help in the proper administration of the Act. In the province of Quebec we have officers for the protection of game, but, so far as my information goes, no officers for the protection of bird life. I think if the Act is administered with the concurrence of these game officers, it will be effective.


Charles Marcil: In the province of Quebec there has often been a conflict of jurisdiction as between the. Dominion and provincial authorities over the fisheries. All the courts in the realm have pronounced on the question, and there is now a case on
the way to the Privy Council. It would be unfortunate if the same thing should occur in connection with this Act. I agree with the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that if concurrent action can be arranged for between the provinces and the Dominion it would be highly desirable.


Mr. SINCLAIE:: I presume the minister intends that all the provincial regulations will be repealed that conflict with these regulations. In Nova Scotia we have regulations, for instance, as to the date beyond which partridges and birds of that kind shall not be shot.


William Roche: Partridges are not migratory and therefore do not come under this Act.


John Ewen Sinclair: I have been told by certain people who understand all about game in the Maritime Provinces, or who think they do, that birds that nest on the coast should be protected from destruction, while the birds that simply alight there for rest and food on their way north to Labrador and other points should be allowed to be taken. Of course, if you kill the nesting birds you destroy their progeny.


William Roche: All migratory birds such as my hon. friend speaks of are protected under this legislation.


Charles Marcil: Will the regulations be distributed by the Dominion Government just as the regulations are distributed by the provincial governments? In my constituency they are printed in both languages and reach all the huntsmen.


William Roche: Arrangements will be made in that respect. The Dominion Government will circulate the regulations.


John Ewen Sinclair: Subsection 2 of section 5 says:
Every game officer who Is authorized by the minister to exercise the powers of a Justice of the Peace or of a police constable shall, for all the purposes of this Act and the regulations, be ex officio a Justice of the Peace or a police, constable, as the case may be, within the district within which he is authorized to act.
I think it is vicious legislation to allow the game officers, who are the prosecutors, to try the cases and pronounce judgment. That would be tantamount to a man bringing an action and trying it himself. That system has been followed in regard to the fisheries in the past, and has worked out very badly indeed. I think it would be best to try the cases before an independent Justice of the Peace, of whom there is no

scarcity in the eastern provinces. If the game officers are to try the cases themselves, it would be just as if a policeman in Ottawa arrested a man, took him to the police station, tried the case himself, and found the man guilty.


William James Roche: It is not the intention to utilize these officers as justices of the peace in places where a justice of the peace is available, but my hon. friend knows that in outlying parts of the country a justice of the peace cannot be found, and it is in these exceptional cases, in order to avoid great expense and loss of time, that the game officer will be ex officio a justice of the peace. This is already done in connection with our Game Act in the Northwest Territories.


John Howard Sinclair: The game officer would not try the case if a justice of the peace were available?


William James Roche: No.


John Howard Sinclair: How many persons does the minister propose to appoint under this Act, and what is the estimated cost of its administration?
Mr. ROCHE < It is impossible for me to say at this stage, because the machinery has not yet been provided. The Act will be administered by the Parks Branch of the Interior Department, which will also administer the Northwest Game Act which is now on the Order Paper.


Charles Marcil: Are those men paid by
the season, ox are they padd according to the work they do?


William James Roche: Soime of them are paid an annual salary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall I report the
Bill?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would like to refer the minister to Article II of the schedule. At the last session of the New Brunswick legislature the end of t'he close :season was fixed for 15th September. Under this 'article it is blade 1st September. If this legislation is passed and you appoint youT officers, and the people begin shooting, say black duck, on 1st September, the local authorities will step in and say: " It is against our law, because the close season runs until 15th September."


William James Roche: The hon. member misinterprets the article. The open season shall be any time between 1st September and 
10th March, not exceeding three and a half months. '


Arthur Bliss Copp: But the article puts it the
other way. It says that it shall between 10th March and 1st September.


William James Roche: That is the close season.
'Mr. COPP: After September 1 it must be the open season.


William James Roche: When do you say the open season begins?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Fifteenth September, under
the new Brunswick law. This article stipulates that the close season is from 10th March to 1st September.


William James Roche: The close season on migratory game birds shall be between 10th March and 1st September, according to this article. Then the season for hunting shall be further restricted to such period, not exceeding three and one-half months, as the high contracting parties may severally deem appropriate and define by law or regulation. The season for hunting could begin on 15th September.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Can it not begin on 1st September under the terms of this article?


William James Roche: There does seem to be a
contradiction. The officer points out to me that it cannot begin before 1st September.
Mr. COPlP:	That is perfectly true, but
under the provincial law it does not begin until the 15th. I am sure this conflict as to date will cause trouble.


George Eulas Foster: Would there
really be any trouble? If the two parties are working in unison, as they have been so far, they could certainly deal with this matter without any difficulty. As I understand it, under -this law the shooting season may commence on 1st September. In New Brunswick it does not commence until the 15th. It seems to me it is the easiest thing in the world for the Dominion Government to make provision for that, and so arrange that the shooting shall not commence until the 15th September. As it is, we say it shall not commence before the 1st, but that does not mean it shall not be made still later.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think my hon. friend has the wording of the clause before him. It sets forth very clearly that the close season on migratory birds shall be between 10th March and 1st September.


William James Roche: That is the minimum.


Arthur Bliss Copp: According to this article surely the hunting season in the province of New Brunswick for migratory birds may commence on 1st September.


William James Roche: Not necessarily.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then, I cannot understand the English language. Under the provincial law it only opens on the 15th. It was the first until the last session of the New Brunswick Parliament. Now you have your officer under this Act making 1st September the beginning of the open season and the provincial officer, under provincial legislation, making it the 15th. There is bound to be misunderstanding and trouble.


