LaRIVIERE (Provencher). Before the Orders of the Day are called, Mr. Speaker, I wish to avail of the very first opportunity to call attention to what I consider to be an improper description of a certain class of our community, which is to be found in the seventh bulletin of the census for the year 1901, which has just been placed in my hands.

Had not my ihon. friend better wait until the motion is made to go into Committee of Ways and Means 7

Mr. LaRIVIERE. I have only a few words to say, and I do not wish to make a motion or to raise a debate. On the second page of this bulletin, the Metis of the Dominion of Canada, or, what are commonly called the half-breeds, are described as Indians. I do not say that this was intended to be an insult, because I believe it was unintentional, but nevertheless the description is incorrect. The Metis do not deny their Indian blood; in fact they are ifl'otid of it, but at the same time they object very properly to be called Indians. I see no reason why, because some of them happen to have perhaps one-hundred and twenty-eighth part of Indian blood in tijeir veins, they should be described as Indians, which to a certain extent would brand them in the public mind as belonging to an uncivilized portion of the community. I protest against the half-breeds of Manitoba-more properly called the Metis-whether French, Scotch, Irish, or any other nationality, being described in the census returns as Indians. Now that attention has been called to this mistake, I trust it will be

corrected at once, and that another bulletin will be issued properly describing the Metis. In the name of the Metis, X protest against that mistake in the census, and I believe my hon. friends from the west will join me in that protest.

Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).

I understand there is no motion before the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I propose to put myself in order by moving-

I would ask toy hon. friend (Mr. Davis) not to move the adjournment of the House now. The hon. gentleman can make his remarks when the House is moved into Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

Is there any provincial legislation in New Brunswick upon this subject ? In the province of Nova Scotia there are provincial enactmeuts governing the rights of persons to secure their logs upon rivers and to drive their logs down the streams. In incorporating a company of this kind, I think we should be careful to have regard to provincial legislation of a general character which might control the operations of the company, and not insert any provision which would be inconsistent with such legislation.

Mr. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmoreland).

That subject was considered by the subcommittee which had charge of this Bill. These are international waters which are referred to in the Bill. In the province of New Brunswick we have of course enactments governing the rights of lumbermen who use Inland waters.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I do not see that the Bill restricts the operations of the company to international waters. The powers given to the company may be exercised on waters under the direct control of the provincial legislature of New Brunswick. Section 10 purports to deal with the mode in which persons having property that comes within the booms of the company shall retain their property. We should be careful not to frame the Bill in such a way that the company would assume the position of being beyond the control of provincial enactments with regard to that particular subject. I would like to hear from my hon. friend the Minister of Justice on this matter. Does he not think that provincial legislation with regard to a matter of this kind should be left severely alone ?

If my hon. friend will read

Mr. LaRIVIERE.

section 10, he will see that it does not interfere with provincial legislation at all. It says :

The company shall not take or hold within its booms any prize or unmarked logs. Any person interested may go upon the property of the company at any reasonable time and in any reasonable mannor, sear;h for such prize or unmarked logs, but the company shall have its proper proportion of the proceeds therefrom.

I apprehend that the draftsman must have had in view the idea that the provincial legislature would determine what the proper proportion is, because the words are so vague that they do not mean anything unless the provincial legislation is borne in mind.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Would it not be well to insert a clause to make the matter plain. For instance, the provincial legislature may have fixed limits of time or may prescribe what is a reasonable manner for going on the property of the company to search for logs. If so, I think the company should be confined to those regulations. Would my hon. friend who has charge of the Bill have any objection to insert words to make that clear ?

We might go through the other provisions of the Bill, and then have the committee rise and report progress for the purpose of having that question looked into.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Very well.

On section 12,

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I do not exactly understand why those words should be embodied in the Bill. If a line of poles is to be erected on the company's own property, these words are not required. If they are to be erected on the public highway, the consent of the municipality should be obtained. If on the property of others, the company should pay any damages caused.

Mr. EMMERSON.

The parties interested went before the committee, where the whole matter was fully discussed. Then it was referred to a special sub-committee and all agreed upon these provisions.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).

This is a question which is exciting a good deal of attention, namely, the right of telegraph and telephone companies to put up their poles and wires on streets and highways, regardless of the rights which municipalities were heretofore supposed to possess. The easiest way to secure to the municipalities those rights would be to include in the Bill a provision making the putting up of poles and lines subject to the approval of the municipal corporation interested and under its direction.

A great deal of misapprehension exists with respect to the rights of municipalities over telephone and telegraph companies. Chapter 37 of 62-63 Victoria makes it absolutely impossible for these companies to enter streets or highways or public parks under control of municipalities without the consent of these municipalities.

Mr. SPROULE.

And the work must be done under their direction.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE, Certainly. [DOT]

Mr. SPROULE.

How is it then that this Bell Telephone Company is asserting in the courts its right to erect its poles and lines *without the consent of the municipalities ?

The Bell Telephone Company was incorporated previous to this enactment, and they say it does not apply to them.