May 9, 1911

CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

There is no provision that enables you to take this land if it has not become denuded. If the leaseholder does not see fit to take off the standing, merchantable timber, he can hold it as long as he wishes. The annual growth of timber would cover a very heavy rate of interest on the money invested, even if he held it for a hundred years.

Topic:   FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

It is not the purpose of this Bill to interfere with existing rights. If we undertook to interfere with vested rights we would raise a great many questions which are not pertinent to the purpose in hand, and are not now to be dealt with in this Bill. We have carefully avoided raising that issue. The policy or impolicy of the granting of the original form of license is not a matter that necessarily comes into this Bill. We take the licenses as we find them and we do not interfere with the rights under them.

Topic:   FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

You take power to expropriate in several clauses.

On section 12: timber licenses.

Topic:   FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

Has the minister thought about extending that to officials in the department?

Topic:   FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

I do not understand the point.

Topic:   FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

It refers to the purchase of timber, does it not?

Topic:   FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

No.

Topic:   FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
Permalink
CON

William Sora Middlebro

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MIDDLEBRO.

Is not section 12 inconsistent with section 10? Section 10 says that:

The Governor in Council may secure from the holder of any title to or interest in any land within the limits of a forest reserve a waiver in writing, &c.

Topic:   FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
Permalink
CON
CON

William Sora Middlebro

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MIDDLEBRO.

Section 12 says, that the Governor in Council may not.

Neither the Governor in Council nor the minister * * is authorized * * to expropriate.

Also, as my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) points out, section 7 gives power to expropriate any land in the reserve. Standing timber is, in law, considered land, and, therefore, would come within section 10.

Topic:   FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

My hon. friend is in error. Section 10 is provided for the case where certain land is owned within a reserve and by reason of it being owned outside of the Crown any regulation which the Crown might make with regard to the protection of game would not apply on that particular area. It is merely to provide for the effective enforcement of any game protection that the Dominion might see fit to inaugurate within the limits of a reserve provided an arrangement can be made with the private holders, as section 10 contemplates. It might easily be that the government could not arrange with a private owner to dispose of his actual right and yet might make an arrangement to provide for a waiving of his right in so far as game protection is concerned and allow of effective protection throughout the entire reserve. This

Topic:   FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
Permalink

OOMMONS


has no connection whatever with the abrogation of proprietary rights. Section 12 is a provision that was inserted in the present Act at the suggestion of my hon. friends opposite who rather thought at that lime that there might be a possibility that the extraordinary powers of acquirement which are given to the Governor in Council might be used to the undue advantage of the owners of timber limits, and a provision was put in to say that the rights of limit holders should not be acquired. I hardly think that the section is necessary, but we simply preserve it in this Bill, as it was in the original. We have no objection to its being there, as we do not think it would be a wise policy to undertake to acquire these timber limits. We had not that in contemplation when we framed this Bill, and therefore, we preserved this section in the Bill.


CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPBOULE.

In reference to the protection of game, does the minister contend that a private owner has the right to say we shall not protect game if we are so disposed?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
LIB
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

If I understood him correctly, he said that provided the Governor in Council thought it desirable to protect game the carrying out of that policy is subject to the rights that a private individual possesses. How does a private person become possessed of the right to control game under a timber license or a grazing license?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

We are not thinking of those cases so much as of the fact that the Hudson Bay Company own two sections in every township within these forest reserves and they have not disposed of their right. They may not be willing to dispose of their right at the present time but they possibly might be'willing to waive their right with regard to the game in order that the protection that we might establish in the reserve would be efficient Otherwise, owning these sections of land, they could, in spite of this government, so long as they were in compliance with the law of the province, lease shooting rights or do anything else they pleased upon these areas, and, therefore, could set at naught our efforts for the special protection of game within these reserves.

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

How could the Hudson's Bay Company do that any more than a private individual could?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

Any private individual who owned the title to his land, if it were included within a forest reserve, could say to us, when we undertook to make a special arrangement with him for the protection of game. I am subject to the laws of the province in regard to game, I am not subject to any guardianship of yours, I do not know you in the transaction, this Mr. OLIVER.

is my land, I treat the game on the land as my property and I will not allow you to interfere with it. We have made this provision, so that, while we would not expect possibly to make such an arrangement with a small private holder, we have thought that probably we could make such an arrangement with the Hudson Bay Company.

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

It appears to me to be an anomaly, that might be very awkward to handle in the future, to draw a distinction between a private owner in observing the game laws and the Hudson Bay Company, allowing one to ignore the law and compelling the other to observe it. We have regulations with regard to game in that country, have we not, under the Land Act?

Topic:   OOMMONS
Permalink

May 9, 1911