William James Roche: The minimum of the close season is from 10th March to 1st September, but the close season may extend beyond that. The open season may be any three and a half months between 1st September and 10th March. The local officer can name any date;, he can start on 15th September or 1st September, and he can ehoose any three and a half months between 1st September and 10th March.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister is putting it the wrong way. It is from 10th March to 1st September, not from 1st September to 10th March.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



REMOVAL OF INDIANS ON SYDNEY RESERVE.

[Stage Direction]
The House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution:
That the following, being the findings of the Judge of the Exchequer Court made on the 15th day of March, A.D., 1916, under the provisions of section 49a of the Indian Act as enacted by the Statutes of 1911, chapter fourteen, be approved:-
"1. That it is expedient, having regard to the interest of the public and of the Indians located on the small Sydney Reserve in the City of Sydney, in the Province of Nova Scotia, that the said Indians should be removed from such Reserve;
"2. That the compensation fixed by the said Judge should be paid respectively to the individual Indians of the band for the special loss or damages sustained by them in respect of their buildings or improvements upon the Reserve, or an adjustment be made for their claims in respect thereof, and a suitable new Reserve be obtained for them before they be removed from or disturbed in the possession of the present Reserve;
"3. That the Indians should, on their removal be treated with great consideration and kindness and that such removal should be made quietly, without undue haste, trouble or inconvenience to the Indians after the selection of a new Reserve and the payment of compensation for their buildings or improvements."-Mr. Roche.
(Mr Dugald Stewart in the Chair.)
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Is there any explanation of this resolution? Who supports it; where does the suggestion come from?


William James Roche: I explained this in brief when the Estimates of the department of Indian Affairs were up. There have been representations made for years past by various parties to the Indian department with regard to this matter. There is a small reserve situated right in the heart of the city of Sydney.


Mr.   M ARGIL@: What is the area?


William James Roche: In the neighbourhood of
two acres. There are about 125 Indians and the reserve is very congested. The condition has been complained of and efforts have been made on numerous occasions to have the Indians give a willing surrender of the reserve. Owing, however, to the fact that it is very convenient for them, as most of them, not being of a nomadic character, are working the coke and steel ovens, they would not surrender it. We are now proceeding under the provisions of an amendment to the Indian Act introduced by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) when Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, that where, in a town of more than 8,000 population, the Indians will not willingly surrender, and the existence of the Teserve there becomes a public nuisance or when, for the public welfare or for public purposes, it is deemed necessary to secure the Indian property, the matter may be referred to a judge of the Exchequer court. Under the provisions of that Act Judge Audette visited Sydney, took evidence, and made his report in accordance with the Indian Act. That report was laid on the Table some weeks ago. Judge Audette reports that unmistakably the Indians should be removed from this reserve. The members who are acquainted with the condition of affairs there are quite in agreement. I heard the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) express himself in that way as well as other members. The judge recognized that a new reserve should be secured for the Indians, and he visited and inspected three several sites and recommended any one of the three.


Mr.   M ARGIL@: In the same province?


William James Roche: Right adjacent to the
same city, the object being to remove the Indians from the heart of the city. Under the provisions of the Indian Act we would remove these Indians to one of these sites, sell the property by auction and devote the proceeds to the benefit of the Indians. We will be compelled to remove the Indians' houses and to locate them on the new reserve. It is not my intention, however, to go any further with this question this year, because I do not intend to introduce any appropriation to cause an expenditure, as I think the matter might well be left over until next session or until after the war. I placed the report of the judge upon the table and Parliament is supposed to approve or disapprove of the judge's finding. I am not going to ask Parliament to go any further this session.


Charles Marcil: Can this land be used for any public purpose?


William James Roche: It will be sold by public auction. It is in the neighbourhood of two acres; an estimate has been placed upon it and it will be offered at an upset price. Being in the heart of the city, it is a fairly valuable piece of property.


John Howard Sinclair: How many Indians are there on this reserve?


William James Roche: One hundred and twenty-two.


John Howard Sinclair: I see that the resolution provides that payment shall be made respectively to the individual Indians of the band?


William James Roche: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Does that mean that
the children get a share as well as the grown-ups?


William James Roche: These proceeds are for improvements. There are houses and different families reside in these houses. The children are not taken into consideration, but only the owners.


Mr. McKENZIE:: When this matter
was discussed on a previous occasion, I asked the minister a few questions about the disposal of this land, and I suggested that it should be given to the city. The two acres is in the heart of the steel industry, in a very pretty place, right on the shore, and particularly suitable for a park. I suggested to the minister that it would be a proper thing to let the city have it. The hon. minister will 
not get very much for this land at public auction. It is t'he only particle of waterfront, from one limit of the city to the other, that is not taken up. It is fronting right on the harbour, with level ground, and is particularly well adapted for bathing, boat houses and that sort of thing; and it would be a great benefit to the poorer classes, who cannot go very far for that kind of enjoyment, if this land were made a public park. I brought the matter to the notice of the city of Sydney, and I assume the minister heard from them. I think they were moving in the direction of .suggesting that the land should be given to the city for park purposes. I do not know whether the minister heard from them or not.


