Mr. STEVENS:

I may say that I have gone over this bill pretty carefully. It is not very long and it appears to me to be perfectly all right. As I understand its purpose, it brings the Dominion legislation into harmony with the recent revision of the British Columbia statutes in connectoin with this particular matter, namely, the water rights in the railway belt. Also certain acts passed in the legislature of British Columbia affecting the manner of dealing with water rights, subsequent to the Dominion act of 1913, have possibly been made applicable by order in council, and the present legislation will validate these actions. I think that is really the substance of the bill, with one addition, namely, that hitherto the provincial government have submitted applications to the minister, and that is now made obligatory. Would the minister kindly make an explanation?

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

The hon. gentleman has stated the objects of the bill fairly thoroughly. It is retroactive only in so far as it will validate the time that may have elapsed between the passing of the order in council and the passing of the legislation. There are one or two additions beyond what the law officers of the provincial government have suggested, making it compulsory on their part to furnish us with the details of applications in order that we may judge whether or not they are going to affect residents on crown lands.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

What is really the purpose of the original act?

Mir. STEWART (Edmonton):

Prior to

1910 there was some doubt as to who controlled the water rights in the railway belt. That was settled in 1912, and an act was passed by this parliament empowering the provincial government to supervise the granting of these rights. Concurrently the leasing under license of any of those water rights was made to apply to both crown lands and provincial lands, and the difficulty arises owing to the fact that there are crown lands in the railway belt as well as provincially owned lands that have passed into private ownership. This is simply to harmonize and make effective the legislation of British Columbia for the whole period dealing with water rights.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

It is confined

to power and irrigation purposes.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Irrigation

particularly.

Mr. ERASER:

Heretofore, under the legislation of 1913, the exclusive right of administering these lands was in the province of British Columbia. Now you are taking that exclusive right away from them and asking for a dual administration. Is that the idea?

Railway Belt Water Act

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

No, we are not doing that. We are not making any change in the administration. That was decided in 1912. The decision by the Privy Council is that the federal government have the control. The federal government in turn passed the control to the provincial governments by the act of 1912, amended again in 1913. There were several amendments during the years up to 1924, when the British Columbia government consolidated their act and made it necessary to bring our act into conformity with theirs. That is all we are doing.

Mr. FRASER:

I want the minister to be sure he is quite right in connection with that. In section 3 you are cutting out the words "exclusive control," referring to the province of British Columbia, and putting in the words:

Under the control of the authorities of the province of British Columbia.

That does not say "exclusive control." It appears to me that that brings in a dual responsibility for every water record issued in the railway belt.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

No. All we are doing is asking that the British Columbia govelmment furnish us with the details of every permit that is issued, in order that we may ascertain whether or not it will adversely affect residents or lessees on crown lands. We are not interfering in any way. The Britisii Columbia Water Act prevails, and the administration is in the hands of the British Columbia government-not exclusively of course, because we are asking them to perform these services which formerly they had been performing voluntarily, but under the agreement in the old act. Objection has been raised by some of the residents on crown lands. The delay is the difficulty at the moment-. There are 100 odd applications held up pending this regulation, and the Attorney General of British Columbia drafted these sectaons, with the exception of section 3 and the additions to sect on 5 of subsections 11 and 12, which are merely putting in the legislation what was formerly being done by them voluntarily, in order that we may have a definite record here for the protection of the people on crown lands.

Mr. FRASER:

The reason I am so anxious to see that the legislation is correct, and that no mistake is made, is this: you might as well give a man nothing at a IP as give him a piece of land in that country without the

water. The water is absolutely essential to the ownership of the land, and if in any way you provide a dual control of that water you make it that much more difficult for the licensee of water to get control of it. If a man makes an application to the British Columbia government for a grant of water, it has to be submitted first to the officials of the provincial government. If they decide to grant the application, it

11 p.m. will have to go through the same process at Ottawa, and the matter will be complicated. As I am anxious to see the people there obtain their water as easily as possible, I must say my suspicions were aroused in regard to the elimination of the word "exclusive". Formerly the British Columbia government had the right to make the grant, and when you took out the word " exclusive " it looked as if you had dual control, making it that much harder for the people to secure their water.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Only to the extent that they furnish us with full particulars of the application. In certain cases it is referred to the board, which is a board of the British Columbia government. Lessees of crown lands are affected, and all we are doing is to provide that we shall be furnished, as we have been furnished in the past, with all the records. Previously it was not compulsory, but now it will be. There will be no dual control. -We are not concerned unless objection taken to the application and the issue of the license by some resident on crown lands who feels that he is being injured. Then and then only will we interfere.

Mr. FRASER:

That is all right.

Mr. FRASER:

In regard to those orders in council, do I understand that this act is made necessary by reason of the fact that certain regulations which were called for in the former act by order in council had not been completely complied with? Here you are providing for the same practice exactly; you still require these 'orders in Icouncil. Could the act not be so amended as to make the procedure a little simpler, so that it would not be necessary that the order in council should be published in the Canada Gazette for a specified time? That is what has given rise to the trouble.

Excise Act Amendment

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

We cover

that completely. If it is discovered, in the case of certain permits now in existence, that after the issuing of the license, delay occurred by reason of the fact that we had not brought our act into conformity with the legislation of British Columbia, the retroactive provision of this bill will validate those permits. As regards the necessity for legislation in the future, the hon. gentleman will see, if he studies the bill closely, that we are providing against such a contingency. We cannot forego the right to pass orders in council, because after all the authority still remains with the federal government. If there should be a short delay between the issuing of the permit and the passing of the order in council, no action will be taken against the lessee.

Mr. FRASER:

You have eliminated the necessity for repeating that legislation, like a recurring decimal, every four or five years?

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Yes.