Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Almost.

Mr. BENNETT:

This resolution gives

effect to a certain principle and at the proper time and place I intend to ask the house to pass judgment upon the principle involved. This is a negation of the whole theory of confederation. I am not averse to the creation of park areas and I hope the minister realizes that my objection is to the form of government afforded to the people within such areas.

The minister has already mentioned the very considerable railway activity within one of the parks where there is a divisional point with a fair population. The area of the Rocky Mountain park is much greater than the minister intimates. Banff alone must have a population of nearly 2,500 and there are many small settlements scattered through that area. This power of parliament is not limited to the areas which may be in the park proper, but it extends over the whole area from the outer boundaries although within those boundaries there may be sections which have been alienated and which belong to private individuals. In one of the parks there was a townsite which belonged to a private corporation, and there are Vast areas in the parks which have been alienated and which belong to private individuals.

Natural Resources-British Columbia

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I can assure my hon. friend that those areas are quite small.

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. minister will recall that a very substantial area in one of the parks was transferred to Queens university as a gift of the coal which was supposed to be under that area. For the moment I am content to direct attention to this matter in the committee because it is one in connection with which we must register not only a protest but a vote against this allegation of equality which does not place us upon an equality with the other provinces. Equality is denied to the people with respect to their own parks, which equality is granted to the people of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as the other provinces. I should like to see any parliament undertake to say that the legislatures of Ontario or Quebec should not be able to govern the people within their boundaries.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I quite

appreciate the force of the remarks of my hon. friend, but I would like him to realize that the administration of the affairs of the national parks is a big task. At present a minister of the federal government has to endeavour to put into force laws which are only provincial in character. For some considerable time we tried to discover some halfway ground which would be acceptable, but we found that to be a very difficult thing to do. Perhaps the ingenuity of some of my hon. friends will suggest a way out of this difficulty which confronts those of us who are responsible for the administration of the parks. While a park may be within the province of Alberta, all the residents within the boundary of that park must of necessity be under some control by a federal authority, otherwise our task would be a hopeless one. We may have gone too far, but I want to stress the fact that I must have the necessary authority with which to administer those areas which are set aside as national parks. I have no desire to interfere with provincial laws except in so far as they make it difficult to carry on this administration.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am grateful to the hon. minister for putting his reply in the terms he has. I offered him a sugestion which, were I in his place, I would accept. I agree with him that the federal parks must be administered as such and that the legislative body responsible for maintenance is the parliament of Canada and not the provincial legislatures. However, the people who live within the geographical area of the parks are subject to the operation of the laws not only of the parliament of Canada but of the legislatures of the

provinces. When you have an area within a province which is subject only to federal legislation, you create a situation whereby powers are exercised entirely at variance with those exercised just beyond an arbitrary line. As the law now is, power is granted to the governor in council to enact regulations, and my suggestion is that such regulations should be subject to the approval of the lieutenant-governor in council so that the provincial authorities would not find themselves in a hopeless position with regard to the administration of a part of their territory.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Would that not put us in the position of being under the control of the lieutenant governor in council?

Mr. BENNETT:

The legislative power of the governor in council would not be impaired, but the regulations would be subject to the approval of those who, under the law, have to be responsible for that area.

Take the one matter of the preservation of law and order. The authorities of British Columbia are responsible for the preservation of law and order within the territory called British Columbia. The contention of the crown is that the province and not the Dominion is responsible for the maintenance of the troops to preserve order in Nova Scotia. Conceive the possibility of a somewhat analogous situation arising in any part of the parks in the western provinces. The difficulty would be that the provinces are charged with responsibility without authority, because the federal parliament under these agreements is the supreme law-making authority.

Let me give another illustration: parliament might, if it so desired, licence the sale of intoxicating liquors in that area while the province might be under prohibition. It might, if it so desired, establish certain institutions wholly at variance with the wish of the province in connection with such matters, and without making regulations subject to the approval of the local authorities, you have created a province within a province, a province-it is called a park-controlled by the federal government, although the privy council has said that under the constitution the province may exercise powers as plenary and ample as the imperial parliament in the fullness of its powers could grant and as this parliament within the ambit of its jurisdiction could exercise. I understand the difficulty of endeavouring to legislate along the lines suggested by the minister, but surely the local authorities should have the right to approve the regulations.

824 COMMONS

Natural Resources-British Columbia

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

May I ask

my hon. friend a question? If that were true, the control would be at once transferred to the province, would it not?

Mr. BENNETT:

No; the legislative power is there.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I may be

stupid about this, but if all the regulations sought to be put into effect by the minister or the department of the federal government within this area were subject, before they could go into effect, to the approval of the lieutenant-governor of the province, then clearly this is provincial control. That is my difficulty. If we can get over that difficulty I am satisfied, but I fail to see how a department of this government would have to go on every occasion and secure the consent of the provincial authorities before they could put regulations into force, without at once admitting that the provincial authorities were absolutely in control of the situation. I am not raising serious objection, but I am pointing out what the result would be.

Mr. BE1SNETT: I think that could be

safeguarded by a very simple reservation, for instance: provided always that no such regulation should impose upon the individual affected greater responsibility than the laws Df the province provide and that if such regulations do not conflict with laws applicable to the lives of the citizens of the province, they should be approved as a matter of routine. I do not think there would be any difficulty in inducing the provinces to agree to that, but as the matter now stands, its finality disturbs me. You are going to ask the imperial parliament to ratify an agreement that will affect the lives of people half a century or a century hence, when there may be a very large population in those areas.

I agree with the minister's view as to the people within the area. Perhaps it was not originally intended that there should be a large population. Take for instance Jasper park: the Canadian National railway could not operate unless it passed through the park. Of course, it was not Jasper park when the railway first went through there. If my memory serves me aright, there are two other railways, one running down to a coal area in the south and one branching off toward the north.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

The new

park boundary will cut out the coal area.

Mr. BENNETT:

I know, in the south,

but is that the case in the north?

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

There is only one area, the Pocahontas, that we know of.

Mr. BENNETT:

What I had in mind was the coal line that runs south.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

To Edson.

Mr. BENNETT:

That is outside of the

park.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

It is outside.

Mr. BENNETT:

Is Edson to be cut out of the park?

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

There were the Luscar collieries.