William James Roche: I do not recollect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
William James Roche: I pointed out, before the hon. gentleman came in, that it was not my

intention to have ahy site selected immediately. The matter might well stand till the end of the war, as it would mean considerable expenditure to buy a new reserve. But the judge, in reporting upon various sites, has selected three alternate sites any of which he recommends, but it is not the intention to do anything immediately, because we are not asking any appropriation in our estimates this session for that purpose. If this were Government property I could understand the request of the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), but inasmuch as the Government merely holds it in trust for the Indians the Government could not confer it on the city. We would have to compensate the Indians, not only for their improvement and for moving them on a reserve, but also for the value of the property. The idea of having it recommended by the judge was that it should be sold by auction. I think the upset price recommended by the judge is $5,000, and I do not think the city would object to pay $5,000 to have a nice little park there.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It might be called McKenzie Park?


William James Roche: Yes. However, inasmuch as this is not a matter for immediate action, it can be taken up later on. I do not remember any resolution coming from the city council of Sydney. It is just possible there may have been, but the deputy minister does not remember any, and I do not remember any reaching me. I ask Parliament to sanction the resolution this session, and further action will be taken later on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Indians will not be removed this year?


William James Roche: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: From a personal standpoint, I have no more interest in this matter than the hon. minister (Mr. Roche) himself. It is not in my riding, but I would really like to see that little bit of ground given to the city for a park. I would suggest to the minister that, before putting it up at auction, he should negotiate privately with the city, because if $5,000 is regarded as a sufficient price, possibly private negotiations can be conducted between the officials and mayor of the city and the department without putting it up at auction at all.
Resolution reported.



GAME IN NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. J. ROCHE, Bill 100, respecting game in the Northwest Territories of Canada was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
Mr. Dugald Stewart in the Chair.
On section 1-Short title:
Charles Marcil: What is the general purpose of this Bill?


William James Roche: The game in the Northwest Territories is being decimated by hunters rather indiscriminately. It has come to our ears that certain Americans were going into the north country, organizing parties, and engaging the local Indians there and others, to their own commercial advantage, and we felt that we should take some action to preserve the wild animal life in that country, so that it may not be depleted as it has been in other parts, particularly Alaska. For that reason it was deemed expedient to introduce a new Game Act for the Northwest Territories, and to appoint officials foT ite enforcement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Regulations.
Frank Oliver: This section empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations prohibiting, controlling or restricting the hunting', destroying, injuring, trapping, taking, capturing or molesting of game. If this Government in its wisdom considers that there should be a prohibtion of the killing of game, it should present its proposals to Parliament; Parliament should pass upon them, and they should become an Act of Parliament. They should not be subject to change without notice, as they are when they are made effective by regulation. It is only right that the person who, coming, perhaps, from, some other country for the purpose, desires to hunt for sport or for scientific or other purposes in this Northwest country, should know by statute what his privileges are. If the law is left so that it may be changed from time to time, as it can be under this provision, a man of wealth, we will say, who desires to hunt in the Northwest may make his arrangements, provide for his expenditure, take every step necessary towards the putting on of a hunting party-and at the last moment find that the law is changed and that his preparations have been in vain. On the other hand, the people of that North country are not closely in touch with affairs here in Ottawa, and they are entitled to know, by means that there can be no quee-

tion about, what their rights are in regard to the killing of <jame. Upon the killing of game a large proportion of the people depend for their livelihood; all the people there depend upon it for the general business of the community. Because the Northwest Territories are far away; because the population is small and scattered, is no reason why hardship and injury would not be suffered there under certain conditions a3 they svould be suffered in any other part of the country; and there is no reason why the people there should be placed at a disadvantage as compared with the people of any other part of the country. Under this law some wise man may drop into Ottawa some fine day and, having secured an interview with the Minister of the Interior, may suggest to him that a certain change should be made in the law. Under this section, if I read it correctly, the minister may then make a recommendation to Council, and Council may agree that the law shall be Changed-perhaps in such a way as to affect very materially the interests of the people in that country. There is no way of giving them notice of that change; the first notice they have is the action of a police officer in arresting and fining for the infraction of the law a man who had no [DOT] knowledge of the law-the law itself, perhaps, not being properly applicable to the country. The less law there is and the fewer applications of law there are in a country where it is difficult to enforce the law, the better for the credit of the Government and the better for the welfare of the people. If it is necessary to provide further restrictions than those that exist there, let them be provided by Act of Parliament, so that all parts of the country will know what the law is and What it is going to be, at least until Parliament in its wisdom sees fit to change it. The proposals contained in section 4 are not necessary; they are liable -I might almost say, certain-to ereate great hardship both to the people who are living in that country and to the interests that are interwoven -with the welfare of those people.


William James Roche: This is no new departure. Practically all the provinces have taken similar powers to make regulations under order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Conditions are changing from time to time; the point raised by the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has been very carefully considered. The officers of the department entered into a consultation with the members of the Northwest Mounted Police and with what is known as the Wild Life Com-

