Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

The provisions with regard to parks are identical in all three agreements.

Mr. BENNETT:

This is an agreement between the two governments with respect to the transfer of lands in the railway belt and

Natural Resources-British Columbia

the Peace River block in, British Columbia. The question of park reservations involves the mines and minerals being retained by the Dominion, and the Law prevailing in the parks is to be the law of this parliament and of regulations approved by the governor general in council. _

I do not come from British Columbia, but I desire to protest against these provisions. Imagine people living in a vast area the size of Prince Edward Island being governed by regulations made by the governor in council in Ottawa, and then we are told that we are putting the western provinces on an equality with the other provinces of the Dominion. How long does anyone think Ontario or Quebec would tolerate that state of affairs? T et it is to be thrust upon the western provinces; they are to be told that because the Dominion reserves parks in their provinces, a few officials in a departmental office here in Ottawa are to draw up regulations, to be approved by the governor in council, for the government of these areas, and that the legislatures in the respective provinces are to be subordinated to those regulations in respect to taxes, even, if there is a conflict.

That is what it means. The premier of my province informed the legislature, I believe, that he was forced to take this agreement or get nothing. I am not going to anticipate that discussion, but it is a monstrous thing that in the four western provinces, because the Dominion government reserves areas for parks, the people living within those areas shall not have any local home rule at ail; they will be governed by regulations drawn up by a group of officials sitting in Ottawa and approved by the governor in council. If the legislatures of these western provinces pass laws which are in conflict with such regulations. the laws will fall and the regulations prevail. I put it to the minister: Does he think that is fair dealing?

Sure.

Mr. BENNETT:

I was not addressing the

would-be-minister; I was asking the minister at the moment. How would the minister feel about it if he were one of the inhabitants? We might as well face the matter very frankly. I regard it as very unfair, and I am very much surprised that the minister would permit the permanent officials of this country to create what Lord Hewart described as the new despotism. He so spoke of it in this country; he published an essay in England, and the Lord Chancellor was so impressed that he appointed a special committee to inquire into the matter. Here we are talking about the new democracy, yet we provide that a group

of permanent officials shall make regulations for the government of the people in these areas.

This is an intolerable condition, and I wish hon. gentlemen would take the trouble to study some of these regulations. We talk about Russia. Why, a lady passing through from New Zealand found a dog tied up in the park in Banff. She was interested in the work of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and when she complained about it-I see the minister smiling; he remembers the case-the answer was that they had to tie up the dogs because they bit the heels of the elks. That is a fact.

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

Perhaps they

did.

Mr. BENNETT:

Perhaps they did; the

hon. member for Weyburn always finds an excuse.

Mr. POWER:

Perhaps they aroused the

antagonism of the bears.

Mr. BENNETT:

These were the elks.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I can

assure my hon. friend that it is not contemplated' that either the officials or this government shall act in a despotic manner. In connection with the episode to which he referred, the lady from New Zealand was merely obliged to conform to the regulations of the park.

Mr. BENNETT:

But it was not her dog; she found it tied up.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Dogs are

not allowed to run at large in park areas, and frequently they are not allowed to run at large in municipalities, as my hon. hon. friend knows. If these park areas are to contain wild animals, which are the great attraction in the parks, these precautions must be taken. Otherwise the animals will not be visible to the visitors.

Mr. BENNETT:

This was just a bit of a dog you could push aside with your foot.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I might say that my hon. friend brought this matter to my attention some time ago, and he said he supposed the next order would be to tie up the cats. To my astonishment I found that cats were tied up, because they were eating the birds.

However, I might remind the 'committee that the parks are there for the benefit of all the people, and to preserve the wild life we must have reasonable regulations which will permit those wild animals to remain within the boundaries of the parks. My hon. friend

822 COMMONS

Natural Resources-British Columbia

has taken exception to the fact that we are superseding provincial laws. If that is the case, it is only done to the extent necessary in order to enforce the laws and regulations which have been established for this very purpose. So far as I know there is not and there has not been any conflict in the ordinary municipal government of the areas within the parks.

Mr. BENNETT:

Oh, yes.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

It would be a God-send if there were no municipalities inside a park area, but it seems impossible to prevent them from growing up. We have in Banff a considerable number of people, perhaps 2,500 in all, and in Jasper park we have a railway divisional point located within the boundaries of the park itself. I think the house will agree that I would be the last individual to use despotism,, but we are handicapped by the fact that the provincial laws do not give us the necessary authority to take care of conditions which arise from time to time within the park boundaries.

Mr. MANION:

The hon. minister says he has no desire to use despotism, but I remember one occasion very well when he pronounced the death sentence upon protection.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

One could

scarcely call that despotism; that is an expression of a pious wish for liberty.

Mr. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, the provisions are the same with respect to all four provinces, and I read from the agreement with Manitoba as follows:

16. The parliament of Canada shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction within the whole area included within the outer boundaries of each of the said parks, notwithstanding that portions of any such area may not form part of the park proper, and the laws now in force within such areas shall continue so in force only until changed by the parliament of Canada or under its authority, provided, however, that all laws of the province now or hereafter in force, which are not repugnant to any law or regulation made applicable within the said areas or any of them by or under the authority of the parliament of Canada, shall extend to and be enforced within the same, and that all general taxing acts passed by the province shall apply within the same unless expressly excluded from application therein by or under the authority of the .parliament of Canada.

The parliament of Canada can supersede the taxing power of the legislature of the province, and I think most people would regard the creation within the province of an area not subject to the legislature of the province as being something wholly wrong. It denies home rule to the people of that part of the province of British Columbia; that is

what it means. It is no use talking about despotism not being exercised, the fact is that an invitation to despotism usually results in that force being exercised. Permanent officials thrive on despotism. The essay on that subject of the lord chief justice quotes from a number of judgments including the judgment of the court of appeal in England and reference is made to the tendency of officials in that direction.

I should think that the proper way to deal with this matter would be to have the regulations for the administration of the parks which are passed by the governor in council made subject to the approval of the lieutenant governor in council, because the area is part of the province. Perhaps I should not anticipate discussion, but take the Rocky Mountain park and Jasper park in Alberta, and the combined area-I speak subject to correction- is much larger than the area of the province of Nova Scotia. The sum total of the areas of the parks in Alberta is as great as the area of the maritime provinces.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

They comprise 1,770 square miles in British Columbia.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am speaking of Alberta. The area of the parks in British Columbia is about equal to the area of Prince Edward Island, is it not?