mission, the membership of which includes Dr. Hewitt, Mr. White, of the Conservation Commission, and Mr. Anderson, of the Geological Survey, who has been on the Stefansson expedition. These men have recommended that this be done by regulation under Order in Council rather than by statute. As the hon. member says, the district concerned is a remote part of the country. These gentlemen, however, do not look at the matter as my hon. friend does; they feel that greater advantage results from adopting the principle of regulation by Order in Council. I shall read what has been done in some other provinces in order to show that similar powers to those which we are asking for here have been taken by the various provincial governments:
This section gives the Governor General in Council power to make regulations calculated to effectually conserve the wild life of the North. With regard to a country so remote it would be unsatisfactory to attempt to make hard and fast statutory provisions covering the various matters dealt with. Investigations have to be carried on to determine just what regulations may be necessary to conserve wild life and at the same time to permit of reasonable commercial exploitation. Condi, tions are rapidly changing and it is desirable that there should be power to change the law to meet changing conditions. For instance there is now a threatened invasion of expert hunters from Alaska, with the latest modern equipment. Such an invasion might in a short time exterminate the game in large areas. This is a new condition. From the South there has commenced an invasion of small pedlar traders whom it is necessary to control, because some of them may carry on business in a way seriously detrimental to the natives and the game. Moreover, there has also commenced an invasion of white trappers who have been using poison and who have carried on business on a basis of the greatest possible profit regardless of the future of the game. These are given as instances of the changing conditions.
The necessity of power to make and vary regulations is specially desirable in a remote country like the North, in regard to which only a limited amount of information is available. While in the other parts of Canada there is not the same necessity for control by regulation the practice is to delegate a good deal of power in the form of regulations.
The Fisheries Act (R.S. Chap. 45) gives the Governor in Council extensive powers. Section 54 gives authority to make regulations:
(a)	For the better management and regulation of the sea coast and inland fisheries.
(b)	To prevent or remedy the obstruction or pollution of streams.
(c)	To regulate and prevent fishing.
(d)	To prohibit the destruction of fish.
(e)	To forbid fishing except under authority of leases or licenses.
The Ontario Act gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council power to make regulations relating to:
Migratory birds, non-migratory birds; varying close season in certain outlying districts;

forbidding the possession of guns and rifles; licensing guides, game preserves; sale of game for breeding purposes; exempting Indians and others from the provisions of the Act; sale of game; possession and transpor. tation of game in the close season; issue of hunting and trapping licenses.
Alberta Game Act.-Section 6 (a) delegates to the Lieutenant Governor in Council power to make regulations regarding game reared on game farms; regarding close season for beaver, and the destruction of beaver dams and muskrat houses, and may authorize the taking or killing of any fur-bearing animal and the disposition of same, when such taking or killing or disposition is deemed to be in the public interest; and regarding the issue of licenses and permits.
Saskatchewan Game Act.-Section 9 authorises the Lieutenant Governor in Council to authorize the killing of game birds which may be destroying crops; and section 10 gives authority to suspend the Game Act in the northern portion of the province In so far as killing for food is concerned.
The minister by section 12 is given power to authorise municipalities to destroy muskrats that become a nuisance by undermining roads and bridges; and to deal with the nuisance arising from beavers causing the flooding of lands. The minister is also given power to make regulations regarding licenses.
And the same with the British Columbia Game Act, which covers much the same ground. Therefore that is a point that has been very carefully considered by the gentlemen to whom I have referred, and it was considered that, on the whole, in order to meet the conditions, it would be far preferable to have this power conferred on the Governor in Council, and to have regulations made under an Order in Council.


Frank Oliver: The difference between the precedent my hon. friend has read from provincial legislation and this legislation is that there is provincial legislation regarding game, and then provision is made for following up that legislation in certain specified instances. That is quite a different matter from simply handing over to the Governor in Council the right to do whatever they please in regard to game. While I do not wish to throw any discredit upon either the abilities or the motives of the officers of the Government whose names have been mentioned by the minister, their business is the protection of the animals, my business here is the protection of the people, and the recommendations made by these gentlemen in regard to the animals might be all right if there were no people concerned in the matter. My contention is that the minister, in considering the welfare of the animals, should consider the rights and interests of the people, and that cannot be done, as he apparently purposes doing, by placing in the hands of a few
estimable theorists, who have no practical knowledge of the facts or of the conditions in the country affected, almost the absolute right of life and death over the people of that country. That is a most objectionable provision; it is not necessary from any point of view, and, it can result only in injury and hardship to a people who have no protection, who have no representation in this House and who are scattered far and wide. As they have no means of bringing their grievances to the attention of the authorities, I make no apo'ogy for urging the minister to revise his views in regard to this matter. Let him consult those experts in regard to what they actually propose doing that will affect the people of that country; let him bring those proposals tc the House, and let members of this House, who hai e some knowledge of the conditions and who are interested in those people place their arguments before the House. My hon. friend says that there is a danger of an incursion of trappers from the Yukon, and there is a danger of pedlar traders from the south. I do not know7that those trappers from the Yukon have not just as good a right as anybody else to trap in any part of the country, if they keep within the law, and all I ask is that they be given a knowledge of wihat the law is so that, being miners or labourers or prospectors or whatever they may be in the Yukon Territory they will not make their preparations for going across the Mackenzie river and, when they have got across, find they are in the hands of the police, the first move they make. I am not so much concerned with what legislation the minister wishes to bring into force, but I want him to put his legislation in the statutes, so that everybody will know what it is and will be able to govern himself accordingly.
As to the pedlar traders from the south who are pushing up into this north country, if a man is in business only on, a small scale and can carry on business only as a pedlar, if my hon. friend thinks that man or bis business is undesirable, let him say so in the statute, so that the man will not make his investment, whatever it may be, and spend his time foT months with the result that he runs into the arms of the police and 'becomes punishable for an offence of which he had no knowledge and which he certainly would not have committed if he had knowledge of it. All I ask is that the minister shall deal with the people of the north -country fairly and above board, so that they shall have notice in due time of



what the law is and may ' protect themselves by observing that law. The year in that country, as everywhere else, is divided into two parts, bait those two parts are not, for business purposes, subdivided again. A man makes his arrangements in the fall for the winter, and he makes his arrangements in the winter for the summeT, so that this is not a matter of putting a man out of business for a week or a month, it is a matter of putting Mm out of business for half a year and possibly for a whole year.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON:: I have listened to this discussion with a great deal of interest. We are far removed from the hinterland of Canada, and perhaps fail to realize how important an industry the fur-catehing industry is.
Comparatively speaking, there are not a very large number of people in this country living by the fur-catching industry. But in that great belt of territory north of our provinces, from Labrador to the 141st meridian west, scattered all along the rivers and lakes are people who make their living by catching fur. That has always been so since the white man came to the north country with the Hudson Bay company, it is so to-day, and will continue to be so for decades to come. The fur industry, then, is of more or less national importance.


Frank Oliver: It is the first industry that made Canada.


Alfred Thompson: It is the first industry that opened up the interior of Canada. I am impressed with the observations made by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), the more so because I have had some experience in dealing with a frontier country where the laws were subject to change over night by the cabinet of the day. For years the regulations governing the great gold-mining industry of the Yukon was subject to change from day to day, and sometimes they were changed overnight. As the hon. member for Edmonton has pointed out, some man with a particular interest to serve would come to Ottawa and have an interview with the Minister of the Interior, and the minister in perfectly good faith might perhaps be convinced of the necessity for a change in the regulations. The result was that those engaged in mining in the Yukon never knew from month to month where they stood with regard to the basic factor of their industry, namely, the question of title and ownership. That went on for some time, until representations were made to Parliament by myself, and as a result the regulations were examined into and reported upon, and

finally codified into the Yukon Placer Mining Act. That Act has been a great boon to the territory which I represent. It seems to me, therefore, that the minister will be well advised to take into consideration the proposal of my hon. friend from Edmonton, that the regulations should be cast into the form of an Act, lor it must be remembered that men very frequently go into that vast northern country with their all.


Frank Oliver: They always do.


Alfred Thompson: They go a long distance into the interior and depend for their living upon that industry. The fur industry is of much greater proportions than perhaps many hon. members of this committee imagine. I repeat that the minister will be well advised to take the suggestion of my hon. friend into consideration.


William James Roche: 
Frank Oliver: I wish the minister to
understand that I am -supporting any policy for the protection of the game in the North country, in the interests of the people of the North but that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that whatever protection the minister intends to give should be placed in the statutes so that everybody would know what the law was. If I may venture to criticise, I think the very words the minister read to us a few moments ago show that the gentlemen who have discussed the matter have not appreciated the conditions, inasmuch as they give as a reason why there should be power to make changes in the law the fact that the district iis inaccessible and the population sparse. That is the very reason why the law should not be changed, except from year to year by Parliament, so that
233*	[DOT]
everybody would have due notice of what the law was. That is the only point I am urging at the present time, and I would respectfully suggest the advisability of allowing the clause to stand and, if it is possible, let the minister bring in in place of this clause whatever proposals his advisers have for changes in the law, and those proposals may be embodied in the statute.


William James Roche: Of course, as I explained, it was not the intention to have all these regulations prepared in time to be approved this session. Would it not meet my hon. friend's views if we were to provide that whatever regulations are made by the Government in Council shall be submitted to Parliament for approval at the next session?


Frank Oliver: It is not that I have any curiosity to satisfy, or that it makes any difference to Parliament, but it is to get the information into such shape that the man in the North will have reasonable opportunity on knowing what the law is, so that he may avoid breaking it and getting into trouble. It must be understood that in all that country the Dominion authorities have a means of enforcing the law. They have the police officers. The duty of those police officers is to see that the law is enforced. It is not their business to discuss whether the law is good, bad or indifferent. Conditions are different from those in Ontario, where, in vast areas of the country it does not matter what the law is because there is no one to see to its enforcement. It is necessary that we should be very particular, if we want to give our people a fair chance, to afford them an opportunity of knowing what the law i-s, and it is necessary that there should not be frequent changes in it of which the people have hot reasonable opportunity to be notified. I would ask the minister to allow the section to stand. We may discuss the general provisions recommended by his advisers for the protection of game, and embody those general provisions in the law, with the authority, if you wish, to make such additions as may be necessary from time to time by Order in Council, but let the public of the North Country know in general what you intend to do.
Section stands.
On section 7- game officers to be justices of the peace:


Frank Oliver: Are there provisions in the Bill in regard to the appointment of game

officers, describing their duties and so on, or is it merely a matter of regulation?


William James Roche: It is a matter of regulation.


Frank Oliver: I hardly think it is a wise provision to have game officers ex officio justices of the peace. Wherever there is an established point of trade there are regularly appointed justices of the peace. In the old days in the Northwest Territories, when the Northwest Mounted Police were charged with all duties, there was grave objection to the mounted policeman being policeman and judge, and I think the same objection exists with regard to this proposal. I have no objection to giving him whatever legal powers may be necessary to enforce the law, or giving him such authority as will constitute him the force behind the law, but I do not think he should be made the judge.


William James Roche: This provision is not a new departure at all. It is similar to the old Act, and is intended to apply where there are no justices of the peace, and to confer on the Royal North-West Mounted Police the powers of justices of the peace. If we do not do that I am afraid there would be a good deal of inconvenience in enforcing the Act. Of course, this provision is not intended to cover game wardens. It is proposed to have two classes of officers, game officers who shall do supervising work, and game wardens who shall do only local work. Section 18 of the old Act gives to all game wardens the powers of justices of the peace. The Ontario Act, and the acts of other provinces have similar provisions.


Frank Oliver: I take it that under this Act it is proposed to give greater attention to the protection of game in the Northwest Territories than has been possible in the past. The old Act has been more or less a dead letter, and I assume the intention is to enforce this Act with more energy. In the North Country conditions are entirely different from those on the border line of civilization. In the Far North the only person who would be of any value in carrying out the duties of game protector or game warden would be the man who under ordinary circumstances would not be a proper person to act as a justice of the peace. I am not saying anything at all against the man, except that in all human probability he would not have that knowledge of the law or that mental outlook which would warrant him being given that

responsibility. More than likely he would be a man who had been dependent upon trapping or hunting for his livelihood, and I would urge upon the .minister that it is not desirable he should be given the powers of a judge. He would have to be given the power of arrest, but to give him the power of decision as well, I think, would be apt to create a very unfortunate set of conditions in many cases.


William James Roche: We would define and limit the duties of the justice of the peace.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister agree to allow that clause to stand and consider the suggestions I have made with a view of accepting them if possible?'


William James Roche: Very well.
Section stands.
On section 9-Possession of game.


William Pugsley: There is a great deal of force in the contention, o,f my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), that the man who institutes the proceedings, and thereby becomes the prosecutor, should not also toe the judge. If an ordinary policeman arrests a man he becomes zealous to have him convicted. I have found that in my experience in administering the criminal law. Policemen and detectives, while naturally they may he just as fair men as can be found, when they make arre'sts, are anxious that their judgment should be vindicated by a conviction.. If you allow the man who institutes the proceedings and arrests the individual to act as justice of the peace and to sentence the accused, you thereby make him prosecutor, judge and executioner. That is very objectionable according to all the standards of the fair administration of justice. At the same time, I realize the desirability of giving game officers the powers of a justice of the peace. Might it not be possible that the game officer should not act as a justice of the peace in any case where he has instituted the proceedings? By section 15 it is provided that:
Any person found committing an offence against this Act may be arrested on view by any game officer, game warden or peace officer.
Where an arrest is made by a game officer he ought not to act as justice of the peace.


William James Roche: That is all right but the
hon. gentleman will also recognize that in some instances men have to be taken one hundred miles to be tried by a justice of the peace other than the particular officer who makes the arrest. It is not however intend-

ed to confer these powers on a game warden but on other game officers. Similar powers have been granted to our officers in the parks and still they are instructed not to try any case if it is at all possible to secure a justice of the peace. But for the enforcement of a law of this nature it is essential that this power shall be conferred on these officers, not only from the point of view of convenience but also having regard to expenditure. It would be too bad to take a persofi arrested a hundred or two hundred miles in order to reach an ordinary justice of the peace. Therefore, we think it advisable to confer upon some of these officers, not the wardens, however, the powers of a justice of the peace.


Frank Oliver: I have not heard what the distinction is between a warden and a game officer. I notice that subsection 2 of ^section 8 provides for the trial of the person arrested before a game officer. Would the minister be good enough to take into consideration that along with subsection 7.


William James Roche: Yes.
Section stands.
On section 10-Seizure:


Frank Oliver: This provides for the
seizure of the plant of a trapper or hunter. Is the plant so seized forfeited, or what becomes of it?


William James Roche: This section gives the
game officers and wardens authority to seize any thing from any man who commits a violation of the Act. It is similar to section 92 of the Fisheries Act, except that it provides that the articles seized shall be handed over to an officer having the authority of a justice of the peace while section 92 of the Fisheries Act goes farther and says such thing is confiscated to His Majesty. The question of confiscation of any article seized is not dealt with in this section. There is provision in the penalty clause by which any question regarding confiscation is left to the discretion of the trial justice.


Frank Oliver: 
William James Roche: You can find it in the other Act.


Frank Oliver: I am aware that it is in other Acts, and it is because of the instances of terrible hardship that have come to my notice, as a result of the enforcement of the other Acts, that I am taking the opportunity to urge upon the minister that he should reconsider this matter with the

gentlemen whom he has consulted in regard to it, and see if they would not take another view of the-matter. The man who offends. against the law is liable to a fine, and his plant may be seized, subject to the payment of that fine, but I do not think that his actual living and that of his family should be destroyed because he has made himself amenable to the law. That is pursuing a man to a degree that the conditions do not demand; it is not necessary.


William James Roche: Does the hon. gentleman want this section to stand?


Frank Oliver: I would urge strongly that it should stand, with the view of considering the suggestion I have made.
Section stands.
On section 11-Penalty for offences by officers.


Frank Oliver: The minimum penalty here seems very high. I will certainly admit that the officer who commits a breach of his duty should be subject to serious penalty. He is in a different position altogether from a private citizen. I would not raise any objection to it, but I desire to call attention to the fact that the minimum penalty is $100.	.


William James Roche: Unless the penalty were made very severe, there might be a temptation to infractions of the law.


George Eulas Foster: These men are officers of the Government.


Frank Oliver: I am willing, in the charity of my heart-, not to punish even officers of this Government too severely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Refusing information or giving false information.
Frank Oliver: Is this penalty not very severe? Every citizen is subject to inquisitorial proceedings under this section. That might 'be all right in the case of an infraction of a very serious law, such as the law against murder or robbery, but it seems to me in the case of the enforcement of the Game Act, it is certainly a very extreme penalty.


William James Roche: I think that the words " furnish information " might be stricken out, but we should retain the provision in regard to " wilfully furnishing false information.'/


Frank Oliver: I quite agree to that.


William James Roche: I move that we strike out the words " wilfully refusing to furnish, or."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 16-Justice may convict on view.
Frank Oliver: This again brings in the game officer, giving him the power of a justice. I would like the minister (Mr. Roche) to reconsider that.


William James Roche: Yes.
Section stands.
On section 17-Separate offences.


Frank Oliver: What is the idea of constituting the possession of a separate part of any animal a separate offence?


William James Roche: It might be considered profitable for a man to kill a large number of animals, if the killing of each animal did not constitute a separate offence. He might figure on making -several thousand dollars, if the penalty were the same as if one animal had been killed.


Frank Oliver: I am referring to the words " or .separate part thereof." If a deer were killed and cut into quarters each man having a quarter would be guilty of an offence.


William James Roche: A person might have in his possession a portion of an animal, without having the whole animal. The possession of a separate part would constitute an offence.


William Pugsley: If one man had a leg he would be guilty.


George Eulas Foster: He might have eaten a qfrarter of the animal.


Frank Oliver: Supposing a deer were brought into the camp and divided up amongst the friends of the man who killed it, every one of them would toe subject to the full penalty, yet none of them would be in any sense guilty. That very frequently happens.


William James Roche: This provision applies only where an infraction of the law has been committed and a separate part of an animal has been found in a man's possession.
I do not think it would apply to a case where a man who has committed no offence innocently becomes possessed of a portion of an animal.


Frank Oliver: A lack of 'knowledge of a breach of the law would not excuse a man,

under the wording of the Act. I appreciate the difficulty of meeting the case, but I am anxious not to make the law so drastic that there will be a combination against its enforcement. That is what is liable to take place when a law is made too comprehensive or too severe. Will the minister consider that?


William James Roche: The executive have gone over this section several times and have drafted it as carefully as possible. However, I will allow it to stand.


Frank Oliver: The difficulty is that the gentlemen who have been advising the minister are, perhaps, not familiar with the actual conditions on the ground.
Section stands.
On section 19-Penalties.


William Pugsley: Is it necessary or desirable to make the minimum penalty as great as it is? Indeed, is it necessary to fix any minimum penalty at all? Section 12 provides:
Any person who assaults, obstructs or Interferes with any game officer, game warden, constable or other peace officer in the discharge of any duty under the provisions of this Act or of any regulation, shall be guilty of a violation of this Act.
Section 19 applies to all cases for which no other penalty is provided. Under subsection (a), if in the excitement of the moment, a man committed a very slight offence in the way of resisting an officer, a penalty of not less than $100 would be inflicted. I should think that the minimum penalty might very well be left to the discretion of the justice of the peace in such cases. I am sure that in many cases the game officer or justice of the peace would feel that a small penalty of from $5 to $20 would amply meet the case.


William James Roche: Subsection (a) refers to
offences respecting wild mammals in sanctuaries or in regard to which there is no open season. It is felt that a more severe penalty should he enacted in such instances. Paragraph (d) is as follows:
A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or less than ten dollars or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two months or to both fine and imprisonment for any other offence against this Act or any regulation.
It is not desirable to leave too much latitude to justices of the peace in inflicting these penalties. If they have the statute to guide them, they are less liable to err than if the matter is left to their own discretion.


William Pugsley: In cases which are clearly not wilful violations of the statute, a
ten dollar or twenty dollar penalty might amply cover the offence. In such cases the magistrate has no discretion, though he is given discretion as between the $100 and $500, the minimum and maximum fines. I rather think that the minimum amount should be left out altogether.


William James Roche: iSome of ,these animals
are near the point of extermination, and unless a severe penalty is provided, still further destruction will take place. I think that as a deterrent it is better to provide a minimum fine of $100 than to leave the matter to the discretion of the game officer or justice of the peace.


William Pugsley: I think, with the member for Edmonton, that if you make the penalty too severe you really prevent the carrying out of the law, because you tend to bring about a combination of, people in the locality to prevent the enforcement of the law. Many a man might be absolutely ruined by the inflicting of so large a penalty; whereas if the matter were left to the game warden or to the magistrate, very much better results would be accomplished.


William James Roche: In several of the provinces the minimum penalties are in excess of the amount provided for under this Act. In Alberta there is a maximum penalty of $500 and a minimum of $200 for killing certain animals. In British Columbia there is a minimum penalty of $250 and a maximum penalty of $500 for killing big game, big game being defined in the Act as including mountain sheep, mountain goat, elk, deer, bear, etc. In Saskatchewan, there is a maximum penalty of $300 for certain offences with regard to beaver. There is no minimum.


William Pugsley: That is wise.


William James Roche: The Manitoba Game Act
provides penalties of from $100 to $500. In Nova Scotia the penalties are from not less than $50 to $200. In nearly all the provinces the minimum penalties are higher than the minimum penalty stated in this Act.


Frank Oliver: The minimum penalties
in the provinces are applicable to oases where men go out from civilization, generally with malice aforethought, to kill. In the Northwest Territories, that is entirely the exceptional condition. We are dealing, in the Northwest Territories, with a population, such as it is, that is dependent on the hunt for its actual living, whereas all the game laws of the provinces

were made, not in regard to people who are dependent on the game for their food and support, but to control the actions of people who hunt for sport, for amusement or for the market. Therefore, the justification for a heavy minimum fine in the provinces is on a different footing altogether from the justification for a heavy minimum fine in the Northwest Territories- Money is very scarce in the Northwest Territories, and $100 is just as far beyond the possibility of being raised by many of those who might be arrested, as $1,000 might be beyond the possibility of a hunter in the provinces my hon. friend has mentioned. I urge, in fairness and in the interest of the successful enforcement of the law, that if there is to be a minimum fine, it be reduced very substantially from the figure suggested.


William James Roche: So far as the natives in
the Territories are concerned, they are exempted from many of the provisions of this Act in order to afford them an opportunity to secure a sufficient food supply, unless they violate the law in some sanctuary. This legislation is designed to hit those who are coming in for exploiting purposes, and organized bands of hunters to go into the Northwest' Territories. One of the reasons for bringing in this legislation is that we have information of Americans going in through the North Passage and coming down and establishing trading posts in various parts of the country. I do not think the penalty is too severe for the class to which I refer, and that is the class to which this legislation will principally apply.


Frank Oliver: If applied to that class
of people, then the conditions are just the same as in the various provinces, and the minimum penalty is all right. There would be no difficulty, however, in securing the application of a maximum penalty to those outside hunters who are hunting for sport or for the market, and a smaller minimum penalty then would not cause the local people to enter into combination for the purpose of setting the law at defiance which is what in human nature, they will be inclined to do if they are up against so severe a penalty as this. This means ruin to many of those people who have very little to come and go on-


William James Roche: The minimum penalty to which the hon. gentleman refers, more particularly concerns those valuable animals like the musk-ox which are pretty nearly extinct and whose destruction is a 
very serious matter, and it also refers to sanctuaries; but if my hon. friend looks at the other clauses he will see that in clause (b) the fine is "not exceeding $200 or less than $25''; in clause (c) the fine is "not exceeding $200 or less than $50"; and in clause (d) the fine is "not exceeding $100 or less than $10".


Frank Oliver: If the minister should see fit to state in a revised section 4 just what animals he is going to protect permanently, then this subsection might very well be quite in order. I would not at all object to a minimum penalty of $100 for the killing of a musk-ox or a buffalo. That penalty is likely as small as it should be; but not knowing from this measure what animals are going to be under protection, I naturally felt anxious about the imposition of such a heavy minimum penalty. Clause (b) imposes a minimum penalty of $25 or imprisonment of two months for any person who offends against a regulation regarding birds. That minimum is surely extremely high. The necessities of life at times demand that a wild fowl be taken and used, and there should be a very wide discretion left to a justice of the peace in regard to the penalty to be inflicted for an offence against a regulation relating to wild birds.


William James Roche: The preceding section refers to birds nearly extinct and in sanctuaries, that is, the more valuable birds, and the fine will be imposed only in such cases.


Frank Oliver: It would be better if we had the particulars as to what birds were going to be permanently protected and what sanctuaries were likely to be created. Is it a policy of the Government to create any sanctuaries in the Northwest Territory?


William James Roche: That has not been definitely decided, although it has been under consideration.


Frank Oliver: Would there be sanctuary merely for a particular kind of game or for all game?


William James Roche: When a sanctuary is
created, it includes all game within that area.


William Pugsley: This clause is not limited to birds in sanctuaries; it refers to birds in regard to which there is no open season. Take for instance prairie chicken. Suppose there was a regulation passed making a close season for two or three years for prairie chicken. A person shooting a prairie chicken during that period, although he may require it for his sustenance as he may be

on the point of starvation, is brought before a magistrate and must be fined an amount not less than $25. That is a very extreme fine, and my experience in regard to fishery regulations is that extreme penalties prevent the laws from being carried out, they prevent punishment; whereas if you have reasonable penalties and reasonable administration of the laws, very much better results would be secured.


William Roche: Does the hon. gentleman also want this section to stand?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from
Edmonton is particularly urging that it stand.


Frank Oliver: I would ask the minister to take into consideration the remarks of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) in which I strongly concur, and I would also draw his attention to subsection (e) which provides for the confiscation of property.
I take the strongest possible exception to that provision which imposes a terrible and unnecessary hardship. If a man pays his fine, he should not have his property confiscated.


William Pugsley: I also want to add my protest against that. If a man is arrested and fined it should not be obligatory to confiscate his property. In aggravated cases that might be justified, but here it is made obligatory on the game warden actually to confiscate the property of every man who is found guilty of an offence. Take the case of a man who shoots a prairie chicken, which he might actually need for food; he will be fined not less than $25, and the gun which he had used on that occasion would be confiscated. I think the punishment is entirely too severe.


William James Roche: All these criticisms tend rather to the protection of the persons, as the hon. member says, rather than to the protection of the game. Now we are trying to have our legislation do both; we desire to protect our game for the future welfare of our people, and unless we have penalties that will act as a deterrent I am afraid there will be many infractions of the law.
. I think that if exploiters go into that country and break the law-the natives themselves are exempt-they should be subject to a very severe penalty. In many cases the animals these exploiters kill are the most valuable ones, or of species which are rapidly nearing the point of extinction. I think the case cited by the hon. member about the prairie chicken would come under another provision of the Act, where
not such a severe penalty is imposed. However, I am willing to allow the section to stand for further consideration, if hon. gentlemen consider the penalties too severe.


William Pugsley: I infer from the attitude of my hon. friend from Edmonton that he is sincerely desirous of seeing the game protected; so am I. But I do not think you will have the same satisfactory enforcement of the law where you have these extreme penalties. The game warden will perhaps be living in the same community with the man who commits an offence, and might reason: "The moment I convict him I have to deprive him of his means of livelihood; rather than do that I will let him go scot free." That is the way in which, our fishery laws are administered, or non-administered. In many cases the penalties are so severe that there is a feeling of sympathy among the officers, and rather than ruin the man guilty of an offence they will close their eyes to an infraction of the law. There is no benefit in having a law on the statute book that is not enforced, although many people think that once a law is on the statute book it is all right even if it is not enforced. I do not believe that; I think it is better to have a law that can be enforced in a reasonable way.
Section stands.
On section 22-commencement of Act:


William Pugsley: What is the object in bringing the Act into force by proclamation instead of in the ordinary way?


William James Roche: By one of these clauses certain regulations are to be enacted, and we do not wish to have the Act come into force until these regulations are formulated.


William Pugsley: The regulations will
come into force at the same time?


William James Roche: Yes.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Monday, July 23, 1917.